Wednesday, October 2, 2019
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 argument for existence, “I think therefore I am,” does absolutely defeat the argument for skepticism. “I think therefore I am” refers to the foundational belief that you can prove your own existence just by thinking, as a being cannot possibly think without existing. Skepticism, on the other hand, is the practice of doubting and poking holes in a philosophical argument with the intention of disproving it, the idea being that if one believes they know nothing, then they do not exist. Descartes argument disproves skepticism in that in order to believe one does not exist, they must think they do not exist, ironically proving that they do, in fact, exist. In order for a person to believe in something, they must first be thinking about that thing. The argument that a person believes nothing is fundamentally flawed as well, because for a person to know nothing, they must first use some sort of information to come to that conclusion. For example, I might argue that I do not know anything because everything I thought I once knew turned out to be incorrect. If I were to say that I believe the sky to be green, a certain breed of dog like a golden retriever to not be real, or 2+2 equals 5, and all of my knowledge was proven to be false, then how could I know anything if everything I thought I understood was false? Therefore, I know nothing, and I do not exist. However, the conclusion that I do not exist was built upon my understanding that I knew nothing, thus showing that I knew SOMETHING. That something being the true statement that my previous beliefs were false.
ReplyDeleteI think that Descartes is correct in his Cogito argument. Descartes believes “I think therefore I am” meaning that Descarte believes he exits because he can use his mind to think. Earlier, he presented an argument where he was skeptical about everything. This argument stated that people might not know anything at all because they do not exist. However, if a being thinks, that means that he has a brain or soul that has to exist. It is impossible know you exist if you think because if you don’t think then you definitely don’t know you exist. Someone else may know that you exist, but if you don’t think, then you yourself don’t know you exist. Furthermore, I believe that Descarte can base the rest of his knowledge on this. Since he exists, then he can build upon this existence by adding knowledge. But, on the other hand, I believe that Descartes argument can be tweaked. For example, a computer can analyze, compute, and understand a problem. It can think in a same way as a person. However, the computer does not know that it exists. Therefore I recommend that Descartes argument is changed to “if I am cognitive (know) that I am thinking, then I exist.” This way the “thinker” has to know that he is thinking, something that a computer cannot do. On the other hand, a person knows that he is thinking, therefore he exists.
ReplyDeleteDescartes Cogito argument is seen to disprove skepticism, as well as base a foundational belief that everything else can be based off of. This argument is “I think, therefor I am”. Thinking is the ability to process and understand information given to you. He is able to disprove skepticism with the ability to think by first using skeptic logic, and throwing all things he previously thought to be true. I think therefor I am states that because you can think, and know that you exist. This has to be true, as you cannot think without existing. As this argument is true, then it disproves skepticism which is the idea that we do not know anything. Because this is for sure true, then we have a definitive knowledge which we can begin to base other beliefs off of. This extends to the idea that in order to doubt anything, including your existence you are actually proving your existence, as thinking in itself is proving of your existence. From this, we can build further knowledge off of this as now we know that this is a truth. If skepticism is seen to be true, and we truly can no nothing with all of our beliefs and knowledge proven to be wrong, then according to skepticism we con not be sure of out existence. This is seen to be as false though, as oven though our information might have been false, we still have knowledge that we understood whether it is right or wrong, which proves that we exist as the ability to have and understand knowledge proves existence.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Cogito does disprove skepticism, as skepticism is a belief that we know nothing. Descartes does acknowledge that it is hard to know what is real because of the possibility of an Evil Genius- a powerful supernatural being that has the ability to make us believe that we are living in a reality that we are not. Our inability to definitively disprove the existence of this Evil Genius is the foundation of skepticism, because if this being does indeed exist, we cannot say for sure that our reality is real. However, as Descartes explains, in order to be deceived, we have to exist in the first place. After all, no being, no matter how powerful, can deceive nothing. Therefore we know, at the very least, that we must exist, whether or not we are being deceived. Additionally, since skeptics believe that we cannot be sure of anything, and the principal of Cogito says that we can at least be sure of one thing, then skepticism is therefore disproven. However, I do not believe that Descartes can rightly use this belief to build the rest of his beliefs the way that he does. Descartes believes that because he can clearly and distinctly perceive that he exists, and that his existence is a true fact, that therefore