Monday, October 4, 2010
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 the Cogito does disprove skepticism of our existence but I don’t believe that the Cogito serves as a foundation for which other beliefs can stem from. In doubting your own existence, ironically you are proving your own existence. If you are thinking then your thoughts must originate from somewhere; they cannot be fabricated from nothing. Thus if you are thinking then you must exist in one form or another. If you question or doubt your own existence then that implies that you are thinking and thus in essence, you exist. Descartes states “I manifestly know that nothing can be perceived more easily and more evidently than my own mind,” (23). In saying this, he means that there is nothing that humans can perceive that is more flawlessly true and clear then their own thoughts and thus existence. So, if we think, then we clearly must exist, however all of our thoughts maybe false. For instance if someone thinks that they are sitting in a classroom they can be sure of their existence but they cannot be sure of all of their classmates existence or even that they are actually in classroom. It is possible that every perception we have about the world is incorrect, allowing for scenarios such as the matrix to be possible. A brain in a vat on a foreign planet still in essence exists but the brain could believe that he is leading an average life on earth. Since, the Cogito can only prove existence I don’t see how any beliefs can grow from it, thus disproving its purpose as a foundational belief. Any preceding argument that could be taken from, I think therefore I am, could be easily disproven if we assume that God is a deceiver. Considering that every thought, perception, and sensation could be artificial, there is no way to move beyond the Cogito and use it as the foundation for any other argument besides existence.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Erica about the notion that the cogito proves our existence, but fails to act as a foundation for Descartes future arguments. The fact that Descartes is able to perform the act of thinking proves that he exists. Some may say that this is a circular argument due to the fact that at some point in the argument the person making it must insert the notion of himself into the argument. However the person making the argument can insert that “I” because of the nature of the argument. The argument could go something along the lines of, there is a thought in a mind, the thought exists, the mind in which the thought exist is the one that is driving my perceived existence thus the thought must be mine, and if I can have that thought I must exist. Descartes manages to disprove skepticism by showing that he knows something; however he fails to use his proof validly to prove anything else that he claims he knows. Knowing that I exist does not lead to my knowing of anything else. The knowledge of my existence is necessary for me to truly know anything about myself, but it cannot be built upon without any other help to prove that everything else exists. There must be some other basic knowledge that we know to be true, in order to prove that what we think we know is true. Descartes arguments lack this extra piece of knowledge, and the “knowledge” that he attempts to use is really impossible to prove. So in the end of the day Descartes does manage to prove skeptics wrong, but not by much. He managed to show that we know something, but was incapable of showing that we know anything else.
ReplyDeleteThe Cogito is good for proving you exist, but not much else. The most important thing to think about is where your thoughts are coming from. You would reason that thoughts could not possibly come from something that does not exist. Then, if you are thinking about this, you can be assured that you exist, because if you didn’t, you wouldn’t be thinking. But I don’t think you can take this idea any further. Just because you are thinking does not make what you are thinking true. If you lose something, you think it’s in one place but it’s actually in another place. You know you exist because you are thinking, but what you are thinking is false, so you are unable to prove anything else, like where the object is. And if you think where you placed an item is false, then couldn’t anything else you are thinking be false, say, what is reality. Thinking can in no way prove anything else exists besides yourself. You could be in the Matrix, and think everything around you is reality, which is of course false. So I don’t think the fact that you exist can be used as a stepping stone to any other beliefs. There is really no place you can go after proving that you exist. Does it disprove skepticism? Yes, but it’s a pyrrhic victory, because Descartes was assuming that answering that question would clear up many other philosophical questions, but it’s just not the case.
ReplyDeleteDescartes reasoning behind "Cogito Ero Sum" (I think therefore I am) is adequete. The basis, which is that for something to have a thought it must exist, works and is hard to argue against. With our senses, we can think of a million examples why they could be false. We could be in The Matrix, dreaming, or be a brain in jar. But not matter how far you argue, the basic element of a thought proves that you exist somewhere. Skepticicsm, (Even if what you percieve as the world around you is false.) But Descartes then uses his argument for the existance of God as proof that our 'reality' exists. In doing this, the solid foundation he has found is then undermined by faulty reasoning he uses. Descartes in unable to adequetly prove anything past 'Cogito...'.With that, I do believe that "Cogito..." is a pyrric victory. The fact that we can prove that we exist is a huge accomplishment on its own, and shouldn't be taken lightly. But he errs with the rest of his arguments, the fact that he has one great success is not enough to win the entire argument. By itslef, 'Cogito...' does not disprove Skepticicsm. A skeptic can still argue many flaws in Descartes other arguemnts, thus lessening the impact of the Cogito argument. If we are still seeking for the basis of knowledge, we must turn to a different tactic to prove anything beyond our existance is real.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Erica in that the Cogito disproves doubt and skepticism, but is no reasonable basis for the rest of our beliefs. The basic of the Cogito is if one thinks, they exist. This is a logical assumption because how can someone be fake if they can think? They can’t. Granted, their thoughts and ideas may be faulty, but the fact that they have these thoughts and ideas, proves they exist.
