Descartes and his Doubt (Philosophical Diary Part 3)

in #philosophy6 years ago (edited)

Hi there! I am back again. In my last post, I shared some questions and doubts about the world and some thoughts of the famous philosopher of the 17th century -- Descartes. You can find this post here.


Pixabay

Descartes deepest doubt was doubt in his own existence. In the end, he found the proof of his existence is in his own doubt. If he can think and doubt, that means he has to exist. That was the main conclusion. He believed that a human being is a thinking thing. Next question was what is the nature of that thinking thing and what we can conclude about his principle Cognito ergo sum.

He believed that this conclusion (I think, therefore, I am) is the first and most certain of all. This was the only truth for him. After almost three centuries Finnish philosopher Jaakko Hintikka said something about his conclusion. Important thing was that this truth was not deducted from another truth, therefore it is not the result of syllogism. We can understand it as an axiom in geometry from which it all begins.

So, what does the thinking thing do?

Descartes asked himself what he was. The answer was a thing that thinks. And what is that? He described that thing as a thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, refuses, etc. Although he incorporated imagination and observation into Cogito (or thinking), Descartes did not incorporate the body as part of thinking thing.

The important thing was the conclusion that it can happen that our senses are fooling us. We can see the light and that can be an illusion. But, the certain thing is that we do see something. That cannot be false.

Descartes’s principle ‘cogito ergo sum’ (or ‘I think I exist’) was anticipated by Augustine. So, a similar thesis could have been found in the literature long before Descartes. The question is how much influence this thesis by Augustine had on Descartes. Augustine and Descartes have different goals. Descartes wanted to discover an undeniable truth and to find out what is the real nature of the world. Augustine wanted to show that the human soul has three parts. He didn't want to explain entire human knowledge.

book-3311704_1920.jpg
Pixabay

Temptation of Descartes


Descartes says that act of thinking was a basic point for certain (undoubtedly) knowledge: If I think that I exist, it must be that I exist (as I think). If I doubt that I exist then it must be that I exist (as I suspect). If an evil demon fools with me that I exist, then I must exist (because the evil demon has to play with something that exists, in this case with me).

Some younger philosophers believed that this is a mistake in concluding and they gave the following analog argument: or Homer was a Greek or a Barbarian. If he was a Greek, he must exist. If he was a barbarian, he must exist. In both cases, he existed and at the beginning, we said that he cannot be a Greek and Barbarian at the same time. Question is does this analogy is sustainable? However, it seems that something is wrong with the analogy because Descartes says that it is very important who pronounces Cogito ergo sum. In other words, it is very important that I am the 'I' who says it. This cannot be sustainable if we are talking about somebody else, for example about Homer.

What can we conclude about the principle COGNITO ERGO SUM

  1. The principle is not logically derived by deduction.

  2. The principle is not a logical truth (just remember that an evil demon can cheat us about all logical truths and mathematical principles)

  3. We cannot doubt in this principle because it comes from the act of thinking, but it is not performed by thinking. So, doubtless of the existence is based on the act of thinking, as long as we are thinking actively. In other words, cogito and suspicion are not premise and conclusion.

Cogito and introspection or how Hintikka tried to deny Descartes


Hintikka believed that Descartes’s first principle probably had to do something with introspection, but does not come from the act of introspection. He believed that it is pointless to say 'I do not exist'. But it's also ridiculous to say 'you do not exist' because if you do not really exist then that sentence does not make sense when it's spoken. Why someone would say something like that to someone/something that is not real?

Cogito ergo sum cannot be universalized ― anyone who thinks exists. Such a generalization would be wrong. Each of us with an individual's thinking can determine his own existence and in that sense cogito ergo sum is a singular principle.

Hintikka thinks that certainty of Descartes’s principle comes from the logic of using the word 'I'. But this is related to a particular theory of meanings. Hintikka's analysis of Descartes’s principle comes from a set of assumptions about how language and reality are related. Therefore, Hintikka can make an anachronism in his interpretation of Descartes, but also he can put himself in danger of being disputed ― his theory of meanings can be attacked.

Did Hintikka was right?


Problem with Hintikka's interpretation was that Hintikka represented the Descartes’s principle Cogito ergo sum as doubtless of a particular sentence/statement and analyzed Descartes’s sentence through the analysis of the use of the word 'I' and 'to exist' in the language. Perhaps this interpretation may be correct; maybe it can be applied to Descartes, but Descartes definitely did not think of the truth of 'sentence', 'proposition' or 'statement,' nor did he deal with logical language analysis when he formulated his first indisputable principle: in short, Descartes was not a philosopher of the language. That was the main problem with Hintikka's theory.

References


Wikipedia (Rene Descartes)
Wikipedia (Cognito ergo sum)
Rene Descartes, Meditations On First Philosophy
Auxier, R.E., & Hahn, L. (eds.) 2006. The Philosophy of Jaakko Hintikka (The Library of Living Philosophers).

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.37
TRX 0.12
JST 0.040
BTC 70162.45
ETH 3540.43
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.79