Wednesday, September 30, 2015
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)
To be or not to be that is the question. Descartes meditates and questions existence and reality of life, his goal is to disprove skepticism. Skepticism is a concept claiming, "The only thing I know is that I know nothing". This is the bases of Descartes deep and philosophical meditation. Descartes begins his journey to find the truth. His first claim is, "I am, I exist” is necessarily true every time I utter it or conceive it in my mind” (Descartes 25). What Descartes means by this, is that a thought of any kind, a thought of doubt proves that I am a being. If I think, therefore I am. I agree with his conclusion and can find no fault with his claim. Every way I think about it I am proving that I exist, but what other knowledge can we derive from this thought? I believe that this discovery is a pyrrhic victory that in the long term doesn’t help us gain more knowledge. It’s great that I’ve discovered I exist, but if nothing else is certain what is the benefit of my existence. What if there really was an evil genius deceiving us all the time? I cannot be certain about that nor any of my previous assumptions about life. Because unlike finding my existence there is no definitive way to confirm the truth of anything else. The Cogito argument does serve a purpose and provide a disclaimer to skepticism, however it is a pyrrhic victory and I cannot use the conclusion to help me obtain more knowledge.
ReplyDeleteDescartes argues "Cogito ergo sum" or "I think, therefore I am". He believes because he can think and doubt certain ideas he exists. This contradicts with his earlier idea of skepticism. Skepticism is the idea that I know nothing. Descartes conclusion disproves his initial skeptical view that nothing exists. Descartes' exact words are, "I am I exist" is necessarily true every time I utter it or conceive it in my mind" (25). He says he exists because he can think. Descartes believes that thought proves one's existence. Since one is constantly thinking, one is constantly existing. I agree with his argument that one exists through thinking. I believe every time I am thinking, the only sure conclusion to my thoughts is that I exist. I believe this is a victory, but one that comes at a great cost. I believe this is a pyrrhic victory because this victory ultimately leaves us knowing one thing, knowing that we exist. This, in the long run does not help us at all. Understanding we exist is a starting point, but if my senses deceive me and I know nothing else, there is a major problem. All the "knowledge" I've learned throughout my student experience at Hawken is actually nothing I can believe. Everything that has led up to this point in my life actually serves me no purpose. This can frankly make a lot of people mad including myself mad. The Cogito serves one purpose, to prove I exist. Although this is a lot, its not enough to answer the rest of existence and knowledge. Therefore it doesn't help me gain more knowledge its just a dead end to prove only one thing.
ReplyDeleteWhen Descartes comes up with the concept of Cogito he is diverting from skepticism. Skepticism forced Descartes to doubt every aspect of his existence and forced him to believe that he has no knowledge. Though, through Cogito Descartes further questioned whether he doubts every aspect of his existence. Descartes then comes up with the famous saying “Cogito ergo sum” which translates to “I am, I exist” (25. Descartes). Descartes takes his doubt to a more fundamental level and questions the ability to doubt itself and realizes that to doubt he must have consciousness. Descartes believes that through his theory of Cogito he has disproved Skepticism, though, I believe Descartes simply found a new definition for Skepticism. While the concept that he knows nothing is disproved the methodology to which he arrived at the conclusion he knows nothing is still tenable. Thus, as he now knows the idea that he has consciousness is the only thing that is undoubtable he can redefine Skepticism to conclude that he knows nothing other than his own existence. I further believe that while it may imply that Descartes knows nothing in truth it shows that he cannot be sure of anything other than his existence. To me this displays how while Descartes lacks certainty of anything other than his existence, he is able to reason the most definite probability in the majority of his knowledge. While to some this offers a lack of knowledge all together I believe that the high probability offers an illusion of truth to which we cannot rely upon yet can live by.
