Descartes: I Think Therefore I Am

  • Thread starter jduster
  • Start date
In summary: But, at the very least, the idea of "I think therefore I am" is a strong statement that can be backed up with evidence.In summary, Descartes' "I think therefore I am" phrase is a strong argument that can be backed up with evidence.
  • #1
jduster
2
0
Descartes: "I Think Therefore I Am"

In following the rules, I will explain in detail what exactly is up for debate here, so this thread will not be locked.

"I Think Therefore I Am", a common phrase (maybe the most common phrase), was written by Rene Descartes in the 1600's in his book Meditations II. In Meditations I, he "demolished" the certainty of anything existing. His reasoning was that there is no way to prove that his thoughts are deluded or being deceived, as humans have been wrong. Some of the examples he provided was you could not disprove that there is an evil supernatural being tricking the human mind or simple everyday optical illusions that trick the mind. The next day in Meditations II, he wrote that there is one thing that he could be completely certain of, that he existed. His logic was that doubts of certainty were because of deluded thoughts. If there are thoughts to delude, thoughts exist, and "I" (in this case, Descartes) is a thinking being that exists.

Question: Does this common phrase which is often seen as self-evident provide solid proof to remove the doubt of "I" (in your case, yourself) existing.

---

My personal opinion:

Essentially descartes’ proof is:
X is true. Y is true. Therefore, X is true.

His argument is circular. "I think therefore I am" could also be "I am therefore I think".

It’s the same thing as to say unicorns are pink, therefore unicorns surely exist. How could something be pink if it doesn’t exist. It’s tautological. It’s the equivalent of saying apples are red and they are delicious, therefore apples are surely red.

You can replace the word think with ANYTHING. I eat therefore I exist. I dream therefore I exist. I walk therefore I exist. There’s no difference of what you say.

Philosophy is a part of linguistics. We use words, as our only means, to try to prove our ideas to other people. There is so many limitations to language. We may exist, but we are unable to use words to prove it.

Your thoughts?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


I think you went wrong with the "X is true. Y is true. Therefore..."

What "I think therefore I am" means is that whilst any sensory input and feeling can be faked you can't fake the feeling of existence because the being would have to exist for you to do that. I.e. you can convince a conscious being that they are not conscious but you cannot convince a non conscious entity that it is a conscious being.
 
  • #3


Ryan_m_b said:
I think you went wrong with the "X is true. Y is true. Therefore..."

What "I think therefore I am" means is that whilst any sensory input and feeling can be faked you can't fake the feeling of existence because the being would have to exist for you to do that. I.e. you can convince a conscious being that they are not conscious but you cannot convince a non conscious entity that it is a conscious being.

That is Descartes logic. And that applies to Descartes argument for skepticism. That does not necessarily apply to other arguments for skepticism, such as Hume's.
 
  • #4


jduster said:
That is Descartes logic. And that applies to Descartes argument for skepticism. That does not necessarily apply to other arguments for skepticism, such as Hume's.
I'm not sure how that applies to what I said. I was responding specifically to comments like this:
jduster said:
You can replace the word think with ANYTHING. I eat therefore I exist. I dream therefore I exist. I walk therefore I exist. There’s no difference of what you say.
Your mistake was jumping to apply the I think therefore I am logic to other things. It literally only works for thinking/existence/consciousness.
 
  • #5


If it works for anything its because Descartes did not provide a rigorous definition for "I" and, as Ryan points out, it has to do with the "feeling" of existence. Its a nice compelling argument, but so is the idea the Earth is flat and like the idea the Earth is flat there exists endless evidence to the contrary.
 
  • #6


Well, to start a linguistics debate on Descartes is to beg for a ginormous discussion on everything from Nietzsche to Wittgenstein.

However, like someone else pointed out, Descartes was merely indicating that the "feeling" of thought is proof that he exists. Everything else: the world, his body, could be an illusion, but if thoughts are the basis of a human mind, then the fact that he thinks is the proof that his mind exists. Which is what he means with "I am".

