Monday, October 3, 2011
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 believe that Descartes is justified in his belief that if the ability to doubt the existence of ones self is present in a being or person than that person truly does exist. For example if one was not in existence then that person would not be able to contemplate the concept of if they existed in the first place. To have thoughts or ideas a person must be in existence. Skepticism or the questioning of a fundamental belief can be disproven by the Cogito due to that to think or have an idea is equal to being in existence. If one is to question the values of the Cogito that is equal to questioning the fact that they exist, but since that person is questioning or thinking about the fact that they exist they are still existing.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat Jeremy is saying about the success of the Cogito and thoughts of existence is mostly true. While Descartes has a lot of “shady” proofs and arguments for various things like the existence of God and his benevolence, he has definitely been most successful in the Cogito argument. The Cogito has been his most successful argument and attempts to set the stage for many ideas to come, including foundationalism. Within the context of the Meditations, I could be willing to accept the Cogito argument as successful, but there are still a few key issues and assumptions made which are not justified. To be more specific, if Descartes were to try and convince me that I exist using the Cogito argument, I would probably buy it and say yes, but the Cogito is not sufficiently foundational to build the rest of his knowledge upon. For a belief to be foundational, it must make no assumptions and must be proven on its own merit. This is not entirely the case with the cogito. Firstly, as Friedrich Nietzsche discusses, we must assume a few things to be true before we can accept the cogito. One thing we must accept is the idea that there is such a thing as I, and it is I who thinks. Secondly, we must assume that there must necessarily be something that thinks, and that we know that thinking is. Furthermore, the idea that I think is improvable in itself because the assumptions needed to prove it are based on purely individual perception and thus cannot be substantiated. So with that in mind, the Cogito clearly does not disprove skepticism and can certainly not be used as a foundational belief to base the rest of his knowledge upon.
ReplyDeleteI think that Descartes has disproved skepticism in the Cogito because he proves we know something. Skepticism is the belief that we actually know nothing and the Cogito disproves that by proving that because I think "I exist", I cannot not exist and be thinking "I exist" simultaneously. Therefore, because the thought "I exist" cannot be false, then it must be true and therefore I know I exist as a thing that thinks. As long as I think, I will not cease to exist. While this defeats skepticism, I am not sure that it is enough to base all of your beliefs on. From the Cogito, Descartes tries to prove that because we perceive this and that God exists and is not a deceiver clearly and distinctly, anything we clearly and distinctly perceive must be true. I do not think that this is a logical jump because he tries to make a general rule from just two examples. There could easily be an exception to the rule which could cause all of his beliefs to be called into question. It may be possible to still have these beliefs as your foundation, but have a different succeeding argument. I think though that it would be difficult in any case because you are trying to prove you know specific things based on something very general. The Cogito is also not very much to go on because it doesn't prove the existence of anything outside of yourself.
ReplyDeleteThe cogito, Descartes' most famous argument, appears to be a solid proof. There are few ways to disprove the fact that we can consciously think and believe that we exist. It is impossible to doubt your own existence, since you would have to exist to do so. Still, the arguments that follow the Cogito do not hold up to scrutiny. Descartes next tries to prove that certain things that we clearly perceive to be true must exist. His attempt to prove perception ends up in a mess as seen with the Cartesian Circle. There is no validity in claiming that god must exist because I can clearly perceive him, and I can clearly perceive things because a god exists. He later tries to claim that his reasoning as not circular, but his clarification does not remedy the situation. He responds to criticism of his reasoning by stating that God is necessary for memory to exist. We can perceive logical arguments clearly while creating them, but a god must exist in order to have memory of those arguments. I think that this claim is weak. Descartes gives us a conclusion without arguing why it is so. In the meditations he clearly argues about perception, not memory. Therefore, his failure to improve one of his core claims causes all of his other premises based on this claim to fall apart. I think that, if Descartes had truly rectified the Cartesian circle, he could have proven that the world we perceive is actually the truth and not a deception. In the end, Descartes only can prove one thing with his argument: that our consciousness exists. In my opinion, it is entirely a pyrrhic victory. He is able to disprove absolute skepticism, but I would not trust his other claims due to a poor foundation.
ReplyDeleteOne of Descartes’ most famous arguments is said to be a foundational belief. It is a well-written argument as it would be very difficult to disprove that, because we exist, we think. In order for someone to doubt that they exist, they have to not only exist but be able to think. Therefore, I believe that Descartes’ Cogito argument has defeated Skepticism, simply due to the idea that it is impossible to doubt without existing, and because we exist we think. The second and third premises of the Cogito,
ReplyDelete1. As long as I think that I exist, that belief can not be false.
