Friday, October 12, 2018
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)
Descartes is right that he can prove his existence with the Cogito. To disprove skepticism, Descartes wanted to find a fact that couldn’t be doubted. From there, he hoped to use several of these certainties to build a foundation for why all his other beliefs are true. His first premise was that he thinks. This is valid because it withstands the argument that we don’t know whether or not we’re dreaming. Though he cannot prove anything about having a body, Descartes asserts that “thought exists; it alone cannot be separated from me” (19). This idea leads him to his breakthrough that because he thinks, he exists. Even if an evil genius is deceiving him, this only contributes to his argument, because for him to be deceived by someone, he would have to exist as well. His argument is sound because all the reasoning logically follows. Whether or not it’s assessed to be valid hinges upon the fact that a thought requires a thinker, a reasonable claim in juxtaposition with the contrary, a thought existing in and of itself.
ReplyDeleteSince Descartes has found one thing he can know for certain, he has disproved skepticism, which asserts that we can’t know anything for sure. However, this one certainty is not enough to be a foundation for everything else he hopes to prove. In other arguments he uses circular logic, an complaint he responds to by backpedaling and changing his original stance. Descartes puts effort into using this one belief to justify all others, but his conscientiousness doesn’t prevent him from focusing on his desire to be certain about his beliefs and jumping too far in his consequent conclusions.
To summarize, “I think, therefore I am.” The problem with Descartes argument is that it assumes the existence of some being, which he called “I.” The Cogito does not prove the reality of a unified consciousness; therefore, the revised statement is ‘there are thoughts.’ This argument still proves the existence of thoughts, but it is much weaker than it was previously. The next step that Descartes takes, when he states, “We are thinking things” is subsequently reduced to ‘there are thinking things’; but we have no sort of parameters, concept, or general definition of what a thing even is. At the second step, we can more easily recognize that Descartes’ argument has weakened significantly. The second tier of the foundation for out new philosophical system is already weak; therefore, the argument ‘there are thoughts’ couldn’t possibly be strong enough to support a world of beliefs and ideas.
ReplyDeleteTo play the devil’s advocate, say that Descartes' argument of Cogito Ergo Sum does disprove skepticism. Even then, it only disproves it on a technicality; skepticism, by definition, is an absolute, since it states that "nothing" or "no knowledge" is certain, and the Cogito proves the certainty of existence through the presence of thought itself. I also believe that this is not exactly a Pyrrhic victory as much as it is an ineffectual one. After proving that we exist and that we are a thing that thinks, every other belief in the world is still subject to radical doubt. It is difficult to trust that such an elementary belief can be the entirety of the foundation for a new philosophical system.
Descartes journey to justify beliefs and try to understand reality from dreaming leads him to discover the Cogito Argument. The Cogito argument is a genius way to disregard all skepticism. Even though it is only a couple premises, the argument is strong in its vagueness. His, “To think, therefore I am” statement can be used on any sort of ground to define existent. His premises are that if he doubts one’s existence then he is acknowledging their existence to even doubt it therefore it exists. If you can think of something and doubt it then who can say that it never existed for you to doubt it. As long as you believe you exist you will always exist, and as long as you doubt your existence who can say you don’t exist. This is how Descartes disproved skepticism. In Meditation II he recounts, “But what am I? A thing that thinks. What is that? A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and that also imagines and senses” (20). Descartes tries to prove his humanity by showing he is the fundamental being that thinks and can think intellectually. With this understanding of the being he can then understand what it means to exist. He simply puts that because he thinks he exists, and then the cogito argument comes into play. Because he can think that he exists, like any philosopher, he then tries to deny his own existence. But thanks to the cogito, he can’t doubt his existence and must believe that to doubt or to believe means that you or a thing exists.
