Cogito Ergo Sum: Fallacy?

[Johannes Climacus]

"If the I in cogito is understood to be an individual human being, then the statement demonstrates nothing: I am thinking ergo I am, but if I am thinking, no wonder, then, that I am; after all, it has already been said" - Soren Kierkegaard

There is a hidden premise in the Cogito, because the "I think" premise can be translated as:

"X" thinks
[I am that "X"]
---------------
Therefore I am.

Does Descartes commit the fallacy of begging the question, because the I has already been presupposed in the premise?

[anarchyisbliss]

Even if he has I think whats more pertenint is what he meant, but I do see what you're saying.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I think the beauty of Descartes's Cogito is the other hidden premise: If I think, I am. Since he used Cogito to argue against total skepticism, I assume his point was that 'I' may be defined as nothing more than that which thinks, but there must at least be a thinker. In other words, from the most skeptical position, we may not know what exists because what we observe and think could be misleading or wrong, but we at least know that at least something exists. So Cogito is a very powerful philosophical point, especially when dealing with philosophical skepticism.

[Johannes Climacus]

Something exists, very true, but Heidegger's "Why is there something rather nothing?" question notwithstanding, had Descartes actually "proved it"?

It's more like Descartes presupposed it in the premises, and created a brilliant psychological argument that something exists. How can one philosophically prove existence without begging the question?

(P.S. That's not to say psychological arguments are worthless; by no means. )

[Meta-thought]

Existence can only exist. The word "exists" simply assumes that something is true. Truth is related to context. Existing and being is simply a concept of the human mind that signifies all that it is consciously aware of. Truth exists; if nothing exists, then truth won't exists, and thus if truth does not exists and the phrase "nothing exists" is true, it is thus paradoxic, and self-defeating. Plus, nothing exists would need the concepts "nothing" and "exists" to exists, otherwise, it's nonsensical babble.

[rainchild]

I don't believe that Descartes was making a syllogism or any other kind of deductive argument for the existence of the thinker.

I believe that he was simply adducing the thinker's existence as a self-evident truth.

From there, he uses the characteristics of this truth (clarity and distinctness) and an ontological argument for the existence of God (whose universe is not a deception) to argue that we need not be skeptical about the existence of an external world.

Interestingly enough, the existence of a self has been questioned. The two examples I recall are David Hume's notion that the self is an aggregation of memories, and a young Bertrand Russell's Logical Atomism, in which the self is a "logical fiction."

But as Scott pointed out, our ignorance of the nature of the self doesn't trump our experience of the existence of the self.

Rainchild

[Abiathar]

Personally I find that Rene was a rather strange little frenchman with varied strange ideas. However, I must admit that the concept behind 'I think, Therefore I am' does have some truth behind it, I also think that if reality is not real, then its a fallacy, which has yet to be decided in Philosophical circles. Also, if taken litterally, if you think you are a cactus you do not become a cactus. Now then, Rocks do not think, in-so-far as we can tell, and they 'still am'.

Therefore, the ability to Think does not create reality, and with this I must conclude that, due to the nature of thought not being required, it is true that 'I am, therefore I am' and has nothing to do with thinking.

[anarchyisbliss]

Personally I find that Rene was a rather strange little frenchman with varied strange ideas. However, I must admit that the concept behind 'I think, Therefore I am' does have some truth behind it, I also think that if reality is not real, then its a fallacy, which has yet to be decided in Philosophical circles. Also, if taken litterally, if you think you are a cactus you do not become a cactus. Now then, Rocks do not think, in-so-far as we can tell, and they 'still am'.

Therefore, the ability to Think does not create reality, and with this I must conclude that, due to the nature of thought not being required, it is true that 'I am, therefore I am' and has nothing to do with thinking.

Or what if their existence is proof that they do think based on Descartes' argument. We've heard the joke where Descartes walked into McDonald's. When the cashier asked him if he would like cheese on his hamburger he said I think not, and disappeared. We think therefore we are. They are, therefore they think. It is a syllogism.

[Devamitta]

Does Descartes commit the fallacy of begging the question, because the I has already been presupposed in the premise?

It seems as such. My question about the validity of Descartes statement has to do with what is "it" that "is" in his statement (or "am" to be more precise).

