Wednesday, October 5, 2016
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)
In Meditation II, Descartes supposedly discovers a foundational belief that he will use to justify all his other claims to knowledge. In this foundational belief, he tries to prove that due to his ability to think he exists. He rationalizes this through a set of premises. He begins is argument by even though “I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies,” he still has ideas of them in his mind (17). Since these ideas and thoughts are something and not nothing, Descartes explains that these ideas, whether true or false, exist. Therefore, as the beholder of these ideas, he must exist too. However, while Descartes finally proves a foundational truth, it is only a Pyrrhic victory. In essence, his argument for existing is through thinking and in proving this he admits that everything that he has experienced could be not real. He is basically trapped in the reality that is conceivable in his mind and is ignorant of any external realities. This is very similar to the dilemma of a blind woman trying to understand color. No matter what anyone says, it is impossible for to perceive colors and in respect to her, it is true when she claims that color does exist, even though we “know” that to be untrue. Her reality is different than another person’s reality, just as what I know to be true is different than what another knows to be true. In terms of existence and knowledge, while I know I exist, I only know that I have ideas of other things existing. In conclusion, it is clear that the only belief that is true is of our personal existence.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Cogito cannot be directly debunked, the idea still has flaws and ultimately fails to disprove skepticism. In Descartes’s Meditations on First Philosophy, his ‘first discovery’ is his idea that “thought exists; it alone cannot be separated from me. I am; I exist - this is certain” (Descartes 27). In other words, here he believes that a thinking thing must exist, since thought itself exists. However, instead of fruitlessly attempting to disprove the idea that thought exists, I’d rather move on to discuss the flaws of the statement that I have noticed. To explain why such an effort would be pointless - the concept of a thinking thing not existing is simply impossible to comprehend. Speaking of things that do not exist, how do we know what things do not exist? Specifically, assuming that we don’t know anything that exists in the first place, it is therefore impossible for us to comprehend what doesn’t exist. Thus, if this is the case, how can skepticism possibly be disproved? Anyways, this discussion relates to the first flaw of the cogito. Upon attempting to think of an example of a nonexistent thing, the first idea that came to my mind was dreams - In dreams, we see objects and figures that at first appear to be real, but ultimately they are simply illusions simulated by our brains. For example, when we encounter figures in our dreams that perform various actions, it is actually our brains that make these figures perform said actions. Likewise, when we encounter figures (in our dreams) that appear to think and have thoughts on their own, in reality it is our brains that think for these figures. Now, relating these illusive figures to ourselves (in what we believe is ‘real life’), who is to say that there isn’t some sort of being that is thinking for us without us knowing? Therefore, if Descartes claims that he exists because he is a thinking thing, this claim will become invalid if there truly is another being that is thinking for us (instead of us thinking for ourselves). In addition, even if Descartes is correct about the Cogito, this is most likely a pyrrhic victory. The reasoning as to why this is probably a pyrrhic victory is that although it can serve as the foundation for the rest of his knowledge, I doubt that any other discovery he finds will be anywhere near as reliable as this foundational idea is.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Descartes technically does defeat skepticism with his two interconnected foundational beliefs, this is a Pyrrhic victory to such an extent that skepticism stands essentially untouched.
ReplyDeleteThe first belief—"I exist"—is based on the fact that I am able to think and reason. *Something* must exist and be doing the intellectual work—ideas cannot create themselves—and since I perceive the effort to be stemming from myself, I must be that something.
Since I am thinking, I am therefore able to think, and I therefore *do* think. I am a thinking thing. This is the second foundational belief.
There is no third true belief, foundational or otherwise. The first two beliefs are necessarily true because they describe the conditions required for me to be doing what I am doing at this moment. Right now, I am aware of the fact that I am thinking: I am thinking about my thinking. For this to be true, I must, first, exist; and, second, I must be capable of thought. Unfortunately for anti-skeptics (who are possibly just annoying figments of my imagination), I do not know anything about anything around me. I only know that I am capable of processing information and am doing so at the moment—I do not know anything about the source of that information. I know that I am capable of sensing physical things, but there is simply no way to prove that those sensations are caused by anything other than my thoughts or imagination.