ReplyDeleteIn Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes successfully proves that he exists, although he ends up doing so by doubting everything else; he is then unable to prove that he is able to have any other knowledge. Descartes argument, known more specifically as the Cogito, consists of a few premises: I think that I exist, there may be an evil genius deceiving me and my thoughts, and I must exist in order to be deceived. The argument then follows that “there is no doubt that I exist, if [the evil genius] is deceiving me” (Descartes 18). In order for his thoughts to be deceived by some all-powerful being, he must exist. There is no way for this being to deceive Descartes into thinking he does not exist without making him not exist. If there is no evil genius deceiving Descartes, on the other hand, he will still exist because his thoughts are correct. To sum up his argument like Maggie and Marilena did, “I think, therefore I am.” Consequently, Descartes is able to refute the skeptic idea that I do not exist. However, since Descartes never proves that there is no one deceiving his thoughts, he cannot be sure of anything except for the fact that he exists. Descartes’ argument is based on the idea that there may be an evil genius, so he never proved it did not exist. This is a Pyrrhic victory; Descartes may have won this battle, but he is unable to move forward from his thought that he exists, without first proving that there is no being deceiving his thoughts.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Cogito is a sound argument that attempts to act as a counter example to skepticism and thus prove it false, although the Cogito does not sufficiently negate skepticism’s criticism of knowledge. For the sake of brevity I will operate under the assumption that the Cogito proves I exist. Existence disproves skepticism, since a skeptic would say it is impossible to have undoubtable knowledge, and one thing I undoubtedly know via the Cogito is that I exist. This does not fully counter skepticism though, since it only proves skepticism is not true regarding 100% of claims of knowledge, and skepticism could still be correct in 99.9% of cases. A better approach from Descartes would have been to interact with the internal logic of skepticism, because if he proves the internal premises wrong or not sound, then he would truly disprove skepticism. Take the following analogy: My friend Steven makes a claim that all things that are not red are blue. I show him a fish that is not red and happens to be green. This technically disproves his argument since he is not correct in 100% of cases, and as such does not have an absolutely true statement. It could be the case, however, that I could only provide one counter example to disprove Steven’s argument, and that in most cases Steven is correct. If this were the case, I am left with two options. Either A: I concede Steven is correct in the general case and is only disproven a handful of times, or B: there is a logical flaw in Steven’s argument, and that is the reason there are counter examples. Given these two outcomes, Descartes fails to prove skepticism is truly false (excuse the pun). If we are to take option A, a skeptic could claim that skepticism as an idea is not fundamentally flawed, and is only wrong in a handful of times. This has two implications. First, given that there are an infinite amount of claims of knowledge, any countable number of counter examples doesn’t technically disprove skepticism, since the counter examples would be infinitely far and few in-between. Second, the only way I could use the Cogito to disprove all of skepticism is if from the Cogito I can build other foundational beliefs like science which also disprove skepticism. Descartes attempts to do this by saying the reason the Cogito is true is because he clearly and distinctly perceived it, and therefor anything he clearly and distinctly perceives must be true. Unfortunately, Descartes’s clear and distinct is bogus and not a sound argument. The reason is that while it is true that Descartes clearly and distinctly perceives that he exists, that fact in it of itself is not the reason why his argument is true. The reason the Cogito is true is that the Cogito is a valid and sound argument — not that he clearly and distinctly perceives it to be valid and sound. It is entirely possible for Descartes, or anyone for that matter, to clearly and distinctly perceive something is true, even if it is not true. For example, I personally think the clear and distinct rule is a bad line of argumentation. Descartes disagrees with me. Both Descartes and I clearly and distinctly perceive our arguments to be true. As such Descartes would say that both of our beliefs our true. Clearly they cannot be true since they are mutually exclusive with one another, and as such, the clear and distinct rule fails. To give a more concise explanation as to why, I would say that claims of knowledge that are clearly and distinctly perceived could differ from person to person, even if those claims of knowledge contradict each other. Since something cannot be true and false at the same time, the clear and distinct rule must fall. If we are to go all the way back to my analogy with Steven, at this point we are left with option B: if I want to disprove skepticism, I must do so logically and without counter examples. For how Descartes should have done this, see my blog post!
DeleteI think that Descartes is correct that the very act of doubt does prove that he exists and that his Cogito argument disproves skepticism. Descartes begins his proof of existence by first using methodic doubt, which is essentially is a way to know that something is certain and “indubitable” by doubting the truth of everything. This includes beliefs of the senses, reasoning itself, and mathematics. He then formulates several arguments that undermine all of our beliefs and knowledge. However, there is one thing that one can know for certain, which is that I exist. He begins with the premise that he thinks. This premise is valid because it is not derived from the senses nor depends on the existence of a material world. His next premise is that because he thinks, he can think that he exists. The very act of thinking proves existence because you become aware that you exist and you can’t become aware without existing. As long as he thinks he exists, nothing can make him change, even if there is an omnipotent evil genius deceiving him. This point is interesting because Descartes explains that if there is a deceiver then, “there is no doubt that I exist if he is deceiving me” (18). There is no possible way for someone to deceive Descartes without him existing in the first place. Therefore, Descartes has successfully defeated the skeptic idea that one has no knowledge by showing that he knows he exists. However, I do not think that the “indubitable” truth that I exist can be the foundation for the rest of knowledge because knowledge includes subjects such as the senses and mathematics which are things that people perceive outside of our mind. These ideas are not “indubitable”, which means they are not definitively true. Therefore, Descartes is unable to move forward with his argument because all other ideas are not certain.