Revising the "Cogito" of Descartes

Descartes settled upon the "cogito"--"I think, therefore, I am"--as the one concept which cannot be doubted.

What utter and complete nonsense.

He could have just as easily said "I doubt, therefore, I am"; or, "I feel as though, all of a sudden, I have fallen into deep water" (the opening statement of the Second Meditation of Descartes); therefore, I am."

That is, if he was looking for the one concept which could not be doubted, it was really not that difficult at all; that concept being "Words convey thoughts."

From there, the next question is quite obvious: What kind of thoughts are there?

Even a preliminary investigation suggests that there are three kinds of thoughts:

1) thoughts of a 'thinker'; which are found in science books, philosophy books, and theology books, etc;

2) thoughts of a "self"; which are found, primarily, in poetry and the lyrics of songs; but, also, short stories and novels; and,

3) thoughts of God; as referred to in Chapter 55 of the Book of Isaiah: "The heavens are as high above the earth as My Ways are above your ways, My thoughts above your thoughts..."; those thoughts being found in the Torah, the Prophets, the Gospels and the Quran.

And a little more extensive investigation would find that there are also other thoughts conveying Knowledge from an "observing consciousness", as in the Buddhist and Eastern esoteric traditions.

Michael

Decartes came to it's conclusion by doing the 'tabula rasa' method. He wanted to find a absolut truth / a thing of which he oculd be 100% sure.

He started by removing all the stuff from his list of which one could be 'fooled'. The perception we get through senses is one of those things. Then he moves on to dreams et cetera.

He finally comes down to his 'cogito', by concluding that the fact that he doubted something is his certain proof that he, for that moment of doubting, existed. So actualy his cognito is : "I doubt, therefore i am" , which he wrote down before coming to the beautifyied expression "I think, therefore i am". (Beeing and thinking as an unseparatable relationship)

Sure are there a lot of different categories of thoughts. But that didn't interesst Decartes nor was it important for his work.
A thought, in the sense he used it, is a 'mecanism' to connect different perceptions with each other, wherever the perceptions come from. With your thoughts you then can turn something in to knowledge (a posteriori or a priori knowledge)

Sry for my english, hope you get it. Most philosophical stuff i read is in french or german :/

reply to post by TheDeader

Sure.

But the problem with all of that is that you create a civilization almost completely consumed with 'truth' as defined by only the consciousness of the 'thinker'. That consciousness becomes, for all practical purposes, equivalent to God Himself.

In other words, 'truth' is to be found in conceptual theories of one kind or another (science and theology), rather than in compassion for the sufferings of others and the whole emotional dimension of human consciousness that makes people human in the first place; the ultimate consequence of which is the creation of a civilization whose science has created weapons of mass destruction, and whose theologies are busily 'justifying' the use of those weapons to exterminate millions or hundreds of millions of other religionists.

This is not a trivial problem.

Michael

reply to post by Michael Cecil


I have to add that "words convey thoughts" is far from beeing an undoubtable concept. To tired now to elaborate on this but just try to read what decartes wanted as he startet his thoughts about that and you'll understand

Originally posted by TheDeader
I have to add that "words convey thoughts" is far from beeing an undoubtable concept. To tired now to elaborate on this but just try to read what decartes wanted as he startet his thoughts about that and you'll understand

I've read Descartes backwards and forewards, inside and out, upside down and right side up.

His concern is the preservation of the consciousness of the "self" through the postulation of the thought of the 'thinker'.

Are you aware of the dream that Descartes had about the same time that he was writing the Meditations?

It was of a person who was severely wounded or limping, can't remember which, on his left leg.

To Jungian analysts, this was very clear evidence of a severe imbalance within his psyche in the direction of thought rather than any real appreciation of the emotions. This creates a consciousness with a propensity to violence because of an isolation from the emotional dimension of reality.

And just look at Western civilization.

Michael

Hmm i think i see where you want this discussion to go. But first things first

- The 'cogito' is an undoubtable proof and i no way "utter and complete" nonsense.
- Metaphysics (including god and other stuff) can't bring you no certain proof, ever. (c.f. Emmanuel Kant & Truth)
- Even knowing how to find 'truth' doens't shield you from human mistakes or behavior. It doesn't turn you 'good'.
- 'Truth' can't be found in theology.

N.b.: i use 'truth' here as it is used in the philosophical context (Kant, Decartes, e.a.)

How the human history evolves is not, and the other stuff you mention is part of politics, sociology, psychology et cetera and can't be related (imho) in any ways to Decartes and his 'cogito'

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
He could have just as easily said "I doubt, therefore, I am"

therefor i doubt you've

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
read Descartes backwards and forewards, inside and out, upside down and right side up

and btw emotions can be used in a positiv / negativ way. c.f.: Fear for protection / fear(-mongering) to get political power

Without emotions the world would (imho) be a better place (but a colder one, i agree), without evil (pychologicaly a reaction to previous emotions and the social env.) persons there would be a big huge immense lot of things less in the world one need to show compassion for.

