Misconceptions of Descartes' Cogito

[ernestm]

Nowhere in philosophy is the 98% what can no longer read more than one sentence before needing to state an opinion on social media more evident than miscomprehensions of the cogito.

Descartes' deconstruction of accepted facts in prior philosophical wisdom directly led to the current scientific method, but as the philosophy of science is no longer taught as part of science degrees in the USA, no one knows that either.

Descartes' reconstruction of consciousness from the fact that the act of doubting cannot be doubted is entirely based on induction. As such it is unprovable, and as time has passed, dereliction from faith in the wisdom of others has by this necessary foundation of all rational knowledge led to the ascendance of nihilism and the continuing eradication of higher-order morality than can be established without accepting notions of goodness as intrinsically meaningful.

[ernestm]

I wrote this post to see if anyone would write anything on Decartes, in companion with two posts on arbitrary rhetorical topics that had nothing to do with philosophy. Since yesterday, five comments were written on the other posts whose writers didnt even read the first line, let alone the title. This post, which actually is on philosophy, was ignored.

[Belindi]

Many thanks are due to Descartes for advancing scepticism. I denounce Descartes for the cruelty to animals that his philosophy endorses.

[LuckyR]

I wrote this post to see if anyone would write anything on Decartes, in companion with two posts on arbitrary rhetorical topics that had nothing to do with philosophy. Since yesterday, five comments were written on the other posts whose writers didnt even read the first line, let alone the title. This post, which actually is on philosophy, was ignored.

Kudos to you on your familiarity with the history of philosophy. I didn't see a question to the Forum. What response were you expecting?

I am much more interested in your take than on those of historical figures.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think our current view of Rene and his cogito is that it is essentially correct, although there are problems with the detail, such as 'who or what is the "I" in "I think, therefore I am"'. But I believe any serious human thinker can use it to prove to themselves - maybe even 'objectively' - that objective reality exists, and "I" am all or part of it.

[Belindi]

I think our current view of Rene and his cogito is that it is essentially correct, although there are problems with the detail, such as 'who or what is the "I" in "I think, therefore I am"'. But I believe any serious human thinker can use it to prove to themselves - maybe even 'objectively' - that objective reality exists, and "I" am all or part of it.

It needs to be reworded so it's not circular. The circularity is in the first person singular of the Latin 'cogito' asserted by Descartes as if the first person were not previously presumed to exist as in "Cogito".

A credible claim is Being is experience which does not presuppose any subject of experience and then set out to prove that same claim, as does that of Descartes.

Doubt was an experience, true. It did not follow that some mind , and mind alone, experienced doubt. Believing was an experience, true. It did not follow that some mind was the experiencer.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think our current view of Rene and his cogito is that it is essentially correct, although there are problems with the detail, such as 'who or what is the "I" in "I think, therefore I am"'. But I believe any serious human thinker can use it to prove to themselves - maybe even 'objectively' - that objective reality exists, and "I" am all or part of it.

It needs to be reworded so it's not circular. The circularity is in the first person singular of the Latin 'cogito' asserted by Descartes as if the first person were not previously presumed to exist as in "Cogito".

A credible claim is Being is experience which does not presuppose any subject of experience and then set out to prove that same claim, as does that of Descartes.

Doubt was an experience, true. It did not follow that some mind, and mind alone, experienced doubt. Believing was an experience, true. It did not follow that some mind was the experiencer.

Indeed. As I said, there are problems with the details. But the cogito does prove the existence of objective reality, and that someone or something - the experiencer - exists too.

[Belindi]

I think our current view of Rene and his cogito is that it is essentially correct, although there are problems with the detail, such as 'who or what is the "I" in "I think, therefore I am"'. But I believe any serious human thinker can use it to prove to themselves - maybe even 'objectively' - that objective reality exists, and "I" am all or part of it.