Now, of course the language can't quite describe the "feeling of awareness". Nietzsche, for example, pointed out that nothing in the language accurately describes something else. He used to say that the language is full of metonymys and metaphors that aren't actually "the thing in itself", to use a Kantian term. To prove his point, he says that we apply attributes to words that just don't fit with the "thing in itself". For example, in german language, "kitchen", Küche is a female noun. His point is, just how arbitrary is a neutral object to be gendered.
 
  • #7


Thevic said:
Well, to start a linguistics debate on Descartes is to beg for a ginormous discussion on everything from Nietzsche to Wittgenstein.

Nonsense, the OP asked a specific question:

"Does this common phrase which is often seen as self-evident provide solid proof to remove the doubt of "I" (in your case, yourself) existing."

Either you consider it rock sold evidence or you don't and only the psychic network might debate the issue of how you feel.
 
  • #8


jduster said:
In following the rules, I will explain in detail what exactly is up for debate here, so this thread will not be locked.

"I Think Therefore I Am", a common phrase (maybe the most common phrase), was written by Rene Descartes in the 1600's in his book Meditations II. In Meditations I, he "demolished" the certainty of anything existing. His reasoning was that there is no way to prove that his thoughts are deluded or being deceived, as humans have been wrong. Some of the examples he provided was you could not disprove that there is an evil supernatural being tricking the human mind or simple everyday optical illusions that trick the mind. The next day in Meditations II, he wrote that there is one thing that he could be completely certain of, that he existed. His logic was that doubts of certainty were because of deluded thoughts. If there are thoughts to delude, thoughts exist, and "I" (in this case, Descartes) is a thinking being that exists.

Question: Does this common phrase which is often seen as self-evident provide solid proof to remove the doubt of "I" (in your case, yourself) existing.

---

My personal opinion:

Essentially descartes’ proof is:
X is true. Y is true. Therefore, X is true.

His argument is circular. "I think therefore I am" could also be "I am therefore I think".

It’s the same thing as to say unicorns are pink, therefore unicorns surely exist. How could something be pink if it doesn’t exist. It’s tautological. It’s the equivalent of saying apples are red and they are delicious, therefore apples are surely red.

You can replace the word think with ANYTHING. I eat therefore I exist. I dream therefore I exist. I walk therefore I exist. There’s no difference of what you say.

Philosophy is a part of linguistics. We use words, as our only means, to try to prove our ideas to other people. There is so many limitations to language. We may exist, but we are unable to use words to prove it.

Your thoughts?



This is a consensual reality and all 'proofs' require that you accept certain unprovable propositions as axioms(as have done others). I would challenge solipsism on the grounds that as much stupidity as seen in our reality would be a challenge for me to come up with. Same with all the horror and injustice found in reality. This doesn't disprove solipsism, only that certain versions(those claiming that i am the inventor of my own reality) are much less likely.
 
  • #9


wuliheron said:
If it works for anything its because Descartes did not provide a rigorous definition for "I" and, as Ryan points out, it has to do with the "feeling" of existence. Its a nice compelling argument, but so is the idea the Earth is flat and like the idea the Earth is flat there exists endless evidence to the contrary.

The Earth is locally flat, so maybe we locally exist?:tongue2:
 
  • #10


daveb said:
The Earth is locally flat, so maybe we locally exist?:tongue2:

That could also be rephrased as, "The question has no demonstrable meaning outside specific contexts." Certainly we seem to exist in some sense and there is obviously something we refer to as "I", but Descartes was trying to make some sort of sweeping metaphysical argument.
 
  • #11


Aren't you misjudging Descartes' argument? His original premise was "I doubt", and he did. He doubted his own existence. Then he went "Since I am doubting, this must mean I am thinking, because doubt is a type of thought." Okay, so you're thinking. However, you cannot have a non-existent being that nevertheless thinks. So therefore, since he's thinking, he must exist.
 
  • #12


Char. Limit said:
Aren't you misjudging Descartes' argument? His original premise was "I doubt", and he did. He doubted his own existence. Then he went "Since I am doubting, this must mean I am thinking, because doubt is a type of thought." Okay, so you're thinking. However, you cannot have a non-existent being that nevertheless thinks. So therefore, since he's thinking, he must exist.

