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?
Although Descartes does find a foundational belief in the Cogito, he has dug himself too deep into a hole by disproving all his previous knowledge to make any progress. In Descartes search for knowledge he disproves all his senses thus all of his knowledge that he has gained from them. He then questions his own existence because of the possibility of an all powerful deceiver that could be deceiving him all the time. He escapes this doubt with his famous Cogito arguement, "I am nothing so as long I think i am something...'I am, I exist' is necessarily true every time I utter it or conceive it in my mind" (18). Descartes explains that even though he could be deceived 24/7, he can still think and debate this dilemma, meaning if he can generate thoughts thus he is something. Although this is a valid argument, by disproving all of his previous knowledge and his senses, and with the addition of a possible deceiver, everything Descartes attempts to prove in the future can be proven false in a multitude of ways. This is very much a Pyrrhic victory. Descartes does defeat skepticism but he has dug himself so deep into a hole it will be very difficult for him to prove anything else.
ReplyDeleteIn Descartes’ Cogito argument, it is concluded that senses are deceiving, deeming them untrustworthy. Because of this, Descartes looks to an individual’s reason and learns it is something on which individuals can in fact rely, if it is related to justifiable truths, which cannot be doubted. These undoubtable truths afford individuals the ability to find and realize truly perceptible things. Thus, these undoubtable truths prove our existence. In accordance with Descartes’ conclusion, any individual that exists exists because they are knowledgeable enough to know they are a thinking thing, since they clearly and distinctly perceive their thoughts true. I believe Descartes’ supposition correct because if individuals are placing as much thought into the matter of whether or not they exist, they indeed exist, since they are thinking this deeply; anything that thinks deeply exists. The Cogito argument disproves skepticism, in which Descartes claims god is perfectly good and does not wish to deceive individuals, because it alludes to any individual’s naturally being disposed to deception. I believe if a person is not surrounded by an honest individual, they will become deceived or corrupted. In other words, if people are surrounded by a deceived individual, and have no other guidance, they too will become deceived because it is all they know. A historical example of this would be the 1978 Jonestown Massacre, a religious cult comprised of over nine-hundred members, which was led by the deceived Jim Jones. In result of the cult members having no other guidance than from that of the deceived Jim Jones, they too became deceived, in a domino effect. I conclude that humans are naturally prone to deception, and without the guidance of an individual who properly perceives things, they will be deceived, which, I believe, is why the Cogito argument disproves skepticism.
ReplyDeleteDescartes has defeated skepticism with the cogito argument he has still not found a base for which to prove other beleifs. The cogito may be the only piece of knowledge we, as imperfect beings, are capable of apprehending. Descartes has fought a constant battle with the idea of a deceptive god but has won with the, “I think, therefore I am” argument. After all only a conscious being can be deceived. If we did not exist we would be like rocks which, like any other inanimate object are impossible to deceive. However, Descartes has left a vulnerability in his argument. He cannot reasonably make the jump from his one undeniable truth to prove that any of his other beliefs can be claimed as knowledge. He makes the claim that because he clearly and distinctly perceives that the cogito is true, that any other belief he also clearly and distinctly perceives as true must also be true. Unfortunately while it is impossible to be deceived about thinking, the same cannot be said anything else. A thought can be deceived but the existence of that thought cannot be, meaning that what we clearly and distinctly perceive in thought, thought being our only way to interpret the world, can in fact be deceived. This leaves the cogito as a dead end. It proves that we are able to have knowledge but it does not aid us in proving more and therefore cannot really be used as a foundation.
ReplyDeleteI believe Descartes is right in claiming that he disproved skepticism. he argued that if you do not exist, you can't be thinking (cogito ergo sum). Since he was thinking in that moment, he exists. Furthermore, if your doubting something, you are doing something, and you can't do something if you don't exist, he was doubting bigtime during meditation one, therefore he exists. Lastly, even if he was being deceived of thinking and doubting by an evil genius, he must exist in order to be deceived. By proving that he knows that he exists, he disproves skepticism (he has no knowledge). Descartes was right in claiming that he proved skepticism wrong, but I am not convinced that he was able to justify all his other claims to knowledge. First he proved that god exists, then he argued that god would never let him be deceived, therefore there is no evil genius generating mass deception in him. the problem with that argument that he still dreams, and sometimes, his senses will still deceive him. And no, you can't say that he is being deceived about being deceived, because he is still being deceived. Overall, I believe he was right about disproving skepticism, his arguments were pretty watertight. But he failed to prove all his other beliefs. I think this is a pyrrhic victory.