And Jungian analysis... well...nope thanks

Originally posted by TheDeader
Hmm i think i see where you want this discussion to go. But first things first

- The 'cogito' is an undoubtable proof and i no way "utter and complete" nonsense.

Briefly, Descartes has a 'dog in the fight'.

In other words, he is not, in any way, an objective observer of what is a concept which cannot be doubted.

He is desperately looking for a thought to prevent him from slipping into psychosis.

We are talking about the very foundation of sanity itself.

That thought must be a CERTAIN thought.

That is the meaning of the opening passages of the Second Meditation, and why he cannot say "I feel as though all of a sudden I have fallen into deep water....therefore I am."

That is not a thought that will prevent him from losing his 'mind'.

In fact, it would only magnify the psychological consequences of radical doubt.

Michael

Originally posted by TheDeader
Without emotions the world would (imho) be a better place (but a colder one, i agree),

Ah, yes, the crux of the issue.

Emotions have to do with conscience.

So, you have a civilization without a conscience; a civilization which looks on absolutely unconcerned when millions upon millions upon millions of people are brutally slaughtered.

Not only that, you have religionists of all persuasions foaming at the mouth for even MORE genocide in a desperate effor to PROVE, following in the footsteps of Descartes, the CERTAINTY--or certain TRUTH--of their thoughts or theologies.

Michael

I'm with TheDeader on this one.
That and Descartes is one of my boys! /hugz

There is a flaw. Cogito ergo sum, only proves that
a thought exists. Nothing more. So his entire physical being
could be a deception. All according to classical logic rules & philosophy.

But to judge Descartes by the post modern language of psychology is just unfair.
There was no such thing a the Id, ego, Super ego, The Thinker, subconscious or any
of the other trappings and mostly unverifiable categories that people use to label each other.

In face Descartes was focusing on cosmology and objective reality. His work is best understood
if viewed as an analysis of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (Copernicus), and he viewed
a "Corpuscular Universe". Here is a quote from a Historian of Science's analysis of him.

...was the first man systematically to apply this program to the problems of a Copernican universe. He began by asking how a single corpuscle would move in the void. Then he asked how this free motion would be altered by collision with a second corpuscle. Since he believed that all change in the corpuscular universe resulted from a succession of free corpuscular motions punctuated by intercorpuscular collisions, Descartes expected to deduce the entire structure of the Copernican universe from the answers to a few questions like these. Though all of his deductions were intuitive and though most of them were mistaken, the cosmology that his imagination dictated to his reason proved immensely plausible. Descartes's vision dominated much of science for almost a century after its details were first published in his Principles of Philosophy 1644.

-The Copernican Revolution, Thomas S. Kuhn (c) 1957

In other words, when he says "I think therefore I am" he is speaking
on behalf of the entire universe, not himself as a person in it.


David Grouchy

Originally posted by davidgrouchy
Descartes is one of my boys! /hugz

Descartes is one of my boys, too.

I doubt that there is any philosopher nowadays who has the courage to do what Descartes did.

He came to the very edge of the Abyss...

And then stepped back.

Today's philosophers merely take his word for it.

There is a flaw. Cogito ergo sum, only proves that
a thought exists.

Simply incorrect. It also demonstrates--not proves, but demonstrates--that a 'thinker' exists; thought being a thought of the 'thinker'; which, itself, is a thought.

But there is something else: an apple is not merely an apple. An apple can only be perceived against a background which is "not apple". So, every apple is simultaneously an "apple"/"not apple". Thus, there cannot be merely a 'thinker'. Any 'thinker' is, simultaneously, a 'thinker'/'doubter'.

But to judge Descartes by the post modern language of psychology is just unfair.

I am not at all judging Descartes.

Not at all.

There was no such thing a the Id...

Simply not correct.

At the beginning of the Second Meditation, the "I" who "feels all of a sudden like it has fallen into deep water", is, in fact, the emergence of precisely the 'unconscious' or the "id".

When you see Descartes postulate the thought of the 'thinker', what you are actually observing is the actual construction of the consciousness referred to hundres of years later as the "ego".

In other words, when he says "I think therefore I am" he is speaking
on behalf of the entire universe, not himself as a person in it.

Just because the consciousness of the 'thinker' has created itself by postulating itself into existence does not mean that it is God.

Michael

reply to post by Michael Cecil


I think this comes down to Western Philosophy's tendency to focus on us as individuals and the rational aspects of our nature. That phrase was profound at his time and has remained relevant in modern Philosophy. I am a firm believer of the underlying message behind the phrase, which I interpret as meaning: "I can only really confirm my own existence by acknowledging that I am thinking."