Personally I find it rather bizarre to think any animal could actually doubt its own existence. Pretend to, sure, but not really doubt its own existence.
 
  • #13


wuliheron said:
Personally I find it rather bizarre to think any animal could actually doubt its own existence. Pretend to, sure, but not really doubt its own existence.
It happens, Cotards syndrome can sometimes manifest in patients as a distinct belief that they are dead and no longer exist. You can even say to these patients "do you exist" and they say "no I'm dead" even though they acknowledge they can see themselves and speak to you.
 
  • #14


Ryan_m_b said:
It happens, Cotards syndrome can sometimes manifest in patients as a distinct belief that they are dead and no longer exist. You can even say to these patients "do you exist" and they say "no I'm dead" even though they acknowledge they can see themselves and speak to you.

Believing you are dead is one thing, but nonexistent is beyond conceptualization.
 
  • #15


I commend to all the story of Descarte's end. He went to a tavern with some friends and after several rounds, when asked by the barmaid would he like another ale, he said "oh, I think not" and he instantly ceased to exist.
 
  • #16


wuliheron said:
Believing you are dead is one thing, but nonexistent is beyond conceptualization.
Conceptualising nonexistance yes but it's entirely possible for a patient to believe that they do not exist due to a psychiatric disorder.
 
  • #17


wuliheron said:
Personally I find it rather bizarre to think any animal could actually doubt its own existence. Pretend to, sure, but not really doubt its own existence.
That's kind of the point here.


A non-existent thing can categorically not doubt anything. If doubt is occurring, the thing doing the doubting - whatever that thing is - exists. And whatever it is doing the doubting is what Descartes calls "I".
 
  • #18


DaveC426913 said:
That's kind of the point here.

A non-existent thing can categorically not doubt anything. If doubt is occurring, the thing doing the doubting - whatever that thing is - exists. And whatever it is doing the doubting is what Descartes calls "I".

So, you know a lot of non-existent things personally I take it?
 
  • #19


wuliheron said:
So, you know a lot of non-existent things personally I take it?

Mm... no. But I can still categorically state that they cannot do any doubting.
 
  • #20


Ryan_m_b said:
Conceptualising nonexistance yes but it's entirely possible for a patient to believe that they do not exist due to a psychiatric disorder.


What about those who believe they exist? Wouldn't it be less dubious to say - something appears to be happening, instead of using loaded words like "I"(which undergoes changes all the time, is hard to define and determinists hold that it doesn't exist in and of itself)?

As a continuation to Decrates' doubt, it is in principle possible(and likely?) that we all share a psychiatric disorder which, because of sheer the number of cases(7 billion), has proved to be the norm(and which we call the reality as we agree on it). There'd be no way to know, as a disorder has to be contrasted to the 'normal' state, which we have assumed to be the prevalent case. And only certain doubts like not being able to understand uncaused events or certain conceptual problems, can give a reason to consider such a scenario and that a different hypothetical breed could have fared better in some circumstances.
 
Last edited:
  • #21


jduster said:
In following the rules, I will explain in detail what exactly is up for debate here, so this thread will not be locked.

"I Think Therefore I Am", a common phrase (maybe the most common phrase), was written by Rene Descartes in the 1600's in his book Meditations II. In Meditations I, he "demolished" the certainty of anything existing. His reasoning was that there is no way to prove that his thoughts are deluded or being deceived, as humans have been wrong. Some of the examples he provided was you could not disprove that there is an evil supernatural being tricking the human mind or simple everyday optical illusions that trick the mind. The next day in Meditations II, he wrote that there is one thing that he could be completely certain of, that he existed. His logic was that doubts of certainty were because of deluded thoughts. If there are thoughts to delude, thoughts exist, and "I" (in this case, Descartes) is a thinking being that exists.

Question: Does this common phrase which is often seen as self-evident provide solid proof to remove the doubt of "I" (in your case, yourself) existing.

---

My personal opinion:

Essentially descartes’ proof is:
X is true. Y is true. Therefore, X is true.