ReplyDeleteDescartes’ Cogito argument is extremely counter-productive, as he initially disproves skepticism and creates foundationalism but is blind to the fact that these new ideas destroy several of his other arguments. Starting with the Cogito, Descartes claims that he must exist simply because he thinks he does. This is the point at which foundationalism is birthed, as Descartes is using a foundational belief to justify his argument. Being a foundational belief, it is simply and purely true. The Cogito initially disproves skepticism because having a purely true belief, or knowledge, counters skepticism’s idea that one cannot have knowledge. This point in the argument is where problems form. Descartes argued before the Cogito that if something has deceived us once, we cannot trust it to give us knowledge. This is seen in his very own skeptical argument where he says that because dreams are perceived as reality, one may be in a dream right now. Therefore, they know nothing because they are not certain they are not dreaming. This is a textbook argument for skepticism, which makes it seem odd that Descartes has now moved on to the idea that there are foundational beliefs in which absolutely prove existence. Being able to prove existence is having knowledge, which blatantly contradicts what Descartes said in his dream argument. Furthermore, Descartes used our senses being deceived by dreams as an example of how something that fails to be true once cannot be trusted. Descartes has contradicted himself, meaning he has deceived the reader and cannot be trusted. This collapses Descartes’ integrity as a philosopher and by his very own argument makes him undoubtedly false and untrustworthy.
ReplyDeleteThe cogito does disprove skepticism because shows without reasonable doubt that we know one thing for sure, “I exist”. However its benefits for foundationalism are questionable because it is limited to just this one thing, I think therefore I am. It is not effective as a foundation to his other claims because its principles can only be applied to that one case. For example, his idea that having a clear and distinct perception of something makes it real can be easily proven false. In fact, I would say it is a misinterpretation of the Cogito. The Cogito works because the only way to disprove it is to prove to yourself that you are not thinking which is impossible. On the other, I can have a clear and distinct perception of something that simply does not exist, like the world. The world may very well be entirely made up and just something of my imagination, but it can't prove it is real just because I think its real. Ultimately the rule fails because it lacks evidence, which is why I don’t believe the Cogito to be a good foundational belief.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Descartes does defeat skepticism with the Cogito, however I do not believe that the Cogito is a good enough basis for the rest of his knowledge. Descartes’s argument is “I think, therefore I am”, and I believe that this argument defeats skepticism. Since he thought of this argument, he exists. And if someone does not think this is true, they are doubting this argument, and if you doubt something, you are doing something/thinking, and if you are doing something, that means you exist. This is because someone that does not exist is not able to think or do anything such as doubt something. So the act of doubt proves a person’s existence. I believe the Cogito disproves skepticism because if someone does doubt the argument, they are thinking because doubt is a form of thinking, and something that does not exist is not able to think or do something. Although I believe the Cogito does disprove skepticism, I do not think it is a valid basis for the rest of arguments. An example is his clear and distinct rule where he believes that if he clearly and distinctly perceives something, that thing is true/real. However this argument does not work, and Descartes kind of jumps from one argument to another by going from “I think, therefore I am” to “anything I clearly and distinctly perceive is real”. But I don’t think the second argument is true. He uses the second argument to prove that there is no evil omnipotent being that deceives people, but he uses circular reasoning to prove these two things. So yes, I believe this is a Pyrrhic victory.