2. It is impossible to doubt that I exist
establish the notion that it would be impossible as Robert said, “to doubt your own existence, since you would have to exist to do so.” I agree with Robert that it is plausible to see the Cogito as a threat to Skepticism, however I do not see the Cogito to be a foundational belief. In class we talked about how you use foundational believes to expand other things, and also that foundational beliefs can not be proven wrong or doubted and have no need to be justified. The Cogito argument proves nothing other than the fact that you exist and therefore, are something that thinks. This argument, while it doesn’t have to be justified, I don’t see as something that can be built upon. Yes it is a solid and argument that proves man’s existence and beliefs, but it is not an argument that sets the stage for many more. Subsequently, I believe that, while the Cogito is a argument that cant be doubted and has no need for justification, I think that Descartes is wrong in claiming that it is a foundational belief.
In Meditation II, where Descartes presents the Cogito, Descartes argues that he has defeated skepticism. Skepticism, the idea of doubting our existence, is the beginning of Descartes’ Meditation I. Descartes claims that he can’t trust his senses because all of his beliefs are acquired from the senses. Descartes continues and states that his senses have deceived him before, and that if something has deceived him in the past, it can never be trusted. Therefore, all his beliefs can’t be trusted and Descartes claims he has no knowledge. Descartes is able to disprove such an extreme argument using the Cogito; within this argument Descartes argues that he exists. Descartes begins his foundational belief by explaining that he thinks that he exists, and as long as he thinks that idea it cannot be false or inseparable from him. Therefore, it is impossible to doubt his own existence and that means he knows that he does exist. The Cogito does disprove skepticism; it ultimately shows that Descartes trust his senses. Even though it’s the tiniest amount, it still disproves that Descartes’ senses always misguide him from the truth. I do believe that this is just pyrrhic victory, as it proves very little about Descartes’ knowledge and beliefs. I truly believe that this argument is the reason for why all of Descartes’ arguments tend to be very weak and lack support for his arguments of proving whether or not other things exist on earth.
ReplyDeleteFoundationalism is a dangerous way to attain the truth because even foundational beliefs must be based on prior knowledge. This is problematic because at any point along the chain of justification our beliefs could be grounded in untruths. Descartes’ foundational beliefs, while they seem to be unequivocally true, are based on what are ultimately just assumptions. At the base of his foundational beliefs is his cogito argument, “I think therefore I am”. He argues that because he has thoughts he must exist since the thoughts must belong to something. He also contends that he is a “thinking thing” since he has proved that he exists and thinks. The trouble is that for him to have recognized himself as “thinking” he had to have had prior knowledge that told him he was thinking. This prior knowledge was gleaned from the exact things he attempts to prove reliable later in his Meditation. He might believe that he is thinking because he clearly and distinctly perceives his thoughts, but because he proves that what he clearly and distinctly perceives is true later, his argument becomes circular. For his cogito argument to function properly he must first prove that his thoughts exist and to prove this he would need an even more foundational belief. Herein lies the trouble with foundational beliefs: they must always be based on an even more foundational belief. This argues that there are no beliefs foundational enough to base a foundationational argument upon. This is because foundationalism is an infinite chain of justification that cannot be proved at it’s starting point because it cannot have a true starting point.
ReplyDeleteDescarte’s argument that the very act of doubt proves existence because in order for a human to doubt, a human has to exist. Without a human, there cannot be doubts. Someone may argue that rocks, for example, exist but do not think. However, Descartes is arguing that he knows he is alive because he can doubt and produce thoughts which would not be possible if he did not exist. However, he disproves skepticism because even if a supreme ruler was deceiving us and tricking us into thinking we exist, we are still thinking and we cannot think without existing. I think that this is a Pyrrhic victory because this belief cannot be the basis for the rest of his knowledge. This belief only proves the existence of one’s self. Like Descartes said, “I know I am a thing that thinks.” Everything else around him may or may not exist because he perceives them and his senses might be tricking him. His argument for the existence of God is necessary in order to prove that no one else is tricking him. Yet even if God exists, humans still trick themselves due to free will. Thus Descartes can only get so far with his argument. It is enough to disprove skepticism because existence does not need justification. However, as he builds his argument, he hits an obstacle. Assuming Descartes effectively proves we exist and the world around us is not trying to trick us, humans can still trick themselves because God only gave us a little of his perfect judgment and will is what creates poor judgment. Therefore we cannot obtain any other knowledge because there is the doubt that our judgment is constantly deceiving us.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Cogito as a whole is successful even though it may not have persuaded many people in its time or even now. We can all agree that the Cogito, “I think, therefore I am” statement is true; that because I think and am a thinking thing, I exist in some fashion. The recurring problem that we seem to have is the statement justifying the existence of God. the line of reasoning: “Everything that I clearly and distinctly perceive is true because God gave me the power to do so and he is not a deceiver; I clearly and distinctly perceive god’s existence; God exists;” seems to have the problem of being circular because the reason the first precise is true is because the conclusion is true. But isn’t this the same reasoning we used for the existence of the self? I think therefore I am; I am therefore I think. There is no clear starting point for this idea but we accept it because this relationship is in fact true, no matter how much of a degree the conclusion proves the precise. We cannot throw away the Cogito or the ontological argument just because it is circular; circular does not always necessarily mean untrue.
ReplyDelete