In defense of Descartes, the “Meditations on First Philosophy” attempts to explain what else, besides a thinking thing, that I am. However, this section, in the Second Meditation, is only attempting to explain “What else am I?”1 ex post facto the conclusion that I am “a thinking thing.”2 Consequently, this returns us to the perspectives of certainty problem that was part of the “linguistic convenience” argument. In essence, Descartes has not proved anything with precise certainty. I think that Descartes would agree with that statement and refer me back to the First Mediation where he states only “...from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us only once.”3 …show more content…
This argument, however, can be easily refuted by the exposition in the opening of my essay were I explained that the Cogito, ergo sum argument was made in A Discourse on Method, and was not repeated in the “Meditations on First Philosophy”. This at least points to the realization that Descartes had no intention of the argument operating as a syllogism. This, however, does not completely dismiss the problem that I have with the argument. In Descartes: The Project of Pure Enquiry, Bernard Williams offers the best explanation, that embraces my concerns, about the problems associated with the hidden premise argument. When Descartes makes the essential claim that I am “a thinking thing,”4 what right to thinking has Descartes got? In other words, the most that Descartes could claim from “I think” is that “there is some thinking going on”5 Perhaps this objection becomes clearer if it is separated into two distinct expression. The first expression is that I am thinking, or as Descartes would say, “a thinking thing.”6 The second expression is “thinking is going on”.7 Both of these expressions display “possible states of affairs,” with “a thinking thing” being more substantial than “thinking is going
In the Meditations, Rene Descartes attempts to doubt everything that is possible to doubt. His uncertainty of things that existence ranges from God to himself. Then he goes on to start proving that things do exist by first proving that he exists. After he establishes himself he can go on to establish everything else in the world. Next he goes to prove that the mind is separate then the body. In order to do this he must first prove he has a mind, and then prove that bodily things exist. I do agree with Descartes that the mind is separate from the body. These are the arguments that I agree with Descartes.
As a thinking entity, Descartes is a consciousness mind aware of the potential to engage in various modes of existence. To the numerous operations of “thought” he includes doubting, understanding, affirming, denying, willing, refusing, imagining, and sensing. As varied and manifold as these operations appear, they are but expressions of two principal types of conscious activity, to which Descartes eventually traces the nature of error. Thinking and reasoning, together with all belief in general, depend upon the operation of the twin faculties “knowing” and “choosing,” or the free will. Garrett Thompson writes:
The Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes is a thorough analysis about doubt. Descartes describes his method of doubt to determine whether he can truly know something. One of his major arguments is the proof of the existence of God. In this paper, I will attempt to unravel the flaws in Descartes proof that God exists.
Descartes first meditation included a few arguments that Descartes studied and analyze. The one I choose to analyze was his argument of sense deception. The actually argument is the following: (1) My senses sometimes deceive me. (2) If my senses sometimes deceive me, then they might always deceive me. (3) If my senses might always deceive me, then I cannot be certain about any beliefs acquired through my senses. (4) If I cannot be certain about any beliefs acquired through my senses, then I must suspend judgment on those beliefs. (5) Therefore I must suspend my judgment of those beliefs. To put this is premise conclusion argument form, it would look like this:
The mythical phoenix is born in the ashes of its mother once she has been consumed in flame, becoming stronger than she ever was. In Discourse on Method, Descartes hopes to destroy the conventional understanding of philosophy that has been followed throughout the ages, and in doing so establish his own philosophy as the new convention in the ashes of the old philosophy. In this paper, I will present Descartes’ findings of instability in philosophy and distaste for the way people learn as his motivation for undertaking this reconstruction of his thoughts, finding a firm and lasting basis for the sciences as his end goal for the reconstruction, and his rules for conducting thought and code of doubt as the way by which he hopes to achieve
Rene Descartes Meditations is known to be one of his most famous works, it has also shown to be very important in Philosophical Epistemology. Within the meditation’s he provides many arguments that remove pre-existing notions, and bring it to the root of its foundation which Descartes, then will come up with his indubitable foundation of knowledge to defeat any doubt and to prove God is real. Descartes was a “foundationalist”, by introducing a new way of knowledge and with clearing up how people thought about things prior. Descartes took knowledge to its very foundations, and from there he can build up from it. In this essay, I will be discussing Descartes, and analyzing his first two meditations and arguing that he does indeed succeed in his argument.