ReplyDeleteThe part where Descartes’ fails is when he tries to say that there are fundamental beliefs that do not have to be proven and that all other ideas can be based off of these. Although a person can prove that they exist by thinking, they can’t prove that anyone else exists nor can they prove that their beliefs and thoughts are correct. No one can go into the minds and thoughts of others. This then limits the knowledge that anyone else exists, therefore creating deceivers in the world.
I think that Descartes does disprove skepticism with the Cogito, but I do not think that he can use this as a basis for the rest of his knowledge, therefore being a Pyrrhic victory. Like I mentioned previously, there is no way to prove that the ideas are correct. Descartes can say that he exists, because he is thinking, but he can’t base anything else off of this fact. Just because he exists doesn’t mean that his ideas aren’t faulty. He even says himself that he is amazed “how prone [his] mind is to errors” (31). This shows that the mind is capable of making mistakes. Therefore all arguments cannot be based off of this foundational belief called the Cogito.
I do think Cogito disproves the skeptical belief that we can know nothing. Though it is reasonable to doubt our senses (since we could be in the matrix) and our logic (since we could be being deceived), it is not as reasonable to doubt our own existence. If we doubt our own existence, that raises the question of who is doubting our existence. If we did not exist, we could not doubt our own existences.
ReplyDeleteHowever, though this means we don't know nothing, Cogito doesn't prove anything else. Regardless of whether or not we actually think, we don't know if the things we think are true. We could easily be deceived not just by a deceiving God but also by chemical substances or a matrix-like program. Descartes tries to argue that since we can think of a perfect God, that God must exist, and a perfect God would not let us be deceived, but this does nothing to answer the possibility of us being deceived. Without any way to confirm the validity of our thoughts, Descartes has proved nothing.
By its most basic definition, skepticism is the belief in which nothing that we know is absolute. Therefore, by proving the Cogito, he disproves skepticism. However, I don’t think that this can serve as a fundamental belief to base the rest of our knowledge off of. Descartes proves the Cogito by realizing that by doubting, something must be doing that action. He calls this something “I” and uses it to refer to what he believes to be himself. Though he doesn’t state it as a foundational belief, Descartes also knows that he perceives an external world. The goal of his meditations is to prove that this external world exists and is how he perceives it. To do this, he must somehow relate the Cogito to the external world. However, these two ideas are independent of each other. Even though he has proven he exists and can think, it does not relate to his perceptions. His thinking could be entirely false. It’s possible that the matrix exists and the world around him as he perceives it is wrong. Because the Cogito is unrelated to what he is trying to do, I think Descartes victory is a Pyrrhic victory. Though he may have disproved skepticism, we are still unsure if an external world exists as we perceive it because the only argument Descartes can prove cannot act as a foundational belief to spur any new ideas.
ReplyDeleteIn proving the Cogito Descartes does defeat skepticism on its most basic level, that nothing we know is truly knowledge. In order to make sense of this, one must think skeptically towards the world in general. Similar to how Descartes went about it, one must ask themselves that if "I can be fooled so easily by my own senses, how can I be sure that anything I perceive is true?" One can easily assume that because their eyes or ears have proven them false in the pastfor certain things, how can that person be sure that they are fooling him now or always have. Thinking like this makes it seem like we have no knowledge as a result. In order to disprove skepticism, one must think more in depth. What can someone know for sure if nothing else is trustworthy, one may ask. When taking time to assess this, it becomes clear that "I" as a person am thinking. This cannot be disproven if referring to oneself, so in knowing that "I" can think, it must also be assume that "I" exist when argued further. This truth of knowing and existing disproves skepticism. When thinking of the Cogito as a basis for further arguments, I believe that this is possible, but not in how Descartes does it. While personally I may have no argument to come off of the Cogito myself, it seems hardly reasonable that Descartes' is the only valid one. This is especially apparent when one can see how his argument fails following the Cogito by relying too much on assumptions and opions, along with hardly provable claims. So, while Descartes did not manage to properly argue what follows the Cogito, that fact does not make it false, only improperly assessed. Perhaps if someone assessed the the situation with more logic and reasoning, then perhaps an argument may appear that would show the Cogito as a good basis for philosophical conjecture.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Robert said. I believe that the Cogito does give evident proof that debunks skepticism, but is not fully viable. Though there is evidence that proves that people exist, there is not a lot of evidence that says much more than that. Descartes is famous for the phrase “I think, therefore I am”, which says that if you can think or perceive anything, then you must actually exist. If something cannot think for itself, and perceive things that are around it, then there is no proof to say that it is a real person/creature. Because a person is able to insert the word “I” into something, automatically makes them exist. The flaw in his argument is what happens after someone realizes that they exist, simply by a fact of truth. Though it may be true that a person can exist, his perceptions of that existence may be false. Descartes believes that a person’s existence is based off of the world in which he perceives. A person can perceive something, but only to have the reality of the matter be that his perception was way off. I may perceive that something is real, but in actuality is simply a cover over my eyes. There is no proof that the Matrix doesn’t exist, and everything that you perceived to be real was not. Therefore the Cogito can disprove skepticism, but cannot disprove anything else.
ReplyDelete