The Statement and Limitations of the Reasoning - Essay Example

The Statement and Limitations of the Reasoning Introduction Descartes the well known seventeenth century philosopher’s famous sentence “Cogito ergo sum”in Latin, was originally uttered by him in French, as “Je pense, donc je suis” in his discussion on the certainty of his existence. Cottingham (1986) reasons that in English “I am thinking, therefore I exist” best expresses the philosopher’s statement. Variations on Descartes’ fundamental idea that his thinking proves his existence is seen in the Meditations and in his other works, states Dicker (1993: 45). The famous sentence “I am thinking, therefore I exist” is used in one place by Descartes in his Discourse on the Method, part 4, paragraph 1, where he says, “I noticed that while I was thus trying to think everything false, it was necessary that I, who was thinking this, was something. And observing that this truth "I am thinking, therefore I exist" was so firm and sure that all the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics were incapable of shaking it, I decided that I could accept it without scruple as the first principle of the philosophy I was seeking”. Discussion The Deductive Reasoning Behind Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum” Descartes observed that there were several conflicts in philosophy, state Skirbekk and Gilje (2001), and according to him the only certain method was the deductive mathematical method. It became the determining factor in his philosophy. In a deductive system the conclusions are of little value if the premises are uncertain and only half-true. If philosophy is to be a deductive system like Euclid’s geometry, completely true premises or axioms should be found. According to Moorman (1943) Descartes synthesized Mathematics with Philosophy. The scientific system that Descartes borrowed from Mathematics and from deductive components of the scientific method, led to the deductive philosophical system in which absolutely certain propositions had to be found. “The cogito was an axiomatic statement, one of identity”. Descartes gave objective reality to geometrical extension. The Cogito argument is represented as a compelling intuition about ourselves in relation to the physical world, and it has a close connection with the improbability of materialism, states Slezak (1983). Ayer (1953) agrees with Descartes that the proposition “I am thinking, therefore I exist” cannot be doubted. The Role of Methodical Doubt in Descartes’ Philosophy Descartes’ methodical doubt is a means of filtering out all the propositions that one logically can doubt in order to find the propositions that are logically beyond doubt; and these propositions can be used as premises in the deductive sytem. Thus, the purpose of methodical doubt is not to determine what is reasonable or unreasonable to doubt, but what is logically possible to doubt. But, for Descartes, methodical doubt has definite presuppositions. The individual is the singular thinking subject who asks the questions, and not a group. Thus the certainty of the thinking individual is the answer which is to end doubt for the philosopher (Skirbekk and Gilje, 2001). Descarte attempted to find out what was logically possible to doubt. In the deductive philosophical system that Descartes wanted to create, insights into philosophy, sense perception and logical reasoning were not absolutely certain, hence they could not be used as premises. Descartes proposed the following thought experiment in order to substantiate the doubt of everything that one thought they knew: “Imagine that there is a powerful and malicious demon who is deceiving people, so that they are mistaken without being aware of it. That is, there is an evil spirit who unnoticeably feeds wrong opinions. Then those individuals will not be able to have confidence in what they think they know. The question is: how can individuals know that they are not being deceived by such a demon” (Skirbekk and Gilje, 2001: 192). To clarify the doubt whether anything passes the test, Descartes says that in principle he cannot doubt that he himself is conscious and that he exists. Therefore, he is a candidate that passes the test, and that is, according to Descartes, “I am thinking, therefore I am” or “Cogito, ergo sum”. Reflected insight that cannot be rejected: “he who doubts cannot as a doubter doubt or deny that he doubts and thus that he exists. This is not a logical inference from premise to conclusion, but an insight that the doubter cannot reject”, observe Skirbekk and Gilje (2001: 192). “Individuals cannot doubt their own doubt” forms a small start for an entire deductive system. Then Descartes establishes proof of God’s existence. He moves from the conception of something perfect to the