It needs to be reworded so it's not circular. The circularity is in the first person singular of the Latin 'cogito' asserted by Descartes as if the first person were not previously presumed to exist as in "Cogito".

A credible claim is Being is experience which does not presuppose any subject of experience and then set out to prove that same claim, as does that of Descartes.

Doubt was an experience, true. It did not follow that some mind, and mind alone, experienced doubt. Believing was an experience, true. It did not follow that some mind was the experiencer.

Indeed. As I said, there are problems with the details. But the cogito does prove the existence of objective reality, and that someone or something - the experiencer - exists too.

We would probably agree to disagree about that.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think our current view of Rene and his cogito is that it is essentially correct, although there are problems with the detail, such as 'who or what is the "I" in "I think, therefore I am"'. But I believe any serious human thinker can use it to prove to themselves - maybe even 'objectively' - that objective reality exists, and "I" am all or part of it.

It needs to be reworded so it's not circular. The circularity is in the first person singular of the Latin 'cogito' asserted by Descartes as if the first person were not previously presumed to exist as in "Cogito".

A credible claim is Being is experience which does not presuppose any subject of experience and then set out to prove that same claim, as does that of Descartes.

Doubt was an experience, true. It did not follow that some mind, and mind alone, experienced doubt. Believing was an experience, true. It did not follow that some mind was the experiencer.

Indeed. As I said, there are problems with the details. But the cogito does prove the existence of objective reality, and that someone or something - the experiencer - exists too.

We would probably agree to disagree about that.

Given that the topic title is "Misconceptions of Descartes' Cogito", it seems OK that we should suspend the maxim, long held on philosophy forums, that the 'objectivity' debate () should not be aired in public. So where do we disagree?

[Belindi]

I think our current view of Rene and his cogito is that it is essentially correct, although there are problems with the detail, such as 'who or what is the "I" in "I think, therefore I am"'. But I believe any serious human thinker can use it to prove to themselves - maybe even 'objectively' - that objective reality exists, and "I" am all or part of it.

It needs to be reworded so it's not circular. The circularity is in the first person singular of the Latin 'cogito' asserted by Descartes as if the first person were not previously presumed to exist as in "Cogito".

A credible claim is Being is experience which does not presuppose any subject of experience and then set out to prove that same claim, as does that of Descartes.

Doubt was an experience, true. It did not follow that some mind, and mind alone, experienced doubt. Believing was an experience, true. It did not follow that some mind was the experiencer.

Indeed. As I said, there are problems with the details. But the cogito does prove the existence of objective reality, and that someone or something - the experiencer - exists too.

We would probably agree to disagree about that.

Given that the topic title is "Misconceptions of Descartes' Cogito", it seems OK that we should suspend the maxim, long held on philosophy forums, that the 'objectivity' debate () should not be aired in public. So where do we disagree?

I think we'd have to disagree about the importance that Descartes attached to "Cogito ergo Sum". Existence is not an attribute, a fact the Latin words tend to disguise. In other words, thinking exists, but from that fact it doesn't follow that a thinker exists, let alone that the thinker is a good egg.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think we'd have to disagree about the importance that Descartes attached to "Cogito ergo Sum". Existence is not an attribute, a fact the Latin words tend to disguise. In other words, thinking exists, but from that fact it doesn't follow that a thinker exists, let alone that the thinker is a good egg.

I think existence can be - or 'can be seen as' - an attribute of something that exists. But the sense that you describe is equally acceptable, I think.

Your objection to the cogito seems to be that there might be such a thing as thoughts that lack a thinker. If so, then the thoughts themselves exist, and this in turn proves the existence of Objective Reality, because something exists. Objective Reality exists, and those thoughts are all or part of it. This is the essential truth of the cogito, as I understand it. That Objective Reality exists; that all is not illusion.