ReplyDeleteSkepticism, the philosophical view that we don’t know anything, can be defeated with just one counterexample; if we agree that we know a single thing, even if that thing is all we know, then skepticism, by its definition, is proven false. Just as it would be false to claim that I am the tallest person in the world if I came upon a single person taller than me, it is false to claim that I know nothing if I do indeed know something. For that reason, the Cogito does sufficiently defeat skepticism, since knowing of my own existence means I do know something.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in the process of his foundational pursuit, Descartes has depleted his arsenal to build upon the Cogito. While attempting to uncover a foundational belief, Descartes argues that anything that has deceived him once cannot be trusted. This realization invalidates the senses as a source of knowledge, since there are times when the senses are deceiving (Descartes employs this general idea of deception in the famous “Dreaming Argument”). As such, while Descartes has proven skepticism false, he has little to work with to build a greater body of knowledge. His idea of “clear and distinct perception” is flawed because of its circularity with the argument of God’s existence (God ensures my clear and distinct perceptions, and God exists because I clearly and distinctly perceive him as existing). Moreover, his attempted resolution of this dilemma (God does not guarantee that what I clearly and distinctly perceive as true is true, just that I remember what I previously clearly and distinctly perceived as true) reignites the original flaw of clear and distinct perception - that it is possible to clearly and distinctly perceive falsehoods as true. There isn’t really a way to go forward; yes, Descartes is victorious in his quest to prove skepticism false, but this is a Pyrrhic victory that may not have even been worthwhile in the pursuit of truth.
I believe the Cogito argument does prove that one who thinks also exists. One argument against it was that if one were to strip away all the thoughts such as pain and doubt from a person’s mind, wouldn’t there be nothing left? If so, couldn’t a person simply be a jumble of thoughts with no essence of existence behind them? I believe this contradiction is invalid. Depending on how thought is defined, there could certainly be a non-existing life-form with neurons firing that simulate thought or pain or desire. However this interpretation is similar to interpreting sound as a wavelength of air or some other medium. This definition does not capture the abstract concept of sound. A robot could easily pick up the wavelengths and interpret them as well or even better than the human brain can. Yet, I would argue that the robot does not experience sound. The same can be said about thought. It takes more than neurons firing to define thought. One idea many have pondered is the existence of p-zombie or a philosophical zombie. It would resemble a human in every aspect. It would laugh at jokes, cry at funerals, and complain about the world. However, this being would have no sentience. If one were to delve into its mind they would find nothing. Its neurons firing and body moving is no more than the workings of a complicated machine. Thus it can simulate thought but unless there is something underneath the neurons firing, it does not exist. Also the idea of thoughts existing without a thinker seems impossible. Thought can’t just come from nothing; it requires an existing sentience to think it which is Descartes’ main argument. He states “thought exists; it alone cannot be separated from me” (28). In the end, if one thinks, he must also be the thinker.
ReplyDeleteRene Descartes’s cogito argument is successful at disproving skepticism. Skepticism is founded upon the idea that we as humans cannot certainly know anything. The whole point of the cogito is to prove that we do know one thing at the very least: “I exist”. Descartes is very clear and accurate when he goes about explaining his reason for why he knows that he exists and also defends multiple counter arguments. He says that because he has the ability to think and clearly perceive the world, he exists. The recognition of thought and new ideas in the mind, proves that we exist, because if we didn’t exist we couldn’t think. There were some counter arguments that challenged Descartes. What about the times where we can’t clearly perceive the world, or when we cannot think coherently? In these times Descartes argument struggles, but it only means that he isn’t able to prove that we exist at every single moment in time. We are still able to rationally reason that we are thinking beings and that we are clearly perceiving these thoughts in specific moments. The cogito succeeds by proving that we do know something and therefore skepticism is false. Also the argument is expanded to knowing that others exist. When we are able to clearing distinguish that a particular individual is able to express their ideas and thought then we know that the individual exists also. I think that Descartes reasoning is valid and logical but I do not think that his rule could be applied to every other scenario. In order to prove Descartes General Rule, he first has to prove that god exists. Despite my own personal beliefs I do not think that Descartes is able to successfully do this, because he needs the General Rule to prove gods existence. He begins to get into circular thinking, which is an invalid method to justify something. In conclusion I believe that Descartes disproves Skepticism by proving that we do indeed know that we exist, however I think that Descartes needs to further validate the General Rule and the existence of god.
ReplyDelete