Cognito ergo, cognito sum

[fcgv]

1. How do you interpret Descartes' statement: "I think, therefore I am"?

2. What is your opinion of the statement? Do you agree or disagree with the point that Descartes has made?

[FascistLibertarian]

1) the only thing you can really know for sure is that you exist

2) I agree with it. It is unlikely, but possible, that your old and your memory has gone (or some such) and none of what you think is happening is happeneing. But since I can think I must exist.

[jefferiah]

I think Descartes was thinking too much.

[fcgv]

1) the only thing you can really know for sure is that you exist

2) I agree with it. It is unlikely, but possible, that your old and your memory has gone (or some such) and none of what you think is happening is happeneing. But since I can think I must exist.

And what if you're wrong? In other words, how can we truly know of reality based on what we think if what we think is wrong? Is there a right and wrong attached to what we think?

[Mad_Michael]

Mmm... radical epistemology! One of my favs!

1. How do you interpret Descartes' statement: "I think, therefore I am"?

It is a statement that accurately represents the logical foundation of my own awareness of my own existence.

It is the only thing that any given human being can ever truly and actually know with absolute certainty.

Thus, the sum totality of all absolute human knowledge actually can be written on the back of pack of matches.

2. What is your opinion of the statement? Do you agree or disagree with the point that Descartes has made?

That is rather tricky question since Descartes didn't demonstrate that he actually understood the full ramifications of his argument at the time.

Descartes was attempting to demonstrate that belief in God was a 100% fully rational enterprise. As such, this famous supposition forms only an initial premise to a larger argument to which, 'belief in God is rational' is the conclusion. Descartes, along with many of the most respected philosophers of his day and age, thought he had done so.

The fact that Descartes' principle of 'radical doubt' and his supposition of 'cognito ergo sum' are now taken as representative of the foundational theories of atheism or agnosticsim is deeply ironic and probably has Descartes himself rolling in his grave in frustration (if you would permit that absurd analogy). Indeed, Pope John Paul II (one of the greatest Popes of all time) named Descartes as the 'intellectual grandfather of atheism' despite the fact that Descartes, throughout his lifetime was a devout Christian and strong believer in God.

So, to answer the second half first, I strongly disagree with the point that Descartes himself made, but that is because I'm aware of the whole of it, not just one sentence taken out of context.

As for the first half of your question, it is as I stated above. 'I think, therefore I am' is the only thing that any given human being can ever truly and actually know with absolute certainty. After that, everything is subjective and fraught with uncertainty (and potentially delusional).

[jbg]

1. How do you interpret Descartes' statement: "I think, therefore I am"?

2. What is your opinion of the statement? Do you agree or disagree with the point that Descartes has made?

"To be is to do"--Socrates.

"To do is to be"--Jean-Paul Sartre.

"Do be do be do"--Frank Sinatra.

This is a famous quote by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

[geoffrey]

'I think, therefore I am' is the only thing that any given human being can ever truly and actually know with absolute certainty. After that, everything is subjective and fraught with uncertainty (and potentially delusional).

I took logic instead of this stuff for my junior humanities option.

So therefore, pardon my ignorance if my question is ridiculous.

Can you really say that you exist is an objective statement compared to everything else? Where and how do you draw that line?

[M.Dancer]

1. How do you interpret Descartes' statement: "I think, therefore I am"?

2. What is your opinion of the statement? Do you agree or disagree with the point that Descartes has made?

"To be is to do"--Socrates.

"To do is to be"--Jean-Paul Sartre.

"Do be do be do"--Frank Sinatra.

This is a famous quote by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.

Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.

And Whittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nieizsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.

Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stewart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shanty was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day!

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,

And Hobbes was fond of his Dram.

And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:

"I drink, therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;

A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

A famous song from the Australian philosophy department at the University of Walamaloo

[Mad_Michael]

A famous song from the Australian philosophy department at the University of Walamaloo

Credit for composition goes to Eric Idle of Monty Python's Flying Circus.

[Mad_Michael]

'I think, therefore I am' is the only thing that any given human being can ever truly and actually know with absolute certainty. After that, everything is subjective and fraught with uncertainty (and potentially delusional).

Can you really say that you exist is an objective statement compared to everything else? Where and how do you draw that line?

I'm not sure I understand the focus of your question.

Cognito ergo cognito sum is the ONLY objective statement that any human being can make. It is the ONLY statement that contains actual 'true knowledge'.