ReplyDeleteDescartes argument that we exist because we think is a valid argument I and I agree with it fully. He finds that in order to find if we exist or not, we have to find out what is behind human sensation. From the context of his perspective, we could come from a God or some form of malevolent being which spends all of its time deceiving us in our daily lives. Whether we are being deceived or not, however, we can be sure that something must exist in order to be truly deceived. On the topic of skepticism and the argument that we don't know anything at all, Descartes comes up with two subdivisions of our being, the mind (which has the capacity of thinking) and the body (the capacity of sensation.) So while our senses could be deceived all the time, our capacity to think as rational beings allows us to override our senses, showing that thinking is the essence of our individual being. The wax argument is also fairly good at proving the Cogito argument. By using the melting wax as a representation of the ever-changing properties of all physical things, Descartes comes to the conclusion that the intellect of man is able to adapt to different conditions, and therefore, our minds allow us to unlock true knowledge. We can separate this true knowledge from our sensual memory, and begin to form knowledge that is not just from rational observation but from the method of deduction. Therefore, I presume that Descartes's argument for the Cogito is correct.
ReplyDeleteThe Cogito does disprove skepticism however; existing cannot be our only base for knowledge. The idea of the Cogito is "I think therefore I am" meaning that I have thoughts and therefore I exist. Also in regards an evil genius the Cogito says that if there is an evil genius that you have to exist in order for him to deceive you . The cogito proves that skepticism is false, by proving that you have one piece of knowledge, you exist. However the fact that you exist is all that it proves. The only true knowledge that we have is that you and only you for sure exist, but if the only thing you know is that you exist can you really consider yourself as having knowledge? Or what if you are unaware of the Cogito argument and you do not believe that you exist, do you still have knowledge just by existing? If you are ignorant to the fact that you exist than you can't possibly build a foundation of beliefs upon a belief that you don’t have. This would mean that everything that you think you know is false because it is built upon a false idea. In the same way if you do believe that you exist what beliefs can you possibly build from that information alone? Even if you know for certain that you exist, how can you know that an evil genius isn't distorting every other part of your existence? For all you know you could be in an alternate universe where one plus one doesn't even equal two.
ReplyDeleteThe Cogito does disprove skepticism however; existing cannot be our only base for knowledge. The idea of the Cogito is "I think therefore I am" meaning that I have thoughts and therefore I exist. Also in regards an evil genius the Cogito says that if there is an evil genius that you have to exist in order for him to deceive you . The cogito proves that skepticism is false, by proving that you have one piece of knowledge, you exist. However the fact that you exist is all that it proves. The only true knowledge that we have is that you and only you for sure exist, but if the only thing you know is that you exist can you really consider yourself as having knowledge? Or what if you are unaware of the Cogito argument and you do not believe that you exist, do you still have knowledge just by existing? If you are ignorant to the fact that you exist than you can't possibly build a foundation of beliefs upon a belief that you don’t have. This would mean that everything that you think you know is false because it is built upon a false idea. In the same way if you do believe that you exist what beliefs can you possibly build from that information alone? Even if you know for certain that you exist, how can you know that an evil genius isn't distorting every other part of your existence? For all you know you could be in an alternate universe where one plus one doesn't even equal two.