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Descartes’s argument that he had defeated skepticism and that doubt proves existence is correct. Skepticism by Dictionary definition is the theory in which certain knowledge is impossible. However, what Descartes soon discovered was that it is impossible to both believe I do not exist, and I exist. This statement therefore disproves the skepticism ideas. By using Descartes famous words “I think, therefore I am”, the cogito argument justifies that there is no way to doubt your own existence. Descartes proved that you cannot believe that you do not exist because doubting your existence is a thought, and every thought requires a thinker, and you cannot be a thinker if you do not exist in the world. He is showing his point that doubt proves existence because to doubt your own existence requires you to exist for you to even be doubtful in the first place. Descartes also disproves skepticism in his premise, when he states that there is an all power being that is constantly deceiving us. Even if this all power being deceived us, we would need to be in existence for the being to deceive us in the first place. Descartes was able to successfully disprove skepticism; however, I believe that this was a pyrrhic victory. Although Descartes won this argument, he is not able to use his victory in any other sense because most of his ideas are not proven certain by the cogito argument.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Cogito argument is successful in beating skepticism by providing a scenario where something is known, this foundational belief isn’t necessarily enough to be able to prove much else: more is needed in order to prove the existence of anything outside of yourself. Essentially, through the Cogito, Descartes says that since he has the ability to think, then he, or some form of himself, must exist; in turn, due to the fact that he exists is acknowledged, pure skepticism is also defeated. In order to expand on this, we have to make the assumption that skepticism is the belief that nothing can be truly proven or known. However, since this belief relies on every case to be true - meaning that even one scenario where it is false would make it false – all Descartes has to do is provide one example where it does not work. Therefore, when this definition is used, the Cogito, by ‘proving’ that ‘I am’, destroys the possibility of skepticisms truth. Having said that, where this argument both shines and falls comes into play when considering the next steps in the grand argument. What Descartes tries to do next is prove the existence of God and, more specifically, if he is a deceiver. He does this since, if we want to know that any of our senses can be trusted in perceiving/knowing the world (and trusting our senses), it has to be proven that we aren’t being deceived or given false memories. I think that, on one hand, the Cogito works especially well in this case because, even if were are being deceived, there is something that must exist that is the receiver of the lies (us). More simply, you can’t deceive what doesn’t exist therefore, even if we are under some sort of a spell, we still do exist. However, on the other hand, the argument immediately stops there. We, at this point, can prove that we exist but the existence or truth of anything else cannot be. This is because, since there is always the possibility that we are being deceived, nothing but the existence of possible true or false memories can be proven. Descartes realizes this himself and, in an attempt to escape from this trap, creates a paradox of his own: further putting light on the desperate situation.
ReplyDeleteDescartes is successfully able to defeat skepticism, dispelling any doubt that he (and all of us) exist. However, this is a concept that only works in that specific situation, and cannot be spread to any other parts of our life, thus making it a Pyrrhic victory. Through the Cogito, Descartes disproves skepticism (the idea that no one can have undoubtable knowledge) because it is impossible for anyone to doubt their own existence. For someone to doubt their own existence, they must be the one doing the doubting, thus proving they exist. To make it simple, if thinking makes someone exist, and if to doubt something we are required to think, then we are therefore required to exist if we doubt. Additionally, even if there was some type of evil being deceiving me, I would still exist because for me to be deceived, I must still have the action of being deceiving being done to me, so therefore, once again, I exist. Through both of these arguments, the Cogito is able to end any skeptics and any sort of skepticism. However, I also believe that his way of thinking is a Pyrrhic victory, due to the fact that his argument cannot be used to prove anything else, including the existence of anything or anyone else. He cannot prove anything else using this argument because Descartes eventually realizes that even though our existence has been proven, the other "things" in life could possibly only be memories or just thoughts inside our head.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it disproves skepticism, the Cogito is a Pyrrhic victory that cannot be used to justify the rest of Descartes’ knowledge. Descartes successfully proves his existence through the Cogito. There may be an evil genius deceiving him into believing that he thinks, in which case Descartes must exist, for the evil genius would not deceive something without existence. If there is no evil genius, then Descartes may think normally and thereby prove his existence, for something nonexistent cannot think. Descartes now knows something for certain, so he disproves skepticism. However, the Cogito’s power does not extend to all knowledge. It can only be used to justify subjective knowledge, for example, “I am hungry.” Because hunger is a subjective state, the statement that one is hungry is true simply if one thinks it to be true. Existing and being able to think are enough to prove this piece of knowledge. Despite this, the Cogito cannot be used to justify objective knowledge, since one may be deceived about this type of knowledge. An example of objective knowledge is “I have not eaten since noon.” One may deceive themselves, via dreaming for example, or one may be deceived by another being like an evil genius. For this reason, Descartes’ Cogito cannot be the foundation on which all other knowledge is based. We are only one step removed from skeptics—rather than doubting everything, we doubt all of our objective knowledge. Descartes has won the battle, but lost the war.
