"I think therefore I am" - Decartes

I don't mean to take the air out of the tires of this thread, but DesCartes's famous line is meant for people that are thinking.He was simply trying to get to the very foundation of knowledge. The one true fact which cannot be removed is that since you are thinking, you must exist.I imagine many other living beings think. There is a question of how deeply and about what, but the clearly have brains and make decisions and so have some form of thought.They just don't seem to think so deep that we would call it abstract reasoning, or logical deduction/induction. As far as we can tell they just don't care what they really know, or what can be truly known. Or maybe they figured it out already and are spending the rest of their lives enjoying themselves?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No. He was simply trying to find absolute truths, things which could not be removed by any evidence, nor any logic.I must disagree with Loudmouth in that I don't see the logical error he commited in this statement. He certainly makes quite a few when moving on from that statement, but I think that one is pretty solid.Perhaps he made a semantical error, which leads to much confusion. It might be better if he had stated it as:Since I think, and it takes the existence of a thinker to have a thought, I must necessarily exist. Therefore I know for a fact... since I am thinking... that I exist.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Uhmmmmm... I think one of us has got DesCartes wrong. From how I read it, and it was taught to me, the passage in which he write that phrase, had nothing really to do with establishing cause and effect of thinking and being.What it had to do with was grinding all knowledge down till he found what he could positively know, without any doubt. So it was a more question of epistemology, not necessarily existence. What could he KNOW?And it turned out that he could be made to doubt everything experience had given him... but one thing. He experienced thought, and that meant he (as the thinker, or perceiver of a thought) must exist. THAT he could not be fooled about.From there he tried to build up a body of knowledge using logic. Oh boy, not so hot writing after that.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Please let me know who and where. I never saw an acceptible critique of DesCartes's cogito argument... and I am an empiricist!I think he did a great job of showing what the limits of pure logic can get you with regard to knowledge. Although the irony is that there is still one perception anyway, so even that isn't "pure" a priori rationalist logic. This does not address DesCartes's position at all. I suppose it may have been more accurate for him to have said perceive rather than think, but either is really fine.In the end you cannot be tricked that you are experiencing a thought. You are or you are not. Whether it is true or not is besides the point (and even DesCartes points this out while nixing all the rest of knowledge to get to the bottom).All that one needs is a single perceived thought to KNOW one does exist. This is really losing the point of the argument. You are moving into epistemological arguments which only address (at best) DesCartes's later attempts to acertain knowledge past his own existence.Unfortunately modern epistemological theorists have become bogged down in what you mentioned above and it has killed that field of philosophy.Real (or practical) empirical epistemologists became practicing scientists and worked out methodological naturalism.This message has been edited by holmes, 08-10-2004 06:33 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Unfortunately all my philosophy books are in storage back in the states so I can't easily get to the refs. I like Locke anyway, so maybe I'll scratch around to see if I can find the refs you gave.Unfortunately I'm not going to hold my breath that you are right because I am an avid Hume fan, and I know you are wrong about him.I think you mistake their critiquing the remainder of DesCartes's arguments with critiquing the cogito argument. DesCartes quickly derailed himself after at first setting out a beautiful sceptical position on knowledge, and finding the one thing he could say for sure.He has "clear ideas" and garbage like that to build back up his knowledge base. Boy oh boy did the empiricists shred THAT.But as far as the cogito goes I believe the best anyone can do is point out that thought is still an experience of some kind and so knowledge (even of one's exeistence) relies on experience (which is the position of the empiricists).Don't worry about having been caught sensationalizing. I myself have a tendency for the dramatic while making a point. But do make sure your refs actually address the specific point of debate... that can be embarassing.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)