existence of a perfect being: God. According to Descartes, clear and distinct ideas were epitomized by Mathematics. By means of analysis, he found a clear and distinct idea to use as the foundation of knowledge, which is the statement, “Cogito, ergo sum”. According to Descartes’ metaphysics, the world consists of two distinct entities: mind or thinking substance and extended matter; and this formed the foundation of modern philosophy (Shapiro, 1991). The Limitations of the Cartesian Reasoning of “Cogito, ergo sum” Descartes’ ideas which are the building blocks of his philosophy contain incompatible elements since they appear to be self-sufficient but at the same time, dependent on external support. Wolz (1991) states that “Cogito, ergo sum” is not yet fully understood. Several questions are asked by the readers of Descartes’ philosophy regarding the grounds on which Descartes was justified in deriving a general rule from a single experience, the reasons that made its implicit use legitimate, and whether it should not have been stated as a method sanctioned by the truth of God’s existence to be used for further investigations. Some of the philosophical difficulties arising from Descartes’ argument of the Meditations have been posed as Objections by Descartes’ distinguished contemporaries, countered by the author’s own Replies, which were published simultaneously. In the fifth set of Objections, the philosopher Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655) points out that, “I do not see that you needed all this apparatus, when on the grounds you were certain and it was true that you existed. You could have made the same inference from any one of your other actions, since it is known by the natural light that whatever acts exists” (Descartes, 1996: 68). Arnold (1876) observes that the philosopher omits to explain what exactly he means by to be, to exist which express that fundamental certainty established by the fact of thinking. Wilden (2003: 217) states that the Cartesian error appears in several forms. “Cogito ergo sum” was not a clear and distinct idea, but rather a message between a sender and a receiver, and moreover a wish fulfillment like a dream. Cartesian epistemology includes solipsism which implies purely logical paradoxes in relation to communication. In developing the ontological proof of the existence of God, Descartes uses the notion of his own lack of perfection. The main mistake in “Cogito ergo sum” is that it shows ignorance of the way in which truth should be sought. A beginning must be made from particular notions in order to reach universal concepts. Also, “existence” is a vague, meaningless expression, and to become a notion at all, it must be translated into some particular attribute. Further objection to the formula of Descartes is that it does not explain the meaning of sum or existo. Also, there are objections that it is not a real inference or a real proposition, for deductive reasoning (Veitch and Veight, 2005 ). Conclusion This paper has highlighted the deductive reasoning behind Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum”, and the limitations of this Cartesian reasoning. It has been studied by many philosophers and readers, and is considered as the first principle of philosophy. References Arnold, M. (1876). Book Review of Descartes’ cogito ergo sum by Hodgson, S. H., Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mind, 1876. Ayer, A. J. (1953). “Cogito, ergo sum”. Analysis, 14(2): 27-31. Cottingham J. (1986). Descartes. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Descartes, Rene. (1996). Meditations on first philosophy: with selections from the objections and replies. The United States of America: Cambridge University Press. Dicker, G. (1993). Descartes: an analytical and historical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Moorman, R. H. (1943). “The influence of mathematics on the philosophy of Descartes”. National Mathematics Magazine, 17(7): 296-307. Shapiro, A. E. (Review Author). (1991). “The unfolding of a philosophy”. Book review of The magic of numbers and motion: the scientific career of Rene Descartes by Shea, W. R., Massachussetts: Science History Publications. Skirbekk, G., and Gilje, N. (2000). History of western thought: from ancient Greece to the twentieth century. New York: Routledge. Slezak, P. (1983). “Descartes’ diagonal deduction”. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 34(1): 13-36. Veitch, J. and Veight, J. (2005). The method, meditation and philosophy of Descartes. United States of America: Kessinger Publishing. Wilden, Anthony. (2003). System and structure. London: Routledge. Wolz, H. G. (1991). “The double guarantee of Descartes’ ideas”. In Moyal, G. J. D. (ed.) Rene Descartes: Critical Assessments. New York: Routledge. Read More