ReplyDeleteDescarte's Cogito argument, thought it does seem to be a viable argument, is an example of being so close, yet so far at the same time (dang thats two shots fired at berkeley in the same day). Even though Descartes was able to prove that God exists, it may not extend to the rest of his ideas. Descartes's argument is essentially: A thinker exists. Even if that thinker may be under illusion, living in the matrix, or be deceived by an evil being. The thinker may even be unaware that they live in an alternate world full of lies.. It may not even have a choice in what it thinks, however, all of this is irrelevant. Descartes doubted everything about reality, including whether or not he himself actually existed. But, because he thinks, the sole reason that because he can doubt, he knows, at the very least, that he exists, even if everything around him didn't. Descartes's argument even seems to be pretty fundamentally sound, as Descartes needs a good God that won't deceive him to actually make claims about the external world. But with just the cogito argument you still have the big gap between me and everything around me. 'Cogito ergo sum' doesn't say I exist as a human, with a brain and a body etc. it just means there is something that thinks and thus exists. That's the only fundamental truth at that point of his argument and everything else can be doubted, including the existence of other minds. However, I really like Zayne's point about the fishes. I feel like this example really questions the validity of Descartes's argument taking out skepticism, as even though Descartes's argument may take out a small portion of Skepticism occasionally, skepticism as a whole still has some valid claims that Descartes cannot answer, thus perhaps Cogito is a small step in the direction of proving existence, but its not all the way flushed out yet. Who knows, maybe I'll become a philosopher one day and prove that we all exist.
ReplyDeleteDescartes correctly creates a sound argument known as the cogito. Through the cogito he creates a singular truth that is known; he exists. Descartes proves this by his famous quote “I think, therefore I am”. He therefore defeats the fundamental belief behind skepticism which is the fact that nothing is true. This is completely incorrect as Descartes has indeed proven that “I can think so therefore I must exist.” The only problem is while this defeats the main point of skepticism, it is difficult to branch this idea out from knowing his own existence. I would consider this as a pyrrhic victory as even Descartes has trouble himself. Descartes even acknowledges that his senses are still something he cannot trust. He explains with wax saying “ if I judge that the wax exist from the fact that I see it, certainly from this same fact that I see the wax it follows much more evidently that I myself exists.” Descartes returns to the argument about the senses yet everything circle back to proving the self. If anything he tries to understand circles back to where he starts, he does not truly make any progress at all. While Descartes indeed disproves skepticism, he realizes that he is presented with only one truth. The problem is that it is not a fundamental truth as it does not open up the possibilities to understand the other truth of the world.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Cogito does prove that we exist however I do not think that it can be used as a basis for the rest of our knowledge. Descartes’s argument begins with the premise that I believe I exist. As long as I believe that I exist, the must be an “I” to do the thinking therefore we can be certain that we exist. In one sentence, “I think therefore I am.” It is also important to note that in this argument, even if God is a deceiver the argument is still valid. If God is deceiving me into thinking that I exist, than there must be an “I” to be deceived. I do think that this is a sound argument. We can define skepticism as not being able to know anything. Since this is something we are able to know for certain and all it takes is one example to disprove something, skepticism has surely been defeated from a technical standpoint. Even so, I do believe that this is a type of Pyrrhic victory. Descartes has proven that we exist however this is not sufficient enough. He cannot use this knowledge as a foundation for the rest of his beliefs because we, our minds, are very separate from the rest of the world. People can be deceived into believing things that are not true, even things they think they clearly perceive. We cannot trust our senses. I think that in order to justify other beliefs, Descartes would need to prove something separate from his existence. So to summarize, Descartes has defeated skepticism however he cannot prove he has any other knowledge besides the fact that he exists, so it was a Pyrrhic victory.
DeleteSkepticism’s main argument claiming that we cannot know anything for sure or that we have no knowledge is indeed disproven by Descartes’ Cogito. The basis of this argument revolves around the statement “I think, therefore I am”. Descartes argues that the mere act of thinking proves one’s existence. He claims that In order to think, believe, or even doubt or be fooled, one needs to exist in the first place. To validate his first premise of “I think that I exist,” he goes on to explain how even if an “Evil Genius” was manipulating his thoughts, that would only further prove his existence. Logically this holds up, as it is impossible to deceive someone if they do not exist, for there would be no one to deceive if that were the case. Thus by proving his own existence, Descartes proves that it is possible to know something for sure. By providing even one small exception to the idea that, “we know nothing”, Descartes successfully defeats skepticism’s argument. Yes, it might be considered a miniscule victory that slides by on a technicality, but like with scientific experiment, if an example can be provided that proves a claim false or contradicts it even once, it cannot be true. Through this reasoning, Descartes has indeed shown that we can indeed know something, and that skeptics are not 100% correct. A skeptic might call this is a pyrrhic victory based on the fact that it proves that we know only one thing, which while is more than zero, it is still not a lot; however, this proof marks the foundation of knowledge that allows Descartes to go on to further prove other claims in his attempts to disprove skepticism.
ReplyDelete