Descartes' weak attempt at another foundational belief—that something is real if I perceive it clearly and distinctly—is founded entirely upon the fact that he is so convinced by what his senses are telling him that he cannot conceive of having an incorrect perception of the world around him. Assuming that nothing aside from me really exists, this argument would look something like this: "my senses are tricking me, but they're tricking me so well that I'm going to believe them. Furthermore, I will believe them at any other time when they trick me well-enough." Obviously, the quality of sensual perception cannot be used as an argument in support of its truthfulness. As Descartes himself admits, the mind is "prone… to errors" (22). If I ever were to be intoxicated, for example, I would probably be quite sure about a great number of absolutely ridiculous things, most of which would be false. After the passing of the intoxication, I would understand that I would have previously been mistaken about clearly or distinctly perceiving most everything. At the moment of intoxication, however, I would have no way of breaking through its effects and would not be aware of my perceptions being incorrect in any way. There is no proof that such an intoxication does not affect me at the present moment, whether because I did something stupid five minutes ago or simply by virtue of my existence. There is no proof that I am not having a very elaborate dream, that I am not plugged into the Matrix, etc.
Since Descartes' mechanism for proving the reality of the world around him—the third foundational belief—is not functional, there is no way of obtaining any knowledge about anything aside from the existence of me and my thoughts. Therefore, the first two foundational beliefs are the only pieces of information that I truly know. While this defeats skepticism on a technicality—I *do* know something, after all!—skepticism about everything in the world aside from these two minute details remains completely untouched.
Tl;dr version of this post:
Yes. Sort of. Yes. No.
In meditation one, Descartes describes that which he will try to defeat in his following meditations: Skepticism, or the belief that true knowledge is unattainable. In order to do this, he decides that he must find foundational beliefs, or a class of beliefs which don’t need their own justification and can used to support our other beliefs. In his attempt to discard all beliefs which can be called into doubt, he finds the one belief that pokes a hole in Skepticism: by doubting he is thinking, and in order to think he must exist. He argues, “I am therefore precisely nothing but a thinking thing; that is, a mind, or intellect, or understanding, or reason…I am a true thing and am truly existing; but what kind of thing? I have said it already: a thinking thing” (Descartes 19). He ‘defeats’ Skepticism in that he shows there is at least one thing we can be certain of, but beyond our existence we can doubt everything; a slightly modified version of Skepticism that grants the knowledge of our existence remains intact. Descartes then tries to prove that he has true knowledge by establishing his idea of clear and distinct perception as proved by God’s existence. However, this argument was dubbed the ‘Cartesian Circle’ for its circular reasoning. He argues that everything he clearly and distinctly perceives to be true is true because a benevolent God exists that wouldn’t deceive him, but in order to prove God’s existence he says that he clearly and distinctly perceives the existence of God to be true. Therefore, the Cogito is a success, but provides no basis for further knowledge. The Cogito establishes the existence of a mind, but provides no help in showing that our perception of reality is correct, and I can’t know that anything exists beyond my own mind. Thus, Skepticism (about everything but our own existence) is a more reasonable view about knowledge than Foundationalism.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDescartes fails to disprove skepticism by using the Cogito because he doesn’t manage to establish a big enough basis of sure knowledge to make a real difference. His big argument is that ideas cannot create themselves, and there must me something to create them, therefore he must be creating ideas because the idea of him cannot spring from nowhere, and the ideas that follow have to come from somewhere, therefore he has to exist as a thinking thing. This fundamental belief cannot be the foundation on which he disproves skepticism because there are not enough other beliefs that stem from it to create a whole belief system. As he strays farther from that belief his ideas and beliefs start becoming arguable, which goes against the whole point of finding the foundational beliefs. In order for the foundational system to work, the foundation must allow for other beliefs to sit upon it and be proven true based on what it says, but once Descartes cut his knowledge down that far, there is no way to build up enough knowledge. Basically, the cogito cannot be used to disprove skepticism