Every other statement any human can make, necessarily, is based upon sensory perceptions (which can be delusional or illusional). One cannot ultimately trust the senses absolutely, and thus, nothing beyond one's own awareness of selfdom, is truly known.

[geoffrey]

Do you not trust your sense on your own existence though? Or is that existence more of a existence of thought than a physical one?

Arguably, even though you think, it's only your sense that provide you the belief that you physically exist.

[Mad_Michael]

Do you not trust your sense on your own existence though? Or is that existence more of a existence of thought than a physical one?

One's existence as a 'self' is a manner of thought. Descartes' supposition is predicated upon 'action' in the mind is proof to the self of the self's existence (even if it is only in thought form).

Arguably, even though you think, it's only your sense that provide you the belief that you physically exist.

But Descartes' supposition makes no claim about physical existence. That can be delusional and/or illusional (cf. Locke, solepscism or Bishop Berkeley).

[Mad_Michael]

This has got to be the shortest thread discussion upon this particular topic that I've ever encountered on any discussion forum.

It is most surprising that no one has made any querry about what basis that science can use to make claims of 'scientific knowledge', given that true knowledge is essentially (and categorically) impossible for human beings (as I've argued above).

Alternatively, no one has inquired about the ability of science to assert their basis of knowledge as distinct from that of religion, given that both are ultimately predicated upon faith.

[cybercoma]

Except for the testable, repeatable part about science... and the shot in the dark, factless, untestable assumptions of religion....

Yeah...they're real similar. They're equally based on faith.

[Mad_Michael]

Except for the testable, repeatable part about science... and the shot in the dark, factless, untestable assumptions of religion....

Yeah...they're real similar. They're equally based on faith.

Rolleyes eh? That speaks louder than your words.

Anyway, since you claim expertise upon this topic, perhaps you might like to inform me how is it that science can make any claim of real or true knowledge? How can any given scientist actually know the results of the test actually did occur? On what basis is this claim of knowledge made?

I respectfully submit, that the scientist is using faith and cannot possibly do otherwise. And so, how is this different than the faith of a religious believer? You are contemptuous of the question? Enlighten us poor ignorant fools!

I shall await your learned reply.

[geoffrey]

Arguably, even though you think, it's only your sense that provide you the belief that you physically exist.

But Descartes' supposition makes no claim about physical existence. That can be delusional and/or illusional (cf. Locke, solepscism or Bishop Berkeley).

Very interesting. Makes sense to me.

[Naci Sey]

You need to change the subject heading. It's not 'cognito' but 'cogito'. Descartes wrote:

Cogito. Ergo, sum.

1. How do you interpret Descartes' statement: "I think, therefore I am"?

2. What is your opinion of the statement? Do you agree or disagree with the point that Descartes has made?

[Naci Sey]

Descartes' supposition is predicated upon 'action' in the mind is proof to the self of the self's existence (even if it is only in thought form).... Descartes' supposition makes no claim about physical existence. That can be delusional and/or illusional (cf. Locke, solepscism or Bishop Berkeley).

The problem with Descartes' argument is that it presupposes an 'I' - I think - which makes his argument circular.

[Mad_Michael]

The problem with Descartes' argument is that it presupposes an 'I' - I think - which makes his argument circular.

The "I" is self-evident to the observer.

The "I" is not the premise and the conclusion (ie. circular reasoning). The premise is "I think" and the conclusion is "I am".

This is a self-proof of self-awareness of self-existence. That's it.

And as I pointed out to Geoffrey above, it doesn't actually prove physical existence, only self-existence.

[Mad_Michael]

You need to change the subject heading. It's not 'cognito' but 'cogito'.

I hide, therefore I am hidden?

[Naci Sey]

You need to change the subject heading. It's not 'cognito' but 'cogito'.

I hide, therefore I am hidden?

Don't understand what you're saying here (gone right over my head), but Descartes' actual written words were:

Cogito [i think]. Ergo [therefore], sum [i am].

It's true that Descartes set himself the task of proving the existence of a supreme being or 'God'. In that ultimate effort, he failed. Even theologians now admit (thanks to Descartes) that reason cannot be applied to the subject.

Descartes saw that an argument to prove his own existence was necessary toward achieving his ultimate goal. That earlier argument, which he summed up as 'Cogito, ergo sum', was thought by many philosophers of his time to have been a slam dunk. It wasn't.

