3 Answers

  1. Descartes ' question is not so much the fact of having thoughts as the process of thinking. In short, Descartes ' logic is this: in order to find something that is certain, we must single out what we cannot doubt. And what can we not doubt? That we doubt, that is, we think. Now, if there is a process of thinking (action), then there must be someone who does it. After all, the action is always performed by someone, right? Here, it seems, you can't dig up Descartes.

    You can dig in other places. First, where he postulates on this basis the existence of a single, integral “I”. And is it as complete as it seems? Does the fact of thinking tell us something about the unity of the Self? Or maybe it's a little more complicated, say, like Freud's?

    Secondly, where he postulates on the basis of his conclusion that thinking is the main property of this very “I”. Because, frankly, this does not follow from the first point of reasoning. As one of Descartes ' critics jokingly used to say, “I walk, therefore I am a walking substance.”

    1. Descartes showed virtually the only absolutely logical philosophical statement. It is indeed strictly true.

    Because everyone can check the fact of their thinking and repeat it at any time (just a “scientific experiment”). So there is undoubtedly an object existing in reality with the property “reasonable”, this is “I myself” – for every thinker.

    1. All other objects are already evaluated through our perceptions of reality. Of course, logic also applies to them, and of course “remove other objects from reality by thinking” for some reason does not work )) But still, absolute reliability is no longer available, there is only a certain “accuracy of measurements in certain conditions”.

    2. Of course, this scientific reliability is also sufficient for 100% predictive power in a scientific experiment, and this is exactly why the Scientific Method of Cognition has led to the complete lack of demand for philosophical wisdom (the subject of philosophy has disappeared, there is no result of philosophical “research”).

    However, in the” everyday ” internal sense, based on pure philosophical reasoning, without any effort or expense for experiments on the interaction between objects, and plus with the possibility of constant confirmation – the only absolute confirmation of the “existence” of something will of course be the very fact of one's thinking and existence ))

    You don't even need to listen and you don't need to open your eyes to look around )) It's enough to wake up and make sure that yes, I exist!

    1. Descartes claimed something on the basis of his own (obtained independently, not drawn from books, and related to the material of his own life and thought) experience.�

    2. Descartes did not claim that the cogito ergo sum is absolute truth, but that it is the first (not so much in order as in meaning) that is given to the meditator/doubter directly (i.e., at the very moment of thought),”clearly and distinctly” and is not removed by doubt, since such doubt is already and still a thought.�

    3. Cogito ergo sum is not “his” – Cartesian, just as it is not anyone's personal, individual-psychological one. This is the state that is achieved by mentally rejecting all habitual, but random human (self)experiences.definitions – physical, psychological, and social… What remains at the end of such a reduction? Depersonalized, impersonal thinking – not belonging to any personal subject, but detectable, discernible in the experience of such-is a substance that Descartes called res cogitans (“the thinking thing”).

    4. Therefore, in the already textbook Cogito ergo sum, the Ego – I required by the rules of Latin grammar is omitted (omitted). Not the trivial “I think-therefore I exist”, but “I think and, overcoming the randomness and incompleteness of my thinking, I find that, being in a state of actual (occurring here and now) thinking, I exist as a thinking being”. Not “think – > exist”, but “think = exist”.

    5. Thus, genuine indubitable thought (thinking) really “does not need a thinker”, is not tied to an empirical subject. And this is not a hypothesis ☺ But not vice versa – a thinker without this genuine thought (not the usual objective thoughts about something!), without understanding oneself as a thinker (“thinking of thinking”) it doesn't exist, because it can't be imagined. And this is no pun intended ☺ �

    6. In short, read Descartes '”Reasoning on the Method” for yourself and you will see that here you need to ask in a different way and about something else. Good luck!!!

Leave a Reply