What is often overlooked, and which I believe is what you are alluding to, is that the idea of "I" and "am" may be misleading. "I think" is not the same as "there is a thought", and "I exist" is not the same as "things exist." If things can only exist because they are self-aware of their existence, then how can things that lack self-awareness exist? For example, we know that trees exist but they certainly don't need to acknowledge their thoughts to confirm their existence. Also, we are able to confirm their existence without requiring proof that they are thinking.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
I think this comes down to Western Philosophy's tendency to focus on us as individuals and the rational aspects of our nature. That phrase was profound at his time and has remained relevant in modern Philosophy. I am a firm believer of the underlying message behind the phrase, which I interpret as meaning: "I can only really confirm my own existence by acknowledging that I am thinking."

This reminds me of an objection to this perspective by Nietzsche:

"But if we could communicate with the mosquito, we would learn that it floats through the air with the same self-importance, feeling within itself the flying center of the world. There is nothing in nature so despicable or insignificant that it cannot immediately be blown up like a bag by a slight breath of this power of knowledge; and, just as every porter wants an admirer, the proudest human being, the philosopher, thinks that he sees the eyes of the universe telescopically focused from all sides on his actions and thoughts."

In other words: Who cares about the 'thinker'?

The 'thinker' is NOT the center of the universe.

On this basis, Truth is defined as thought, thought and more thought. People are willing to sacricifice their own lives in the pursuit of one ideology or another--whether religious, scientific, political, nationalist, racialist, etc. etc.--and I have no problem with that. But, then, they are willing to sacrifice the lives of EVERYONE ELSE too. NOW I have a problem.

In other words, it is not the creation of a society of compassion and justice and Peace that is any Truth, but Truth is ONLY that which can be conveyed in words or theories...

Because the existence of the 'thinker' is said to be of over-riding importance.

Michael

Finally something I can agree with you on. I can personally recommend everyone steer clear from solipsism, it is one of the most psychologically damaging philosophies that you could partake in. Solipsism is best described as total dissolution and being crushed under the weight of your own internal monologue. Hardcore solipsism can be refuted with this single statement: "Descartes is dead and you are still in existence". Infact, most of the famous solipsists are dead, and if you'll just go to your window and look outside, you'll notice that the world is still there.

I still plan on making that thread about the Cecil family cult though.

Originally posted by kallisti36 I can personally recommend everyone steer clear from solipsism, it is one of the most psychologically damaging philosophies that you could partake in. Solipsism is best described as total dissolution and being crushed under the weight of your own internal monologue.

Solipsisms are the creation of the consciouness of the 'thinker'.

But the origin of such an intellectual mechanism rests in the consciousness of the "self"; and what, precisely, is the origin of that consciousness; something which is both prior to thought, and something that even the "scientists of consciousness" have no interest in whatsoever.

Mi cha el

According to quantum theory Descarte did not go far enough. "I think therfore EVERYTHING exists" would certainly fit with quantum theory in terms that the universe only exists in observation.

Originally posted by Yissachar1
According to quantum theory Descarte did not go far enough. "I think therfore EVERYTHING exists" would certainly fit with quantum theory in terms that the universe only exists in observation.

Oh, ABSOLUTELY:

The consciousness of the 'thinker' not only 'thinks' itself into existence; it 'thinks' the entire 3-dimensional 'curved'-space reality into existence.

This is why the consciousness of the 'thinker' considers itself as being, for all practical purposes, equivalent to the Creator Himself, having created that entire physical existence out of nothing; which is symbolized in the Revelation of John and the Quran as the "beast of the earth", as is explained in further detail on my website.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by kallisti36
Finally something I can agree with you on. I can personally recommend everyone steer clear from solipsism, it is one of the most psychologically damaging philosophies that you could partake in. Solipsism is best described as total dissolution and being crushed under the weight of your own internal monologue. Hardcore solipsism can be refuted with this single statement: "Descartes is dead and you are still in existence". Infact, most of the famous solipsists are dead, and if you'll just go to your window and look outside, you'll notice that the world is still there.

I still plan on making that thread about the Cecil family cult though.

Solipsism is the ultimate in selfishness/self-centredness. I agree with whoever said it's a product of individualism. Less individualistic cultures simply laugh at the solipsist, as at a 3 year old who thinks the world revolves around him!
Vicky
AFAIK Descartes went further, adding that as he knew he wasn't God, and knew God doesn't lie, that the world and other people also exist.
Sartre made the point that we know other people are not just a figment of our imaginations, because of the way we act towards them, know that they are real because we respond with shame, pride, pleasure etc. We can ignore them, but we're not even fooling ourselves!