[Belindi]

Pattern-chaser wrote:

Your objection to the cogito seems to be that there might be such a thing as thoughts that lack a thinker. If so, then the thoughts themselves exist, and this in turn proves the existence of Objective Reality, because something exists. Objective Reality exists, and those thoughts are all or part of it. This is the essential truth of the cogito, as I understand it. That Objective Reality exists; that all is not illusion.

You do understand my objection to the Cogito. To say "Objective reality exists " is the same proposition as 'Objective reality means existence itself with no remainder'. I agree that if you posit existence you are not deluded but have arrived at an incorrigible truth.

However it's not Pattern-chaser the space-time being who arrived at an incorrigible truth. Who arrived is a bundle of remembered experiences.

[Belindi]

Pattern-chaser wrote:

Your objection to the cogito seems to be that there might be such a thing as thoughts that lack a thinker. If so, then the thoughts themselves exist, and this in turn proves the existence of Objective Reality, because something exists. Objective Reality exists, and those thoughts are all or part of it. This is the essential truth of the cogito, as I understand it. That Objective Reality exists; that all is not illusion.

You do understand my objection to the Cogito. To say "Objective reality exists " is the same proposition as 'Objective reality means existence itself with no remainder'. I agree that if you posit existence you are not deluded but have arrived at an incorrigible truth.

However it's not Pattern-chaser the space-time being who arrived at an incorrigible truth. Who arrived is a bundle of remembered experiences and future intentions.

[Pattern-chaser]

Your objection to the cogito seems to be that there might be such a thing as thoughts that lack a thinker. If so, then the thoughts themselves exist, and this in turn proves the existence of Objective Reality, because something exists. Objective Reality exists, and those thoughts are all or part of it. This is the essential truth of the cogito, as I understand it. That Objective Reality exists; that all is not illusion.

You do understand my objection to the Cogito. To say "Objective reality exists" is the same proposition as 'Objective reality means existence itself with no remainder'.

The best definition I can come up with is that Objective Reality - the capitals denote conformance-of-meaning with Scientific/analytic Objectivity - is:

That which actually is, regardless of our beliefs, opinions, etc.

I agree that if you posit existence you are not deluded but have arrived at an incorrigible truth.

However it's not Pattern-chaser the space-time being who arrived at an incorrigible truth. Who arrived is a bundle of remembered experiences.

It is and it isn't. I say this because "Pattern-chaser the space-time being" and the "bundle of remembered experiences" are one and the same thing. Exactly, absolutely and indivisibly. Two different, and equally valid, perspectives on the same thing.

[Belindi]

Your objection to the cogito seems to be that there might be such a thing as thoughts that lack a thinker. If so, then the thoughts themselves exist, and this in turn proves the existence of Objective Reality, because something exists. Objective Reality exists, and those thoughts are all or part of it. This is the essential truth of the cogito, as I understand it. That Objective Reality exists; that all is not illusion.

You do understand my objection to the Cogito. To say "Objective reality exists" is the same proposition as 'Objective reality means existence itself with no remainder'.

The best definition I can come up with is that Objective Reality - the capitals denote conformance-of-meaning with Scientific/analytic Objectivity - is:

That which actually is, regardless of our beliefs, opinions, etc.

I agree that if you posit existence you are not deluded but have arrived at an incorrigible truth.

However it's not Pattern-chaser the space-time being who arrived at an incorrigible truth. Who arrived is a bundle of remembered experiences.

It is and it isn't. I say this because "Pattern-chaser the space-time being" and the "bundle of remembered experiences" are one and the same thing. Exactly, absolutely and indivisibly. Two different, and equally valid, perspectives on the same thing.

(My black highlight)
Yes, but my perspective ,that Pattern-chaser and I are nothing besides bundles of remembered experiences, explains how the Cogito presumes the existence of a thing, the first person singular, which it claims to prove.

Regarding your earlier point on the post I agree that objective reality exists but this is a matter of faith not reasoning. Objective reality is a thing only as long as it's coherent and not random nonsense.