Does Descartes' proof of the self hold up?

Descartes is famous for his proof of the self- "cogito, ergo sum" or "I think, therefore I am." This seems to be a common sense statement, but I have heard it contested. I have read things from both Russell and Nietzsche stating something along the lines of this: In his statement, Descartes has already assumed that something must think for there to be thinking. Following this logic, one can only say for sure that "there is thinking" and nothing else. I fail to understand how this is plausible. Perhaps it can better be stated "I am conscious, therefore I am", but I fail to see how there can be consciousness without something that is conscious! Also, what would Sartre and Heidegger have to say about this?

Descartes is famous for his proof of the self- "cogito, ergo sum" or "I think, therefore I am." This seems to be a common sense statement, but I have heard it contested. I have read things from both Russell and Nietzsche stating something along the lines of this: In his statement, Descartes has already assumed that something must think for there to be thinking. Following this logic, one can only say for sure that "there is thinking" and nothing else. I fail to understand how this is plausible. Perhaps it can better be stated "I am conscious, therefore I am", but I fail to see how there can be consciousness without something that is conscious! Also, what would Sartre and Heidegger have to say about this?

From the premise "there exists thinking", it does not follow that there is an 'I' which does the thinking.

Yes, but we know something must be conscious of the thinking, otherwise the thinking would not be perceived. "I am conscious, therefore I am" seems to fit the picture.

I'm pretty sure that when Descartes originally wrote this, he put it as "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum". This makes a lot more sense for me, as Dubito means 'I doubt'.

I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am.

The doubting part is the selling point for me. The premise of doubting means there is an ability to question life that proves thought and creativity (doubt), which is an inference that proves consciousness (think), which is an inference that proves being (am).

If a person can think creatively with doubt, then that proves being, at least to the self. I like to think about the robot comparison. A robot has a brain like a computer. This computer can make decisions and produce actions, but it cannot question (doubt) its own being. A robot is then not alive. But if a robot could question its own being and think creatively, which would then most likely inspire desire which would inspire emotion in that being, I would definitely say whoever created that robot is god because they just created life.

To sum up my stance, the addition of "Dubito/I doubt" makes it much more convincing for me to say Descartes brought up a valid and sound argument. I also love the quote in a superficial sense because it reminds me to think with doubt and use my creative thought, rather than go through the motions of life like so many people do #ROBOTS.

Yes, but we know something must be conscious of the thinking, otherwise the thinking would not be perceived. "I am conscious, therefore I am" seems to fit the picture.

Well, it's the same thing with consciousness. There's no way of inferring an 'I' by the existence of consciousness.

In his statement, Descartes has already assumed that something must think for there to be thinking. Following this logic, one can only say for sure that "there is thinking" and nothing else. I fail to understand how this is plausible.

Oh, come on. Surely you've encountered running, flying, writing, etc., floating on their own many a time, without anything engaging in those actions.

Some nouns like to identify or distinguish themselves from others that fall under the same category, whether it is "John Smith who lives at yata-yata-yata" substituting a first-person pronoun for his name, or a computer identifying itself with a string of data, or a bluebird defining its territory to rivals with signature chirps. That supposed one system -- the ultimate generalization reified -- apparently has a bad habit of rebelling against its abstract uniformity as many sub-systems or concrete individuals.

Idontknow suggested I doubt, therefore I think,therefore I am. This impressed me especially when Idontknow compared a doubting self with a robot which lacks the capacity to doubt and therefore has no self.

I am not quite sure that the capacity to doubt equals self. Nor that robots don't doubt, if doubts means comparisons with other possibilities before deciding.

Is it a fact that robots, (I mean those that have a feed- back capacity from environment) do not compare possibilities and probabilities before they act?

Doubting is a strategy within formal logic. If and only if

Nothing holds as proof.The argument is that truth is unknowable for all truths must be validated by other truths and so goes on forever in an infinite regression. Truth is "That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality" but for something to be known as truth it must first be proved so by an other truth(s). "cogito ergo sum" is baseless because "think" and "am" are ambiguous terms.I can see people getting confused here but you just have to take into account that logic is merely a system of reasoning based on the so called laws of the universe we believe ourselves to be within. Logic is a tool which helps us to reason truth from falsity and that is its purpose. But because it is based on the perceived laws of the universe it is not a priori or self-evident and so cannot be taken as truth or fact according to its own logic. I will try to explain further but i am a little tired right now so it will probably be sometime later.

I believe that what Descartes had in mind went something like this: even if everything that I perceive to be existent is merely an illusion [brought about by some all powerful genius] and does not really exist, it follows that whatever is deceived by such an illusion must truly exist, for how can that which is itself only an illusion be deceived. Clearly, that which does not exist is not capable of anything whatsoever, least of all perception - be it real or imagined.

Why does thinking, or any other activity, require an ego-agent? There is the experience and deed of thinking but no need for a subject any more than "raining" requires an "it" to do the raining (as in "it is raining"). It's all a function of our grammar. Deeds do not require doers. Indeed, I am my experiences; they do not happen to a "me". I refer to my experience in a possessive subject-predicate formulation only because of the grammatical rules of speech. The Hindus say "tat tvam asi" (that art thou),pointing to the fact that you are your experiences, not a subject to whom they happen.

Like some of the others have said, I don't think Descartes' proposition "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum" holds up as an unrejectable proof for the existence of the self. The proposition already assumes that there is a self before it reaches the conclusion that there is a self. "I think, therefore I am." Changing the statement to "there is thinking, therefore I am" does not necessarily follow as Jsunya has pointed out.

For deduction to work there must be premises. I don't believe there are any irrefutable premises known to man. We agree/disagree on premises. The irrefutable premises people agree on are called axioms. I think it's fair to say that a conscious agent (the self--however illusionary it may be) is an axiom assumed true by most. In Descartes' proposition, "I think" is not an axiom that many deny. It does however assume there is an I and there is thinking done by that I. These assumptions are what make Descartes' proposition not an absolute proof of the self's existence. If the assumptions (premise "I think") are denied, the conclusion does not follow ("I am").

Yes, if one accepts the premise--as most do--that there is a thinking ego behind our thoughts it will seem to "follow" that thinking entails a self (although the reverse is not always so). However, If one meditates sufficiently well it will no longer seem axiomatic that there is a doer behind the task of doing thoughts.

I prefer: "In thinking there may be the compulsion to imagine a " necessary thinker"

Are you guys saying that questioning ones own existence does not prove a self because it is only our perception that we are questioning our own existence, which perception can never be verified?

No, I'm not saying that; Desartes did.

-- Updated June 13th, 2012, 7:51 pm to add the following --

No, I'm not saying that; Desartes did.

It seems as if most have missed the purity of the thought. The thought incorporates the entirty of the person, the individual the “ I“ and inclusive of the thought itself which gives it it's consciousness It is the validation and verification of self unto itself, and needs no other validation nor verification.

To put another way...

The thought say unto itself “ I am thinking about the thought that I am thinking, thus the thought that I am thinking exist unto me.... Thus I am.

The thought cannot be applied to a group as a collective, because there must first be the collective agreement among the individuals of the group.

When there is unity the collective become singular and the “I“applies. “We think therefore we are“ isn't applicable in every situation, because the we must be first unified by full agreement...and in such a situation it can easily be substituted with I, to show solidarity in their unification.

I is the consciousness of the thought of itself. Am it the awareness of its own existence.