Tuesday, October 1, 2013
The Cogito
In Meditation II, Descartes believes he has both defeated skepticism and discovered a foundational belief that he will use to justify all his other claims to knowledge. He argues that the very act of doubt proves that he exists. Is he right? Does the Cogito disprove skepticism? Even if it does is it a Pyrrhic victory -- or can this belief be the basis for the rest of his knowledge?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that Descartes is right. In his mind, is it hard to decipher what is reality, what is intended by God, and what is meant to be. With these thoughts of "I think, therefore I am", Descartes says that one's own opinion proves their existence, while anything that is thought of therefore exists. When one has an opinion, or a doubt, they are breaking away from public opinion and challenging what is commonly thought. This doubt allows one to be a little blip on the screen of the world. They are making their mark through their opinions as they are challenging what the collective community thinks as a whole. It can be too easy to change your opinion or fall to the pressures of general opinion. One may think that their ideas are wrong or couldn't possibly be accepted. The easiest thing to do is go with what other people think so that you wouldn't make a difference. This idea of skepticism and almost thinking outside of the box proves that one exists due to their kind of thinking. One's own opinions prove that they exist. I don't think life is worth living without valid opinions. Descartes talks about the perfection of God. He wonders why, if God is so perfect, are humans capable of failing? The Cogito proves that one exists and ones thoughts exist based on this idea of standing out from a crowd and developing ones own opinions. The Cogito doesn't disprove skepticism, I think it prompts people to be skeptical. Everyone has a right to be skeptical and the Cogito shows people that it is okay to think outside of the box and be completely opinionated. This belief can't be the basis for the rest of knowledge. When you think of something, it doesn't automatically mean that it's true or it exists. Of course in the mind it does, but in reality it could be something that is completely ridiculous. Any thought exists, which is a fact, but it isn't always true in reality. This idea of the Cogito is very interesting. It prompts one to think deeply into their own thoughts. When someone is able to think and make opinions without an outside influence having a clear effect, they clearly exist.
ReplyDeleteDescartes argues that the very act of doubting ones existence proves that one exists, and he is right. The cogito argument holds true in that thinking about your existence proves that you exist! The proposition that “I think therefore I am” is necessarily true whenever it is put forth or conceived in the mind. Having the faculty and cognitive ability to think means in itself that something has to exist to possess it. The thought had to be caused by something, the act of thinking and doubting your existence had to be caused by something, and ultimately you have to be there to experience it. Descartes substantiates this argument with the idea of the existence of a deceiving God. Descartes says that this all-powerful, demonic, evil god has the potential to invoke universal doubt. This god can deceive and create sensations of the true world, create misguided ones, or deceive you about your very own existence; however, the idea of this god deceiving you means you have to exist to have those thoughts. The very act of doubting your existence, seemingly created by this demonic god, secures your own existence because to perceive doubt and be deceived, one ultimately has to exist in order to be deceived. How can an all-powerful, deceitful god make you think you exist when you do not?
ReplyDeleteAfter proving one’s existence through one’s ability to think, to disprove skepticism, Descartes uses the cogito and the existence of a perfect, Supreme Being who does not deceive. Because a supremely ideal being lacks nothing and has no imperfections, it is impossible for it to deceive. Therefore, the idea of God being omnipotent and perfect in all aspects could not have originated within man, a finite and imperfect thing, Thus, the notion and thought of a God had to be caused by God, and because one has that thought and ability to think of a God, one’s existence is guaranteed. Like the previous argument, how can an all-powerful, deceitful god make you think you exist when you do not? How can an omnipotent, supremely perfect god make you think of His existence if you are not there to conceive it?
