DESCARTES' "I THINK, THEREFORE I AM"
Descartes's goal was to arrive at one item of truth that could serve as the starting-point and foundation for all knowledge. His starting point was his famous statement "I think, therefore I am". As Descartes explained, "We cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt …" Descartes asserted that the very act of doubting one's own existence was proof of the reality of one's own mind; there must be a thinking entity; a “self”; a “mind”, for there to be a thought.
According to Descartes, "I can doubt anything. But when I doubt, I am thinking, and as long as I am thinking, I exist. Thinking is inseparable from me. Thus I have a clear and distinct idea that I am a mind, or intelligence, and my nature is a thinking thing. On the other hand, I have also a clear idea of body as an extended and non-thinking thing." He concludes that res cogitans and res extensa are two independent entities. This dichotomy is the foundation of Descartes's dualism. “For all that I am a thing that is real and which truly exists. But what kind of a thing? … A thinking thing (res cogitans).” --- source unknown
Descartes makes three critical errors --
1. Firstly, Descartes commits the logical fallacy of ‘
equivocation’. Descartes high degree of "certainty" of a “thinking” thing (of a ‘mind’ called “I”) derives specifically from his '
experiencing-of-thoughts', and not from his presumed or claimed ‘
thinking’-of-thoughts.
Instead of Descartes immediately stopping and proclaiming to the world, “I EXPERIENCE thoughts!” as his starting premise to derive all true knowledge, he instead takes a blind leap of faith, and falsely proclaims (via equivocation), that “I THINK!” as this starting premise. …which of course is just bad (flawed) logic.
The experiencing-of-thoughts and the thinking-of-thoughts are not necessarily the same thing. One is a passive experience (the hearing of a constant monologue voice in one’s head), and the other is an action (the authoring/creating/constructing of those thoughts that are then experienced). Descartes falsely equivocates the two as one-in-the-same.
Descartes doesn't (can't) really know "with certainty" that he "thinks", for all he can really know "with certainty" is that he "experiences thoughts". He can only presume that he is the “thinker”; the author/creator/constructor of these thoughts. And as a side note: Contrary to popular belief, consciously (knowingly) “thinking” is
logically impossible.
Although the “I experience thoughts” versus “I think” may seem to be a minor nit-picky technicality, it is nonetheless ultra-critical, ...especially if this supposed ("first principle") starting premise is to serve as the 'seed' to derive all 'true' knowledge.
This particular error led to Descartes flawed dualistic position (mind and body), when,in actuality, there only exists a monistic body that experiences thoughts (bits of sensory experiences composed by cultural language rules into meaningful sensations).
2. Secondly, Descartes further compounds his problems by committing another logical fallacy. "I think, therefore I am" is logically flawed because it
pre-assumes the conclusion (it "begs the question").
We have two occurrences of “I” in this famous statement. The "I" in the premise (“
I think”) is already presumed to exist when claiming to prove its existence in the conclusion ("therefore
I am"). This fallacy is called “pre-assuming the conclusion” or more commonly known as “begging-the-question”.
- Similar logically flawed examples:
1. God answers prayers, therefore God exists.
2. Ghosts are invisible, therefore ghosts exist.
3. X does Y, therefore X exists.
4. I think, therefore I exist.
3. Thirdly, Descartes did not go back far enough. If one’s goal is to find the true starting point of knowledge, then the starting premise is of utmost criticalness. This starting premise needs to be ‘absolute and undeniable’. Descartes premise “I think, …” does not meet this level of certainty. Descartes should replace the “I think”, with “I experience”, or to be truly accurate, he should replace it with “Experiencing exists”. Since the “I” has not yet been determined with absolute certainty, it does not belong in this starting premise. For this critical first premise, the ‘experiencing’ itself is the only true absolute/undoubtable thing, and therefore is the only thing that belongs in this starting premise.
So to help Descartes reach his original goal, I have re-written his logical statement that satisfies his original goal:
“Experiencing exists, therefore I (the experiencer) exist.”
But this of course, shoots down his dualistic position. “I” is just the ‘experiencer’, and is NOT a ‘mind’ (nor a 'thinker of thoughts' entity - but only an experiencer of thoughts, ...and feelings, and sensory experiences).
*****