His argument is circular. "I think therefore I am" could also be "I am therefore I think".

It’s the same thing as to say unicorns are pink, therefore unicorns surely exist. How could something be pink if it doesn’t exist. It’s tautological. It’s the equivalent of saying apples are red and they are delicious, therefore apples are surely red.

You can replace the word think with ANYTHING. I eat therefore I exist. I dream therefore I exist. I walk therefore I exist. There’s no difference of what you say.

Philosophy is a part of linguistics. We use words, as our only means, to try to prove our ideas to other people. There is so many limitations to language. We may exist, but we are unable to use words to prove it.

Your thoughts?
I think Descartes overcomplicated it. "I am" or "I exist" are tautological statements in that being or existence follows from the meaning of "I".
 
  • #22


ThomasT said:
I think Descartes overcomplicated it. "I am" or "I exist" are tautological statements in that being or existence follows from the meaning of "I".

But you don't get great truths by saying 'we know it's true because that's what the word means'.

You're right yours is tautological, thus not much use. And we wouldn't be quoting it 4 centuries later.
 
  • #23


DaveC426913 said:
But you don't get great truths by saying 'we know it's true because that's what the word means'.
Well, what does the word "truth" refer to?

DaveC426913 said:
You're right yours is tautological, thus not much use. And we wouldn't be quoting it 4 centuries later.
Right. At least not the way I'm currently considering it. :smile:EDIT: To clarify, if "I" has a pointable referent, then I exist. Don't I?
 
Last edited:
  • #24


ThomasT said:
EDIT: To clarify, if "I" has a pointable referent...
Yes, but how do you know it does?

Descartes is identifying the one thing that can't be explained away: the thinking.
 
  • #25


DaveC426913 said:
Yes, but how do you know it does?
I'm pointing to it. Apparently, it resides somewhere in my head. At least it seems that way. Should I consider this to be some sort of illusion or delusion? And what do those terms mean if we don't have some criterion of reality?

DaveC426913 said:
Descartes is identifying the one thing that can't be explained away: the thinking.
And what is the recognition of "I" ... "me"? Does that require what we call thinking?
 
  • #26


ThomasT said:
I'm pointing to it. Apparently, it resides somewhere in my head. At least it seems that way. Should I consider this to be some sort of illusion or delusion?
Your pointing finger and your head can both be illusions, yes.

But the thing being ... um ... illuded ... - the thoughts - cannot be.
 
  • #27


Prove:
I think therefore I am => I think 'too much' therefore I am 'too much'
 
  • #28


DaveC426913 said:
Your pointing finger and your head can both be illusions, yes.
Could be. Yes. But so far they're confirmed by my friends here. Of course they could be illusions as well. And, even if they're real, their recounting of their experiences could be illusions, or lies. And so on. So what determines truth or reality? Are the words "truth" and "reality" meaningless? Or absurdly ambiguous? Or do they mean something that we can all point to and agree that's there? What's the criterion? What do the words "truth" and "reality" refer to?

DaveC426913 said:
But the thing being ... um ... illuded ... - the thoughts - cannot be.
Thoughts, mental visions, can't be illusions? Then what does the word "illusion" refer to?
 
  • #29


ThomasT said:
Could be. Yes. But so far they're confirmed by my friends here. Of course they could be illusions as well. And, even if they're real, their recounting of their experiences could be illusions, or lies. And so on. So what determines truth or reality? Are the words "truth" and "reality" meaningless? Or absurdly ambiguous? Or do they mean something that we can all point to and agree that's there? What's the criterion? What do the words "truth" and "reality" refer to?
This is Descartes' point, yes. Nothing can be trusted. Nothing.

The only thing he knows cannot be an illusion is that he is doubting. And that means he must exist.

ThomasT said:
Thoughts, mental visions, can't be illusions? Then what does the word "illusion" refer to?
This is getting meta :smile:

Yes, thoughts can be illusions. But the thing that had the thoughts cannot.
 
  • #30


DaveC426913 said:
This is Descartes' point, yes. Nothing can be trusted. Nothing.