It is the purpose of this essay to examine both Descartes’ Cogito argument and his skepticism towards small and universal elements, as well as the implications these arguments have on each other. First, I will summarize and explain the skepticism Descartes’ brings to bear on small and universal elements in his first meditation. Second, I will summarize and explain the Cogito argument, Descartes’ famous “I think, therefore I am” (it should be noted that this famous implication is not actually something ever said or written by Descartes, but instead, an implication taken from his argument for his own existence). Third, I will critique the line of reasoning underlying these arguments. Descartes attacks
Descartes uses the evidence of thought to prove the existence of ‘self’. This is highlighted when he said, “if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed.” (Descartes, Descartes: Selected Philosophical Writings, 1988, p. 80). As the concept of thought requires a thinker, the presence of thoughts proves there to be a thinker, regardless of the accuracy of these thoughts (Descartes, Discourse , 2007, p. 15). However, with Descartes approach come serious objections. The most serious objection is the consequences of Descartes’ view of the indivisibility of the Soul, the issues of Descartes’ failure to present a continued personal identity over time. This objection can, however, be resolved by Hume’s scepticism.
What remains as clear and distinct is the concept “cogito ergo sum” (I think therefore I am). Because he is able to doubt, Descartes asserts that it is clear and distinct that he is a thinking thing or “res
Descartes concludes that the attribute of thinking is the only quality that he can justifiably claim at this point. But he is quick to point out that thinking is the only attribute about which he is sure; not that thinking is the only attribute that he has. Nevertheless, this is the starting point of a radical ontological distinction that carries Descartes through his Meditations. That distinction is between a "thinking thing" and a corporeal body. The two are mutually exclusive. A "thinking thing" is nonphysical or spiritual in nature, whereas a corporeal body is physical, but not capable of consciousness or thought. For Descartes, a "thinking thing" is consciously aware of what is around it and doubts, understands some, is ignorant of most, imagines, and feels.
Rene Descartes was a philosopher of the 17th century. He had this keen interest in the search for certainty. For he was unimpressed with the way philosophy is during their time. He mused that nothing certain was coming forth from all the philosophical ideologies. He had considered that the case which philosophy was in was due to the fact that it was not grounded to something certain. He was primarily concerned with intellectual certainty, meaning that something that is certain through the intellect. Thus he was named a rationalist due to this the line of thought that he pursued. But in his work in the meditation, his method of finding this certainty was skeptical in nature; this is ‘the methodic doubt’.
The cogito, “I think” is Descartes’ first certainty and his first step into knowledge. Descartes argues that there is one thing that he is most certain of and even the evil demon can manipulate and make him doubt. He cannot doubt that he thinks because even doubting of a form of thinking and that means that he will be thinking. Even if the demon made him doubt that he is thinking, he would be confident that he is thinking that the demon is making him doubt his thinking. He cannot also doubt that he exists and if he were to doubt of his existence, he would prove that he exists because of his thoughts, and thus his thinking means he exists and hence if he exists then he must be thinking of his existence. Therefore, Descartes extends his certainty
Descartes was incorrect and made mistakes in his philosophical analysis concerning understanding the Soul and the foundation of knowledge. Yes, he coined the famous phrase, “I think therefore I am,” but the rest of his philosophical conclusions fail to be as solid (Meditation 4; 32). Descartes knew that if he has a mind and is thinking thoughts then he must be something that has the ability to think. While he did prove that he is a thinking thing that thinks (Meditation 3; 28), he was unable to formulate correct and true philosophical arguments and claims. For instance, his argument for faith that a non-deceiving God exists and allows us to clearly reason and perceive was a circular argument. Another issue with Descartes' philosophy
Descartes’ method of radical doubt focuses upon finding the truth about certain things from a philosophical perspective in order to truly lay down a foundation for ideas that have the slightest notion of doubt attached to them. He believed that there was “no greater task to perform in philosophy, than assiduously to seek out, once and for all, the best of all these arguments and to lay them out so precisely and plainly that henceforth all will take them to be true demonstrations” (Meditations, 36). The two key concepts that Descartes proves using the method of doubt are that the “human soul does not die with the body, and that God exists” as mentioned in his Letter of Dedication, since there are many that don’t believe the mentioned concepts because of the fact that they have not been proven or demonstrated. (Meditations, 35). In order to prove the above, he lays out six Meditations, each focusing on a different theme that leads us “to the knowledge of our mind and of God, so that of all things that can be known by the human mind, these latter are the most certain and the most evident” (Meditations, 40).
‘Cogito Ergo Sum,’ - ‘I think therefore I am ‘ one of the most famous and well known quotes or arguments in all of modern philosophy; a phrase instantly recognizable to all those studying in the field of philosophy. This phrase refers to an attempt by Descartes to prove with absolute certainty his own existence; a systematic way to philosophize. The argument, while first proposed by ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Saint Augustine, was utilized as an argument by French philosopher Rene Descartes in his influential text “Meditations on First Philosophy“. This argument appears in the books second meditation and provides the cornerstone for Descartes argument in the following five meditations and serves as the basis for Descartes overall metaphysical thesis, without which Descartes reasoning system would collapse. Throughout this paper I will