I believe that Descartes is right when he uses the Cogito as a justification for existence. The ability to know what is really real is about perception and knowledge. If we have the ability to doubt our existence we are achieving both of these things. First, we have the ability to perceive our reality. If we can have ideas and perceive our senses, then we must exist because if we can really feel a table then it must actually be a table. As well, we also have knowledge, being that we can deny or agree to our existence. If we think that we are in a dream world or some sort of simulation, we know that we can be deceived. But with this knowledge of existence, it also proves that if we can perceive what we know and what we do not know, wouldn't that mean that we exist? I believe that nobody can just deny something without a difference assumption. If I deny that the table is smooth, I would have a counterargument such as "the table is rough". So in a way, we can doubt our existence but we would have a different assumption of what existence really is. So maybe then we would understand that we could be in a simulation or some sort of dream world because we would have an idea of what reality and existence actually is, based on a counterargument of why we doubt our existence. So in conclusion, if we doubt our existence, then we must know what non existence and non reality is, based on the counterargument of doubting our existence.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Descartes and his Cogito argument are correct. If one is able to take full grasp on something and then form a sort of idea about it, such as a doubt, means that you exist. When one is able to take the world around him/her and begin to perceive the reality placed in front of their eyes and have an idea about it, they are then able to make the significance of everything; therefore proving they exist. I think of this by connecting the Cogito argument to that of the clear and distinct rule, which talks how if one obtains the thought of existing, then they in fact exist. I believe that the perception that one has of something comes from the thoughts or ideas that they have about it. Therefore, the Cogito argument, based on what is stated in the clear and distinct rule, must be correct, thus affectively disproving skepticism. Even though we can prove that we exist, I feel that it is still not easy to use this as the base for other knowledge to come. Though we did prove our existence as human beings, we did not prove the existence of everything around us. This is because for the Cogito argument to work, one must be able to pronounce that they are real. If they are able to pronounce this, then that proves that they do exist. However, what about the items in our world that cannot pronounce their existence, such as an inanimate object like a table? Since it cannot pronounce its own existence, how can we know that it exists? Without knowing this, we cannot use this as a basis for all other knowledge to come.
ReplyDeleteThe skepticism that the cogito argument is trying to resolve in itself is a weird one. Questioning whether or not we actually know anything does not make sense at the surface. We know birds fly, we know where we live and we know that 2 + 2 = 4. However, Descartes provides three arguments to show that he, as Descartes, has no knowledge. Quickly outlined they are the following. Argument 1: because senses have deceived us, we cannot trust them. Argument 2: Dreams occur in sleep, we cannot tell the difference between sleep and reality, so it is a possibility we are sleeping right now. Therefore, we have no knowledge. Argument 3, and this is debatably the most compelling. I do no assume there is a good god. Instead, there is an evil genius who has a goal to deceive us. Therefore, because he is successful, everything I believe is simply him deceiving me. Finally, we conclude that we have no knowledge. This is very similar to the matrix. Is what we perceive reality? Is it a figment of our imagination? Do the people around me exist?
ReplyDeleteWhat the cogito argument does is challenge these skeptical beliefs. Each of these arguments is quite tricky by nature. It proves quite difficult to make an argument when we are not sure of what we do and do not know. We will focus on the last argument because it is arguably the most compelling. What the cogito argument does is say that it is impossible to pronounce that “I exist” and not exist at the same time. By saying “I exist” this proves there must be some being which can process this thought. From here we have the famous conclusion “I think, therefore I am”.
In order for a conclusion to be made, something must be processed. This processing must be done by some sort of entity. We can see this in The Matrix. The world that Neo perceives is not reality. However, he does exist in reality. The important thing to note here is that our perceptions do not give us any understanding of reality, but we can conclude that we do indeed know something. That is, we exist and we are a thinking being.
The skepticism that the cogito argument is trying to resolve in itself is a weird one. Questioning whether or not we actually know anything does not make sense at the surface. We know birds fly, we know where we live and we know that 2 + 2 = 4. However, Descartes provides three arguments to show that he, as Descartes, has no knowledge. Quickly outlined they are the following. Argument 1: because senses have deceived us, we cannot trust them. Argument 2: Dreams occur in sleep, we cannot tell the difference between sleep and reality, so it is a possibility we are sleeping right now. Therefore, we have no knowledge. Argument 3, and this is debatably the most compelling. I do no assume there is a good god. Instead, there is an evil genius who has a goal to deceive us. Therefore, because he is successful, everything I believe is simply him deceiving me. Finally, we conclude that we have no knowledge. This is very similar to the matrix. Is what we perceive reality? Is it a figment of our imagination? Do the people around me exist?