The only thing he knows cannot be an illusion is that he is doubting.
Why can't that be an illusion as well? Indeed, that would seem to be a prime candidate for being an incorrect interpretation or apprehension of reality ... whatever that is. How could he/we know?

DaveC426913 said:
And that means he must exist.
I think Descartes existed, just as I think I, and you, exist. We're back to my premise. I think he overcomplicated it.

DaveC426913 said:
This is getting meta :smile:
Meta is ok. When it gets to ubermeta then we need to take a time out and call for pizza.

DaveC426913 said:
Yes, thoughts can be illusions. But the thing that had the thoughts cannot.
I thought you said that it's the thoughts that can't be illusions.

I'm not trying to be inordinately argumentative here. But I have no doubt that Descartes was, and that you are and I am. Am I wrong in thinking that way? And if that's not wrong, then why is it right?
 
  • #31


ThomasT said:
I think Descartes existed, just as I think I, and you, exist. We're back to my premise. I think he overcomplicated it.

You take that on faith. It's a cop out.

Humankind has struggled with that unsatisfactory result for ages. Descartes said: the buck stops here.
ThomasT said:
I thought you said that it's the thoughts that can't be illusions.
No, it's the thing doing the thinking.

ThomasT said:
I'm not trying to be inordinately argumentative here. But I have no doubt that Descartes was, and that you are and I am. Am I wrong in thinking that way?
For 99.99999% of our existence you'd be right.

Let me ask you this: as a cosmologist, would you be satisfied if we had a unified law that explained the entire universe, and it worked perfectly - except inside a black hole? We'll just take on faith that things work out OK there and look the other way. But our law covers EVERYTHING else.

OK, you could live with it. Could your descendants? Do you think after 400 yers, no one would bother solving that little piece?

Humankind has spent millenia being satisfied with 'I'm almost entirely sure my foot and that chair are real'. But the question never really goes away until it's answered.
 
  • #32


DaveC426913 said:
You take that on faith. It's a cop out.
I think that I take that ... by definition/convention. There's no faith involved there as far as I can tell.

DaveC426913 said:
Humankind has struggled with that unsatisfactory result for ages.
That's not unsatisfactory. It's convention. It's a function of our apprehension and recording of what we call reality, and the way we communicate that.

DaveC426913 said:
Descartes said: the buck stops here.
Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am". It's a tautology. The "I am" is implied by the "I think". Descartes might just as well have said, "I am". Whereby, the "am" is implied by the "I".

DaveC426913 said:
No, it's the thing doing the thinking.
So, it's the thing doing the thinking that might be an illusion, but the thoughts themselves aren't or can't be illusions?

DaveC426913 said:
For 99.99999% of our existence you'd be right.
Well then why not 100%. Oh, I see, we're coming to that.

DaveC426913 said:
Let me ask you this: as a cosmologist, would you be satisfied if we had a unified law that explained the entire universe, and it worked perfectly - except inside a black hole? We'll just take on faith that things work out OK there and look the other way. But our law covers EVERYTHING else.
No, I don't think I'd be satisfied, but I might accept that black holes might represent an usurpassable limit to our knowledge..

DaveC426913 said:
OK, you could live with it. Could your descendants? Do you think after 400 yers, no one would bother solving that little piece?
Well, if it really was an unsurpassable limit, then I guess they'd have to learn to live with it. But I would suppose that they would try to solve it.

DaveC426913 said:
Humankind has spent millenia being satisfied with 'I'm almost entirely sure my foot and that chair are real'. But the question never really goes away until it's answered.
Isn't it just a matter of how we define the terms we use? And, wrt that, then my foot and that chair ARE real.
 
  • #33


DaveC426913 said:
Mm... no. But I can still categorically state that they cannot do any doubting.

You can also categorically state the moon is made of cheese, but I prefer evidence myself.
 
  • #34


Anything other than our sensory apprehension of the world is supposition, inference, invention, etc. I suppose that the fundamental reality of our universe might look quite different than the world of my sensory apprehension. But I don't suppose that it's evolving according to different fundamental dynamics, because that would make no sense ... to me anyway.