ReplyDeleteThroughout his second meditation, Descartes argues the point, “I think therefore I am”. As far as people are concerned this idea cannot be proven wrong. People can argue that just because we are thinking does not mean we exist but there is no way to prove any of this. Based off of the definition of knowledge that we came up with as a class (a true justified belief), we accept that our existence is real. The underlying question is how “true” would be defined. After all having a justifying belief is not very hard. Validating the justification to prove something is true is much more difficult. Thinking is the justification for our existence. Because we are able to conceive anything, then we must be real. However, being able to conceive things does not make everything real. Descartes proves that he exists using skepticism. He questions and doubts his existence thus proving that he exists because to have the ability in order to believe that you do not exist you have to exist in some form to be able to think. So, according to this, the Cogito disproves skepticism. Descartes shows that to try to disprove the existence of himself he must first exist. It is however, a futile effort to generate the basis for all knowledge. Descartes’ proof of his existence proves nothing else except for his existence. His perception of anything else cannot be proven just by doubting its existence. Each person’s individual existence can only be proven when they question whether or not they exist. You cannot prove anything else’s existence in the same way because the mind is too easily convinced that something can exist. Descartes theory that an evil being has us trapped and our entire world is a lie could be true. Therefore skepticism cannot be used to prove anything except one’s own existence.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDescartes, in discovering the Cogito, disproves skepticism but assures it is the only knowledge humans can be certain about. In Meditation II, Descartes makes one of the most famous arguments in the history of philosophy: the Cogito, deriving from its Latin translation, “Cogito ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am). Essentially, he says that if we perceive ourselves to be thinking then we exist. To clarify, if we perceive ourselves to be thinking in any particular realm, then we exist in the realm in which we perceive ourselves to be thinking. It asserts that because we can make up our own thoughts, then we must exist. Unfortunately, the meaning of Descartes’ argument is often misinterpreted. Essentially, the meaning of the Cogito is a Pyrrhic victory because it assures that, as humans, it is the only true argument we can make. Although, in a sense, it does disprove skepticism, it does not do much better, only assuring that humans know one thing, that we in some sense exist. Even so, this argument assumes that the Cogito is certain to be true. Descartes may have failed to prove anything. As an example, Descartes explains the theory of the evil genius, the possibility that we may be deceived constantly. Thus, our thoughts can be isolated ones, decreasing the possibility that we are free-thinking humans. As a result, because we can still be deceived by an evil genius, and not perceive the highest level of thoughts, we may not exist at all. In essence, the Cogito, because there is no way to remove the possibility of being deceived, does not stand as a belief that can be the basis for the rest of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteDescartes’ argument that we think therefore we exist disproves skepticism. Skepticism is the idea that we really know nothing. Cogito contradicts this idea because if you think and you exist than you know one thing, and that is the knowledge that you exist. If a person is able to even doubt their own existence they exist. You know for sure that you are a being that can form thoughts and that you exist. The Cogito also disproves the idea of an evil deceiver because you must exist for something to deceive you. Yet, the Cogito only proves that you exist and no one else. The only thing you know is that you alone exist. This is a pyrrhic victory because you still only know one thing for sure. You could still constantly be being deceived by an evil genius. Everything that you perceive to be real could actually be fake. Similarly, as we saw in The Matrix, everyone was plugged into a computer system and they believed their everyday life was reality. Yet, in actuality, they were in pods and being controlled by Artificial Intelligence robots. You may realize that you exist but you are stuck with only that piece of knowledge. Your whole life you will only have one piece of knowledge, and most wouldn’t consider that a victory. Descartes argument of the Cogito is efficient in proving skepticism wrong, but people are still left with the sense that they only know one thing.
ReplyDeleteArguably one of Descartes most famous ideas, the Cogito is what Descartes uses to disprove skepticism. The Cogito, or “I think, therefore I am”, is the belief that I exist/have a mind. Descartes says that I am able to say that I exist because I have thoughts; whether or not I have a body, the mere fact that I have them is proof enough that I have a mind and if I have a mind, I exist. This belief completely disproves skepticism because by saying that one believes that we have no knowledge is an ideas and ideas must be thoughts, therefore skepticism could be used as one of Descartes premises that help to prove I exist. Even by only for sure knowing one thing, Descartes disproves skepticism because one is greater than zero. Even though Descartes successfully proves skepticism’s irrelevance, this is a pyrrhic victory, or in other words, Descartes’ victory was victorious in defying skepticism but his victory didn’t get him closer to his ultimate goal, finding the foundational beliefs the help us to prove our beliefs. This is a pyrrhic victory because the idea that I exist is not an easy starting point to branch off of and prove other ideas since it is so closed minded. Using the cogito to prove other ideas is like trying to use things learned in math class to help you with history homework. One cannot do that because the two subjects root from different sources, therefore Descartes needs another candid idea to help with the idea that other things we believe are true.
ReplyDelete