ReplyDeleteWhat the cogito argument does is challenge these skeptical beliefs. Each of these arguments is quite tricky by nature. It proves quite difficult to make an argument when we are not sure of what we do and do not know. We will focus on the last argument because it is arguably the most compelling. What the cogito argument does is say that it is impossible to pronounce that “I exist” and not exist at the same time. By saying “I exist” this proves there must be some being which can process this thought. From here we have the famous conclusion “I think, therefore I am”.
In order for a conclusion to be made, something must be processed. This processing must be done by some sort of entity. We can see this in The Matrix. The world that Neo perceives is not reality. However, he does exist in reality. The important thing to note here is that our perceptions do not give us any understanding of reality, but we can conclude that we do indeed know something. That is, we exist and we are a thinking being.
The Cogito argument essentially asserts that because I am a thing that thinks, I must exist. These statements become the foundations for Descartes’ pursuit of truth, and rightfully so. Using negation, Descartes ponders the notion of pronouncing his existence while he does not exist, yet one who does not exist cannot pronounce anything. Therefor it is not the case that he may pronounce something and not exist, and further, if he does not not exist, then he must exist. Throughout this reasoning, the diction choice of “pronouncing” refers to all forms of thought, including doubt. Descartes successfully prove his certain existence because he thinks. As others have pointed out, he may not exist in a human form, but solely as a stream of consciousness. His thoughts again do not have to be his own to prove his existence. Regardless, his existence in some form or another is undeniable. Despite the three compelling arguments he lays out to prove that he has no knowledge, the Cogito holds true; I think therefor I am. A stream of consciousness or thought process has no reliance on outside sensory intake, which may be deceiving me. Neither dream nor reality should affect the fact of my existence. Since I question the all-powerful deceiver I have doubts and fears, and thus I exist whether the deceiver does or not. In finding a statement that holds true in the face of these three strong arguments against knowledge, Descartes does successfully defeat skepticism and create a good foundation which he will build all knowledge from. It is how he builds from these foundational principles that lead to his overall argument’s failure. Descartes proves the two proclamations of “I exist” and “I am a thinking thing” are both true, and these so easily could’ve served as a perfect starting platform for all knowledge. Yet, it is when Descartes follows the Cogito argument with the general rule of “everything I clearly and distinctly perceive is true” that his argument fall through. I still do not entirely understand this jump; in fact, I do not understand it at all. There was so much potential within the foundational beliefs, but it just doesn’t logically follow that I exist thus everything I perceive must be true.
ReplyDeleteDescartes makes the Cogito argument in order to disprove his arguments of skepticism that he creates in the first meditation. These arguments include: the senses cannot be trusted (as anything that deceives you even once cannot be trusted), I could be dreaming right now (could life just be a lucid dream), and God is deceptive. However, all of these arguments have the same conclusion: I have no knowledge. In order to fix his “mistakes” from the first meditation, he starts again by beginning with foundational beliefs that cannot be doubted or called into question. Descartes uses the argument that he cannot both think he exists while simultaneously claiming that he does not exist. This is the famous argument of “I think, therefore I am.”
ReplyDeleteThe goal of the Cogito argument is to create a foundational belief in which Descartes can claim as infallible, and in that he seems to be successful. Even if there were a deceitful God, one would still have to exist, as in order for one to actually doubt their own existence they need to in fact exist. Even if a deceitful God was deceiving Descartes, he would have to actually exist in order to be deceived. And in this goal, I believe that Descartes is very successful. He creates an argument that cannot be doubted as existence is proven that disproves his most powerful argument of skepticism. In proving his own existence definitively, Descartes has in fact created a foundational belief upon which the rest of his beliefs can be based on.