Back to Descartes. "I think, therefore I am" is a tautology. "I am" is a tautology. This follows from the definitions of the terms. We know that we exist via the conventional usage of those terms. There's no doubt, by definition. I exist. You exist. We exist. It's just how we communicate our experience. Any philosophical problems with this are, imho, pseudoproblems. And it was just this sort of thing that logical positivism intended to clarify. Which, afaik, it did.
 
  • #35


Our existence is self-evident. Whatever Descartes had to say about it is, imho, superfluous.
 
<h2>1. What does "I think, therefore I am" mean?</h2><p>"I think, therefore I am" is a famous philosophical statement by French philosopher René Descartes. It means that the very act of thinking proves one's existence. Descartes believed that the ability to think and reason is what separates humans from non-human beings and is the foundation of our existence.</p><h2>2. Why is Descartes' statement considered important in philosophy?</h2><p>Descartes' statement is considered important in philosophy because it challenges the traditional belief that our senses are the only way to prove our existence. Instead, he argued that our ability to think and reason is the true evidence of our existence, leading to the development of the concept of "cogito ergo sum" or "I think, therefore I am". This statement also laid the foundation for rationalism, a philosophical school of thought that emphasizes the role of reason in acquiring knowledge.</p><h2>3. How does Descartes' statement relate to his overall philosophy?</h2><p>Descartes' statement is a fundamental part of his philosophy, known as Cartesian dualism. This philosophy posits that the mind and body are separate entities, with the mind being immaterial and the body being material. Descartes believed that the mind (or the ability to think) is the defining characteristic of a human being and is what connects us to our existence.</p><h2>4. What criticisms have been made against Descartes' statement?</h2><p>One of the main criticisms of Descartes' statement is that it is circular reasoning. This means that the statement assumes the conclusion it is trying to prove, as the very act of thinking is used to prove one's existence. Additionally, some have argued that the statement does not account for individuals who are unable to think, such as infants or individuals with severe cognitive disabilities.</p><h2>5. How has Descartes' statement influenced modern philosophy?</h2><p>Descartes' statement has had a significant impact on modern philosophy, particularly in the fields of epistemology and metaphysics. It has sparked debates about the nature of knowledge and the mind-body problem, and has influenced other philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche. The concept of "I think, therefore I am" continues to be studied and discussed in philosophical discourse today.</p>

1. What does "I think, therefore I am" mean?

"I think, therefore I am" is a famous philosophical statement by French philosopher René Descartes. It means that the very act of thinking proves one's existence. Descartes believed that the ability to think and reason is what separates humans from non-human beings and is the foundation of our existence.

2. Why is Descartes' statement considered important in philosophy?

Descartes' statement is considered important in philosophy because it challenges the traditional belief that our senses are the only way to prove our existence. Instead, he argued that our ability to think and reason is the true evidence of our existence, leading to the development of the concept of "cogito ergo sum" or "I think, therefore I am". This statement also laid the foundation for rationalism, a philosophical school of thought that emphasizes the role of reason in acquiring knowledge.

3. How does Descartes' statement relate to his overall philosophy?

Descartes' statement is a fundamental part of his philosophy, known as Cartesian dualism. This philosophy posits that the mind and body are separate entities, with the mind being immaterial and the body being material. Descartes believed that the mind (or the ability to think) is the defining characteristic of a human being and is what connects us to our existence.

4. What criticisms have been made against Descartes' statement?

One of the main criticisms of Descartes' statement is that it is circular reasoning. This means that the statement assumes the conclusion it is trying to prove, as the very act of thinking is used to prove one's existence. Additionally, some have argued that the statement does not account for individuals who are unable to think, such as infants or individuals with severe cognitive disabilities.

5. How has Descartes' statement influenced modern philosophy?

Descartes' statement has had a significant impact on modern philosophy, particularly in the fields of epistemology and metaphysics. It has sparked debates about the nature of knowledge and the mind-body problem, and has influenced other philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche. The concept of "I think, therefore I am" continues to be studied and discussed in philosophical discourse today.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
765
Replies
9
Views
601
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
605
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top