What Descartes wound up proving was: Thinking. Therefore, thinking exists. Of course it's tempting from that start to suppose an 'I' that is thinking. But his argument doesn't prove this. In fact, it becomes a leap of faith.

[ScottSA]

You need to change the subject heading. It's not 'cognito' but 'cogito'.

I hide, therefore I am hidden?

Don't understand what you're saying here (gone right over my head), but Descartes' actual written words were:

Cogito [i think]. Ergo [therefore], sum [i am].

It's true that Descartes set himself the task of proving the existence of a supreme being or 'God'. In that ultimate effort, he failed. Even theologians now admit (thanks to Descartes) that reason cannot be applied to the subject.

Descartes saw that an argument to prove his own existence was necessary toward achieving his ultimate goal. That earlier argument, which he summed up as 'Cogito, ergo sum', was thought by many philosophers of his time to have been a slam dunk. It wasn't.

What Descartes wound up proving was: Thinking. Therefore, thinking exists. Of course it's tempting from that start to suppose an 'I' that is thinking. But his argument doesn't prove this. In fact, it becomes a leap of faith.

As much as it pains me to agree with MM, the "I" is self-evident. Thinking presupposes a reified object of origin. That reified object must be the "I." It cannot be anything else, and yet it has to be.

[Naci Sey]

Don't understand what you're saying here (gone right over my head), but Descartes' actual written words were:

Cogito [i think]. Ergo [therefore], sum [i am].

It's true that Descartes set himself the task of proving the existence of a supreme being or 'God'. In that ultimate effort, he failed. Even theologians now admit (thanks to Descartes) that reason cannot be applied to the subject.

Descartes saw that an argument to prove his own existence was necessary toward achieving his ultimate goal. That earlier argument, which he summed up as 'Cogito, ergo sum', was thought by many philosophers of his time to have been a slam dunk. It wasn't.

What Descartes wound up proving was: Thinking. Therefore, thinking exists. Of course it's tempting from that start to suppose an 'I' that is thinking. But his argument doesn't prove this. In fact, it becomes a leap of faith.

As much as it pains me to agree with MM, the "I" is self-evident. Thinking presupposes a reified object of origin. That reified object must be the "I." It cannot be anything else, and yet it has to be.

Then we three (and countless other philosophers on my side) must agree to disagree. Descartes was a rationalist and he set out in his earlier argument to prove, by reason alone, his own existence, an 'I'.

Even his premise 'I think' has problems from a logical perspective. It presupposes the 'I' and actually includes two premises:

1. There is an 'I'.

2. Some I's think.

Self-evidence, an empiricist's tool, wasn't available to him. Reason and logic alone can't prove the existence of an 'I' that thinks. Descartes had to assume the 'I' just to get started.

[Mad_Michael]

Reason and logic alone can't prove the existence of an 'I' that thinks. Descartes had to assume the 'I' just to get started.

No... Descartes himself was the "I" - he didn't have to imagine the invention of himself.

[Xman]

"Descartes captured a profound self-awareness in the famous words Cogito, ergo sum. It was a self-awareness he gained by calling into question every proposition he had been taught, or had heard in church, or had read in a book. He decided to assume all things to be false until, as he put it, "presented to my mind so clearly and disctinctly that I would have no occasion to doubt it." Through this method, he discovered that the only thing he knew beyond all doubt was that he doubted. In his inner experience of himself doubting, he discovered his own soul - the place from which his doubting, and all his experiencing, originated. It was an epiphany - an epochal moment of illumination. Descartes caught himself in the act and existential moment of questioning. He recognized that he was listening to his soul.

Descartes formalized this epiphany into a philosophy which we now call Cartesian dualism. It concludes that human nature must consist of two distinct essenses: the thinking mind, which is the center of consciousness and is spiritual, not subject to the laws of physics; and the physical body, which operates under the same mechanical laws that govern machines and animals.

This dualistic philosophy reflects the universal human experience of inner conflict - a tension between opposing needs and tendencies within the self that triggers anxiety, shame and guilt. Dualistic philosophy has been linked with the religious problem of good and evil; an inner sense of moral choice between our temptation toward sin and our aspirations toward virtue. The distinction between the private inner world of introspective awareness and the public outer world of sensory awareness is self-evident; a complimentarity of inner awareness and outer perception, self and other, subject and object."

- ScottSA

Edited July 12, 2007 by Xman