because it doesn’t take a big enough chunk out of the argument to make the whole thing structurally unsound. It barely makes a dent. If there was a way to actually use that believe as a foundation and build up a huge army of beliefs, sure it could take down skepticism, however it does not do enough all by itself. It ends up turning into a Pyrrhic victory, in that yes he made one good point that held back the onward rampage of the skeptics, however it is a situation in which the battle was won, but not the war. In order to find something that cannot be argued in any logical manner and instead is accepted by everyone, he would have to cut down his knowledge to the point that there were only facts and no opinions whatsoever. By doing this, he has lost completely any kind of personal belief and given way only to facts, which most skeptics would agree had truth in them anyways through logical reasoning. Meaning that he would have to cut down his argument to the point that it was the same, or very similar, to the argument of a skeptic. Now if skepticism was defined very rigidly as the belief in absolutely nothing, including facts and irrefutable beliefs, it would only require a tiny smidge of belief to disprove it, however I believe that it is based in logic as well as unbelief, and that people who are skeptics are able to listen to reasoning, but that they just believe that there is nothing that is not able to be argued. If that definition is used, one non-arguable fact will not change their position.
ReplyDeleteDescartes fails in his effort to debunk skepticism but his process of thinking allows an alternate conclusion that there is in fact one thing that can be known thus allowing the most pyrrhic victory imaginable. Not only does his circular argument surrounding god prevent the vast majority of the knowledge that he concludes from being true knowledge but even his fundamental base for that level of knowledge is fallacious. Descartes argues that most knowledge is potentially false because there could be a deceiver but makes the argument that some things are knowable. He can think, therefore he must exist, and from that he derives the existence of god and thus proves that no deceiver could exist so the original presupposition of doubt on knowledge is no longer valid so the world as we know it must exist. The traditional attack on this argument is that to prove God exists the Cartesian circle is needed, and circular arguments are fallacious so Descartes has proven nothing beyond his own existence. I will take this a step further to show that one does not know for certain that they even think. To do so I will use the analogy of a character in a video game. In a video game every action of a non-player character is a direct command from the computer. In a sufficiently advanced game the computer could give commands of such intense detail that they would mimic thought and even to mimic thinking of having thoughts. This state of intensely detailed commands would be indistinguishable from thought to both the character who does not receive a command to make the distinction and any outside observers. So it is be possible that even thinking is not a real state but simple one imparted by a deceiver. This leaves only the knowledge of existence since to be in a state of not-thinking one must still exist. The argument could be made that the reason I cannot comprehend a way I could not exist is because of some thought deceiver however that leaves the argument at “maybe there is an irrefutable argument against knowledge of existence, but it is probably impossible to understand” which is basically nothing.
ReplyDeleteDescartes is correct in knowing that he exists. Descartes observes that even if most of the things he perceives to be true could be false, his ability to observe is undeniable. This allows him to conclude that his consciousness certainly exist. However, by proving that he exists, he also admits that all the knowledge he may know could be false. He reaches his conclusion, put it is a Pyrrhic victory. In order to prove one thing was undoubtedly true, he must rely on the knowledge that everything he perceives may be fake. He has proved he is real, but simultaneously casted doubt upon everything that isn’t himself. This means Descartes does have a foundation, but he has absolutely nothing to build on it.
ReplyDeleteDescartes doesn’t disprove skepticism. In fact, I would say his argument is unintentionally pro-skepticism. If he can only prove one thing to be true, it is evident that almost everything can be doubted. Unfortunately for Descartes, it will always be much easier to doubt something than to prove it to be true. That being said, skepticism comes naturally. So long as we have known anything to be true, we have known other things to be false. The concept of the Matrix provides excellent support of skepticism. If reality is perception, and perception can be distorted, then reality can never be confirmed. Skepticism has continued to exist well past Descartes because it is significantly more reliable than anything Descartes thought up.
