Question by heeltap: Isn’t the statement “I think therefore I am.” by Rene Descartes fundamentally flawed ?
Isn’t the statement “I think therefore I am.” by Rene Descartes fundamentally flawed because, either a),it is incomplete as it jumps from *thinking* to *being (or existing)* without specifying the metaphysical nature of either, or b), it makes a metaphysical “category mistake” deducing or inducing from something mental, thinking, to something physical, existing . How can a specific thought, which has as of yet, an unexplained nature, become sufficient evidence for asserting the physical existence of a human being?
This is a follow-on question to the Question “Can thoughts exist without the awareness that something is thinking that it is thinking?”
Added details explain how Descartes statement is flawed. If you disagree and think the opposite you must explain how or why it is not flawed. Posting without doing so is a cop out and it ends the Q and A effort.
Best answer:
Answer by sheeple_rancher
I am, therefore I think. It can be no other way.
Did you read “Descartes Error” by Antonio Damasio? He is a scientist/neurologist who goes into the whole question in great depth.
Add your own answer in the comments!
The statement proves the axiomaticness ( self justifying ness) of existence, if you can think, you must be existing in order to think. Therefore, If you can think, you must exist. Hence, ” I think ( and must exist in order to do so ) Therefore I am ”
Basically, Descartes idea is saying that the only thing we truly know is our own existence, we cannot prove anything else ( even other people) because they could be figments of our imagination, so we can only be totally certain of our own existence because we must exist to be able to think and be aware of our own existence
“I think therefore I am.”
Ok, firstly “I” is based around general ideas combined to create an I. Therefore I is an idea based on more ideas.
Thinking is idea-ing.
Am is to exist.
Therefore the sentence really means “Idea Idealizes therefore Idea exists” which is nonsense.
It doesn’t prove an “I” exists, just that ideas exist somehow.
I am, therefore i think. I can only ever be sure of my own existence but i am not doubting other existences since they have an effect on me.
If a thought becomes ‘sufficient evidence’ then surely the being comes before the thought?
I don’t believe that it necessarily implies that there is a physical nature to existence. Rather it implies that one must exist in order to perceive one’s self. A conciousness can exist even if there is not actual body to exist in. It could all just be a facade by an evil genius making us think we live in this world even if we may just be a brain in a vat.
To think is to mentally acquire a sort of recognition of oneself. Thus it proves Descartes’ statement, to recognise yourself is to exist as Satre said in his philosophy on Existentialsm. To give meaning to oneself is to bring oneself out of the “mud” and ultimately exist.
Thinking is a physical act on a miniscule level. Nerve cells bring impulses to the brain and cause you to think. It is a verb, although not considered as an action. Existence is not based on your surroundings but rather on your perception of your surroundings..so therefore existence is in your mind and not a “physical” act. Trumping your metaphysical arguement there…
And to think is an awareness that you can think…so thoughts exist if your id, ego & super-ego will them to exist.
Well, actually Rene Descartes is misquoted. In his Meditations he never says “I think therefore I am”. The actual quote is this: “I think, I exist”.
Note how he omits the word “therefore”, he does it on purpose.
Descartes was trying to see what can be certan of without external input. Letting in the word like “therefore” is suspect because he has not yet proved that logic is correct.
The only point that Desecrates is making is that when he thinks to himself that “I think, I exist” the truth of this statement is inescapable — it just can’t be any other way, while he is thinking it — he knows that he exists.
He called it “the first certainty.”
The best way to see this is to try and meditate by yourself. Clear your mind and say to yourself “I think, I exist” — you will that this is the most certain thing in your life.
I agree with the answer above mine… people often make the mistake of theorizing about the interpretations, rather than the originals in their respective languages.
The statement “I think therefore I am.” has no real value because it compares an action to a condition without cause or effect. It implies that everything that thinks – also exists. Which is acceptable to most but not provable or certain. Secondly, it carries the slightest implication that if one ceases to think that they must also cease to exist… many yahoo users would disappear into thin air.
Now, if the statement were to be “Thinking is the cause of being” it would still be wrong but at least provable or disprovable. The original statement is neither.
I would also like to ask how this statement applies (if at all) to the internet… Does it exist? Does it think? If our thoughts create a concept – does that concept exist? If thoughts are transferable than does that make existance transferable? Now you really see what a jump this statement makes and how truly open it is to individual interpretation. You must define thought. You must define existance. You must identify the relationship that “therefore” implies. Lastly, you must consider all entities that think and exist before accepting it as a philosophical truth.