everything he can clearly and distinctly perceive must be true. While I do agree that I must at least exist to be deceived, I also understand that that nature of being deceived is being convinced that something is true when it is not. Other notions that Descartes cites as being true, such as God or other “clear and distinct” ideas, cannot be ensured to be correct as easily as our own existence, because those are not properties of our souls and our minds, but of things outside of us. I’m not so sure how this would work, but I believe that things such as our own existence and the existence of our minds and are souls can be proven because they are inside of us, but I cannot say that God exists any more than I can say that my friends, family, and classmates exist. Therefore, while I believe that Cogito can is true and disproves skepticism, I do not believe that the arguments that Descartes sprouts from Cogito are sound and true.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDescartes, in his meditations, wants to dispel the theories of any skeptics. He does this by ridding himself of any knowledge in order to start at nothing and completely dismantle the skeptic argument from his most disadvantageous state, giving them all of the benefit of the doubt. In order to veritably find one thing that is absolutely true, he turned to his own existence. In order to prove that he has one morsel of knowledge, he uses the argument, "I think therefore I am." This statement, for Descartes, truly proves that he exists. However, this statement cannot be used to prove the rest of knowledge true, and it does not completely dismantle the skeptic argument. While it is true that the fact of him discovering his existence can prove that there is no great deceiver/evil genius, that does not discount the idea of simulations or other forms of deception, giving him no basis for the rest of his knowledge. This only confirms that he exists on some basis whether he is in reality or not. Additionally, even if Descartes could prove beyond a doubt that he exists using this method, that is not enough to convince the skeptics. This is because they cannot confirm what Descartes is thinking, making it legitimately possible that Descartes is not conscious and is just deceiving us. Overall, this statement, while applied to one's own life on an individual scale, can be helpful and prove existence, it cannot dismantle the skeptic case.
ReplyDeleteIn the Meditations of Descartes, he wants to rule out all validity of the skeptic’s argument. The skeptics hold a group of believes that there is no knowledge, and nothing can be proven. In order to prove them wrong, Descartes wanted to be as impartial as possible by taking the role of a skeptic throughout the argument. In order to prove them wrong Descartes would have to find only one thing that can be ruled as true. In his quest to find the one shred of knowledge, he came across the argument “I think therefore I am” (Descartes). For Descartes this argument completely convinces him of one fact that he exists, and he believes that he has completely unraveled any argument that the skeptics might have. This argument might be able to explain that we might exist, however it falls short to prove that all other knowledge is true. First, we must address that fact that skeptics think and there is no knowledge, and would most likely not believe his argument. Then if you look later in his meditations there is the notion of an evil genius who will deceive everyone. Even if his argument proves that he exists he could just be a plaything for the evil genius like an inanimate brought to life through a child’s imagination.
ReplyDeleteDescartes’ believes that if you are a believing, thinking, and postulating being than there is no doubt that you exist in the surface world. The famous Cogito Argument goes as such: “I think, therefore I am”. For as long as someone is a “thinking thing”, they exist, and the moment we stop thinking, is the moment we cease to exist. The idea is that no one can exist without the act of thinking. It is easy to misread Descartes’ text and infer from it that “if you believe that you do not exist, then you cease to exist”. However, even when someone believes that they do not exist, according to Descartes, they are still thinking. Therefore, they still exist. The simple action of doubt proceeds that someone is an existing being. Personally, I agree with this claim because of the sheer difficulty to find a flaw in it. In his previous arguments, the “Dreamer Argument” and the “Evil Genius Argument”, he puts forth the idea that humans are easily deceived and that we can never be sure what exits and what is real. Logically if you do not exist, there is no you at all, therefore, if the mind is functioning one cannot cease to be real (assuming that the minds only function is to think). This automatically disproves any doubt or skepticism of someone’s own existence. Descartes also claims that humans cannot differentiate between the real world and dream world. If this claim is true, then one can only know they exist in the specific reality that they live in. For example, imagine a woman walking in the dream world. While she is walking, she is thinking about something (whatever she thinks about is irrelevant). By reason, she can only exist in that dream world, because she is not currently walking in the real world. She cannot know that she actually exist there until she awakens from the dream world and begins to think in the real world. If Descartes’ Cogito argument includes this idea, then it can be the basis of his knowledge of existence only.