Is he a thought? Is he a producer of a thought? Of the latter, what is it that produces the thought and if an impermanent entity is he not just a coming together of matter and mind in a temporary fashion that "is" for a short time? This leads to is he what he identifies as "am" just a series of thoughts brought together by co-dependent origination, a product of the material world, short lasting, not eternal, no permanent existing self? If his is the case, he is only a series of ever-changing processes with no identifiable permanent structure, no permanent self, and thus is only an "am" in a series of moments, existing for brief periods of times, with no center he can identify as "self".

My point is that we all may be just a series of processes, able to think, make thought, move about this earth in a physical form, completely dependent upon the five senses, which in the end are only receptors of data.

If this is so, than all idea of a "me" existing is rather ludicrous, at least a me in any permanent way that will continue to exist and "be" but for a short span, we being only a series of processes, each with a beginning, middle, and end.

I have managed in the construct of a few short lines to make this "am" completely incapable of forming an intelligble response. And for that please forgive me, but rest assured the duration of the irritation one might feel is short lasting, impermanent, and no part of a permanent self.

[nameless]

"X" thinks
[I am that "X"]

'I am that (one can never be 'that', only 'this') thought.'

Exactly whom is 'identifying' with that "X" ('thought')?

Is the 'thought' saying that, due to it's existence as a 'thought' it, therefore, 'am'?
Would that be the same as saying that I breathe/fart/work/whatever... therefore I am? Seems so. Circular logic?

Perhaps he is saying that all 'being' exists solely (all the evidence so far in support) in Mind.
As it seems to be...

I meditate, often. At these moments, am I 'not'? Does my apparent 'being' while in the absence of 'thought' display the fallacy of the 'Cogito..'?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I assume most people define themselves not as the thought but as that which thinks the thought.

As least in a way, I believe most people's definition of themselves are self-fulfilling, by which I mean they have to be accurate. That is because I believe the self is mostly a conceptual construct. So a person's self is whatever he or she conceptually constructs it to be; a person is whatever he or she defines him or herself to be. In that way, a person cannot define themselves incorrectly because the definition defines its own correctness.

Regardless, Descartes' Cogito ergo sum is powerful because of its simplicity and agreeability. Most people can agree that there is a least a thought being thought, because even to doubt something is to have a thought, and thus people assume that there must be a thinker to think the thought. That is summed up in, "I think." While one could doubt anything else, including the truth or accuracy of one's own observations and thoughts, one still has the observations and thoughts, which presumably entail a observer/thinker, so one then concludes that, "I am." One may not know exactly what one is, but it does seem that Descartes' Cogito ergo sum shows that one can believe that, whatever one is, one is.

Of course, when Descartes' expands on Cogito to prove God and souls and so forth, that is where I disagree.

[Sabinsfiredance]

I agree with you, Scott, on your first point. A person's self is determined to large extent by his understanding and belief about himself and the world.

As for "Cogito ergo sum", I agree with the original poster. Thinking is a form of existence, so of course if you exist as a thinker, then you must necessarily exist. If you eat, you exist. If you exist as a runner, you exist. If you sit or stand still... hell, just about anything.

exception is the "broken unit". When "you" are dead, "you" don't exist.

[nameless]

If irrational, delusional 'thinking' is accepted to not reflect some sort of commonly accepted 'reality', then due to the great number of these sort of cognitive glitches, 'thought' itself is in question in its ability to 'know' or 'prove' anything. The 'tool' is spurious and inadequate for the intended use (to 'prove' one's existence).

"Cogito ergo cogito sum"
There (appears to be) 'thought' and therefore 'thought' (appears to) exists.

'Cogito ergo sum' only says that there is 'thought', if the 'thinking mechanism' is accurately functioning at the moment...
'I sing, therefore I sing.'

[nameless]

Thinking is a form of existence, so of course if you exist as a thinker, then you must necessarily exist. If you eat, you exist. If you exist as a runner, you exist. If you sit or stand still... hell, just about anything.

Right!
Everything exists.
Existence is context.
In one context or another, from one Perspective or another, whatever can be conceptualized exists, and doesn't exist until conceived.