I thought, therefore I was. Existence can be experienced without the “me” or “my thoughts”
Descartes said “cogito ergo sum” translation ” i doubt therefore i am/exist”. Descartes didn’t care if you have a physical existence; he wasn’t looking if senses is the path to truth; he was just looking for a truth that is undeniable so he thought if there is a thing that i cannot doubt its existence this thing certainly exists.It was then when he realized that the only thing he could not doubt is the fact that he was doubting and from that he makes the thought how can i doubt for my existence if i do not exist. to make a long story short Descartes facing as you said the awareness of was thinking by thought ended up realizing that his acts prove his existence
Fundementally yes I see a flaw.
But maybe it was a more metaphorical statement. Maybe Descartes was saying that thinking creates his concept of himself. He wants to be defined by what he thinks.
If he couldn’t think he is not Renee but a shell of a man.
I THINK your “question” is really a statement with a question mark on the end.
THEREFORE, I AM not going to answer it. ;~)
Yes, Descartes’ assertion is flawed, but not for the reasons you specify. Your option (a) the “jump from thinking to being” is not a logical flaw unless you equate being with substance (which is, indeed, what Descartes does). The first word is “I”, and this implies that the thought, as a whole, is self-referential. It is possible that the “self” is not substantial (meaning: it is not an identity that endures over time), but since the thought references a self (implied in the “I”), there is a limit to how wrong the assertion can be.
The issue is rooted in the nature of language. Words only have meanings in relation to a network of other terms. There simply is no “I” that has any meaning that is not part of a language game (to borrow a phrase from Wittgenstein) in which there are rules for the proper use of the term. In other words, “I” only has meaning because it plays a role in a web of linguistic terms, and this web of linguistic terms implies a system of rules. Something cannot play a role or imply rules unless it exist in some sense. It does not have to be a substance or any sort of physical thing, but it does need to have some ontological status – which is the philosopher’s way of saying that it makes some sort of difference in the universe.
Some entity “x” exists if, for any two identical worlds w1 and w2, the addition or subtraction of x to one world, but not the other, causes the two worlds to no longer be identical. I think we can safely say that if w1 has an “I” and w2 does not, then w1 cannot be identical to w2. There for the “I” exists. It might not be a substantial self, or a physical entity, but it does, at the very least, exist in some sense.
Descartes could have stayed on firmer ground if he has simply said something like: “I think, therefore, there is being.” This being is the ontological ground of the thinking. The being does not have to be something that “produces” the thought, the being could simply BE the thought, and this being need not necessarily endure over time, but here things get even more tricky because the network of meanings that make the thought meaningful would all have to conspire to make it appear as though the being endured over time, even though it does not. This is a logical possibility (just like God could have created the universe 7000 years ago, but made it seem to be 4 billion years old), but the whole thing seems so contrived and far-fetched that most philosophers won’t bother arguing about it.
So Descartes’ argument is successful in grounding being, but it does not guarantee substantial thinking substance, which is what he really wanted.
one might argue so.
it’s not a question of existance, it’s a question of morality.
If you believe in something it becomes a part of you, your values. Your values become a part of your character, and your character is who you are.
You are/will become what you want to be, what you think you should be, and/or what you need to be.
Good answer Nathan… I think what you think, has everything to do with who you are, who you become. I also like the saying, as you feel in your heart…. so… is it with you.
That is a realization of existing ,we don’t exist because we think, we realize we exist by thinking and when there is a thought there is existence too. Thinking is subset of existence.He is right.
No. Don’t be one of those people who overthinks things. You can’t “think” if you “aren’t.”
Don’t read too much into it, other wise you’ll eventually start beleiving that present day computers are alive. Descartes did two thinks wrong when he quoted this. First, he mistranslated it (Cognito ergo sum should be Ego cognito, ergo sum). The second is that he didn’t think of the ramifications of declaring all thinking beings sentient. The statement isn’t flawed, the thinking is.
Wow…So many good responses, and many are justified!
So I will just state my opinion: “I Think, therefore I’m Id”.
(id) not a typo.
it is simple, if you can think is because you are or exit, no hidden meanings there.
what about that theory that the entire world is a figment of ones own imagination? quite a few times I’ve had friends tell me that under that theory, i don’t exist, no one exists, except them (the friend who’s stating this theory)
my reply is always ‘well that’s all well and good but it cannot possibly be true because i know that i exist.’ if you think about it, you realise that the reason i know that i exist is that i have thoughts.
i think that means i think therefore i am. don’t you?
yes but you shud read his forst 2 nedatashun I think thair for i am ia an atimt to dig his way out of a hole
This is imperfect. As per Hindu philosophy the Mind does the thinking and I am the soul who is a witness to the mind and its thoughts.
Even when I do not think i exist! Thoughts are my manifestations… not me!!
If you can manage to think it proves you exist .
???????