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Cogito does disprove skepticism. Skepticism is disbelief or doubt. Descartes believes "I think therefore I am." This means that he does exist because he has thoughts. I agree with this because objects that are not living cannot think. If one cannot think there is no reason to assume they are living. One might relate this to the argument to if someone knows nothing they do not exist. This could not be true though because everybody knows the fact that they exist. They also know basic facts about themselves, such as who they are or other ideas related to that. Additionally, there is no proof of reality. What proof does one have that demonstrates how reality different from a dream or a made-up world. The only thing one knows for sure is that they are in it. For example, we have no proof that an evil God might be controlling us and we are its characters in his movie. One could say that they know they exist because they can think and know who they are. But when if the world they are seeing is different from the one that they are in. They would have no clue that they are seeing the world a completely different way than anybody else.-ari
ReplyDeleteIn order to disprove any of his skeptics, Descartes throws away all other beliefs from his mind. In Descartes's own mind, he exists because he has thoughts. This is characterized by his famous statement, "I think therefore I am". "I think therefore I am" is a proof of reality, as it is impossible to think without existing and vice versa. This belief can be used as the basis for all other knowledge as well as a counter to the idea that we as humans know nothing. As the argument I think therefore I am is true, it is impossible for the skeptics to argue that we know nothing. With existence proved to be true through this argument, than Descartes can further build other knowledge into his world. In my mind, this proves skepticism, the belief that we know nothing, to be wrong. However, we must consider the argument of the Evil Genius, in which there is a powerful supernatural being whose intentions are to deceive and harm us. It is impossible to disprove for certain the existence of an evil genius, but if we assume that its existence is false, then the Cogito argument does prove skeptics wrong.
ReplyDeleteDescartes argues the Cognito belief—the belief that “I think, therefore I am”—could be the foundational basis for all knowledge in his second meditation. In his first mediation, he attempts to strip himself of all he has ever known as none of it is truly justified, in search of foundationalism, a class of beliefs that are in no need of justification and he can build all knowledge upon. By doubting he exists and everything he as ever learned, Descartes is “doubtless I did exist, if I persuaded myself of something” (25). By even thinking of doubt, Descartes disproves the belief that nothing exists, called skepticism. According to the Cognito argument, we know that we exist because we think. As Descartes clarifies, “But there is some deceiver or other who is supremely powerful…who is always deliberately deceiving me. Then too there is no doubt that I exist, if he is deceiving me” (25). He is suggesting that there might be a god or higher power that is tricking him into believing he exists. If this is so, he concludes that he must exist if he is able to be deceived. However, Descartes’s Cognito may be a Pyrrhic victory for his thinking. Though he may feel he has reached an ultimate truth, the damage done may be too much. In the end, his spiral thinking may never end with an absolute truth. As he even states, “For I would indeed be simulating were I to ‘imagine’ that I was something, because imagining is merely the contemplating…But I now know with certainty that I am and also that all these images could turn out to be nothing but dreams” (28). In other words, all his experiences and thoughts could be dreams created by his imagination. In fact, he mentions how he cannot tell the difference between dreams, which deceive, and reality in his first meditation. Though it can be believed one must exist to have an imagination, it is possible that everything else he thinks is real could be fake. In other words, though the Cognito may be true, it comes with a cost: nothing else is true.
ReplyDeleteDescartes argues that he has entirely defeated the concepts behind skepticism, and therefore skepticism itself, with one simple phrase. "Cogito ergo sum," or “I think, therefore I am,” disproves skeptical beliefs, according to Descartes. He is completely correct in saying so. Being able to doubt proves his own existence in a way that no one else had really previously explored. Many philosophers have discussed the “evil genius” argument, which essentially states that we cannot trust our own senses because we cannot prove that they are not actively being deceived by some kind of all powerful evil genius whose express purpose and intent is to trick us. Another skeptical argument, the dreaming argument, discusses the idea that we are not always able to tell the difference between when we are awake and when we are asleep. Therefore, we cannot always definitively tell what is reality and what is not, or at least not consistently. Descartes disproves both of these theories, as well as other skeptical arguments, with the Cogito. Even if there were an evil genius who was always actively deceiving him, there must be something there for the evil genius to deceive. Similarly, if he is always dreaming, asleep and experiencing sensations that are fed to him by a higher power, there must be some form of him there to experience them. In this way, the ability to think and doubt takes away the credibility of skeptical arguments, and creates a solid foundation for the rest of Descartes’ other philosophies.
ReplyDelete