Despite the efforts and work that went into Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy, it is hard to say that upon reading the treatise, one is left completely convinced of the foundationalism Descartes uses based on the Cogito argument. However, it is still important to ask what this famous argument accomplishes, and to consider whether or not it is a false step on Descartes journey towards knowledge. First, it is important to note the role of the argument in the death of scepticism. While Descartes does not prove much when he says “I think, therefore I am,” he is still saying something that is undoubtable true, thus showing scepticism to be false. But where can one go from here? “I am” is such a broad statement that lends itself quite nicely to a variety of thought experiments. I may be, but what’s to say I’m not plugged into the Matrix, living a false life? Or what influence does this have on the possibility that I am just dreaming, under the influence of an evil genius forcing me to misbelieve my world? The truth is, Descartes argument in favour of the self does not accomplish very much. Of course, by stating a universally true fact, he does disprove the idea of scepticism, but there is not much else he can do from here. Too many possibilities still remain that he cannot disprove without establishing more foundational beliefs, which he chooses not to do so, only moving forward from the Cogito. However, the steps he takes from this primary argument to his other beliefs are riddled with errors and fallacies, leaving the Cogito standing alone as his only sound argument. But even this powerful statement is not enough to disprove the potential falsehoods that remain abound (Matrix, Brain in a Jar, Evil Genius), so one cannot truly say that the Cogito accomplishes very much other than proving that we know at least something about ourselves: that we are.
ReplyDeleteIn Meditation II, Descartes uses this thought as a basis to prove that he exists. In this way he does in fast defeat the skepticism belief that nothing exists. He finds that because he can think, there must be something in him that truly exists, for if nothing existed then he surely couldn’t think. This will become the foundation for the rest of his thoughts in this meditation. Even though this does defeat skepticism, it is a very weak argument because he cannot use it directly to prove that anything else except his mind exists. The first thing Descartes does with this knowledge that he exists is try to find exactly what in him exists. He looks through three main parts on himself: his imagination, his senses, and his mind. With his imagination, he understands that the imagination can be deceived, he gives the example that sometimes people think they hear or see something, but in fact they have just imagined it. Next, Descartes looks into his senses to see if they are real. However, he again finds fault with his senses using an example of melted wax. When in a solid state, wax has one form and keeps many of its sensible properties. However when you melt the wax, the wax takes on many different forms, and all of the properties change. Because the liquid wax could be an infinite different number of shapes that his senses could never perceive, he knows that these must also not be part of what exists in him. Lastly, he looks at his mind. He goes back to the wax. Using his mind, he will always be able to tell that the melted wax is actual wax using knowledge. Because his mind can think that what he is seeing is wax, he is proving his existence. Through all of this thought, Descartes does disprove skepticism, yet this small victory only brings him to the idea that only he himself and his mind exist.
ReplyDeleteIn Meditation II, Descartes believes that he has discovered the answer to all of his problems, the Cogito. The Cogito makes a strong and unique argument to defeat skepticism. Descartes argues that "I think, therefore I am", and while this may appear to be shockingly simple it is incredibly hard to defeat. Thought exists, independent of if we believe in something or if we don't believe in something we still think about it. Since thoughts are a real thing they must exist, and because real things don't come from non-real things the entity that thinks must also be legitimate. So even if you are a skeptic, even if you don't agree with something you are still thinking about it in order to rationalize a conclusion...therefore you must exist. Skepticism is the belief that true knowledge is unattainable...which the Cogito doesn't actually prove to be false. The Cogito makes the point that knowledge exists, and the people exist...but never makes a claim as to what "true knowledge" entails exactly. True knowledge is in fact extremely hard to attain, while individuals exist and their thoughts exist as Descartes proves its a jump to say that universal or true knowledge exists. The Cogito definitely makes progress in proving skepticism to false, but it doesn't completely do the job. In many ways, it is still more logical and likely to believe that true knowledge does not exist.
ReplyDelete