In this paper, I will deliver a reconstruction of Descartes’ Cogito Argument and my reasoning to validate it as indubitable. I will do so by justifying my interpretations through valid arguments and claim, by showcasing examples with reasoning. Rene Descartes is a French Philosopher of the 17th century, who formulated the philosophical Cogito argument by the name of ‘cogito ergo sum,’ also known as “I think, therefore, I am.” Rene was a skeptic philosopher amongst many scholastic philosophers at his time. He took a skeptical approach towards the relations between thoughts and existence, to interpret his cogito argument as indubitable and whether it could serve as a foundational belief. Rene Descartes statement, “I think, therefore, I am” laid the foundation for his Cogito Argument in the Mediations. Throughout his groundwork we come to interpret that “I think, whatever thinks, must exists, so I exist, and whatever exists is a thing, so I exist as a …show more content…
For how he can be certain that 2+2= 4 and not 5, how can he know for sure that he is not being deceived into believing the answer to be 5 due to a demon. But even if an evil demon did indeed exist, in order to be misled, Descartes himself must exist. As there must be an “I”, that can be deceived. Conclusively, upon Descartes’ interpretations we can come to decipher that in order for someone to exist they must indeed be able to think, to exist as a thinking thing. Through our understanding we can come to learn that the existence of conscious self is not enough to support the claim of a thinking thing, and that he solely exists on the basis of thinking and being a thing being. And so the mediators claim that “ I exist as a thinking thing,” is correct as it can be supported with evidence throughout our
Descartes gave a few arguments that God exists and is real. Desocrates believed our idea of God is that God is a perfect being, he believed he is more perfect to exist than not to exist. Desocrates also believed that God is a infinite being. Descartes idea would be that God gave us this idea to type this paragraph about him so he must be real. When he thinks negative of an idea or thought he wonders if an evil demon plotted those thoughts.
Another refuting claim would be of a ancient thinker known as Rene Descartes who stated “Dubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum” translated as “I doubt therefore I think, I think therefore I am”. A great scenario where this argument would be considered false would be in a imaginary character such as Sherlock Holmes as he is a fictional character who thinks and doubts but he does not exist. In the same way we could think that we exist because we have thoughts but we could be just a computer program playing out its
In Descartes’s time, God is deemed to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient. After the establishment of himself as a thinking being in the midst of systematic-doubt, Descartes relies primarily on reasoning as he uses mathematical and geometrical concepts of 2+2=4 and triangle to derive the idea of perfection where
Descartes, in his Meditations on First Philosophy, used a method of doubt; he doubted everything in order to find something conclusive, which he thought, would be certain knowledge. He found that he could doubt everything, expect that he was thinking, as doubting is a type of thinking. Since thinking requires a thinker, he knew he must exist. According to Descartes if you are able to doubt your existence, then it must mean that you exist, hence his famous statement cogito ergo sum which is translated into ‘I think, therefore I am.’ Descartes said he was able to doubt the existence of his body and all physical things, but he could not doubt that his mind exists.
I will argue that Descartes ' proof of God in theory sounds valid, until one realizes they 're being led in a circle. Descartes has an idea of an infinite, perfect (omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent) being or God. He believes the fact he, a finite being, can imagine such a perfect being, must mean this being instilled the idea in his mind. He claims that this idea is clear and distinct, or in other words, cannot be denied. Therefore God exists, and because God exists, he would not deceive Descartes by allowing him to have clear and distinct ideas that are false (SparkNotes Editors).
It would seem that ascribing existence to the computer engineer is seemingly logical but wrong, since he did not put thought into creating the computer code. However, it would be ridiculous to ascribe existence to the computer since we understand the computer to be a non-thinking thing. In this case, Descartes has to be forced to conclude that the cogito: I think, therefore I am, does not apply in this case, but he is also mistaken. The case applies aptly. For Descartes, when a man utters “I think, therefore I am” he is willing to concede that the man does in fact exist for knowing exactly what he is saying.
While the process that led to his first absolute certainty regarding his existence was impressive, the fact that he proposed his existence as the key to God’s existence demolished the credibility of his argument (Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, p.70). For Descartes to exist, he believed that thoughts must come as a precondition. We understand that thoughts could only be able to process through a living organism. Before and right after the point at which his existence was proven as an absolute certainty, he had not confirmed that other living being could be capable of the same ability, thus if Descartes died then his thoughts would also being lost, his existence would be unproven and the very basis for the existence of God would be gone. The second problem with his argument lied within the cause and effect argument, in which there must exists a God whose presence encompassed everything.
Descartes’ version of the ontological argument offers a logical conclusion for the existence of God. As is consistent among all versions of the ontological arguments, a series of premises are offered, that once excepted naturally draw the conclusion that God exists. Descartes argument builds off of the argument originally presented by Anselm 500 years prior to Descartes account. Arguably, Descartes strengthened the argument through adapting it to his Cartesian philosophy. Although, improvements may have been made, Descartes’ argument suffers from the same fallacious reasoning present in Anselm’s argument.
This essay will now begin the task of laying out the objection to Descartes’
Seen with the Cartesian idea of ‘I think, therefore I am” which is alarmingly a prevalent and an established belief in philosophy. But upon further inspection, the proposition “I think, therefore I am” is something that we could make sense of within a Buddhist framework. Assume Descartes’ ‘I’ is the five skandhas, the ‘I’ (or the fives skandhas) are causing an illusory effect which lead to the assumption of transient, tentative existence. Using radical reductionism, we cannot assume the existence of the world as we know it because the world as we know it is a product of the five skandhas. Therefore, any concept of “I’ we hold is illusory in nature, caused by the five
Existence is something that can be imagined and therefore is false and a fallacy. How does Descartes really know he exists maybe he is just imaging it all and that his premises behind the existence of God are fake as well. If someone exist then they must have been born which would mean that Descartes parents where the ones who brought him into existence, and their parents brought them in to existence and so on and so on. This would mean that God did not create Descartes existence but that someone way far down the chain of human existence started it
We know clear and distinct perceptions independently by God, and his existence provides us with a certainty we might not possess otherwise. However, another possible strategy would be to change Gods role in Descartes philosophy. Instead of seeing God as the validation of clear and distinct perceptions, rather see him as a safeguard against doubt. This strategy, however, is a problem since it re-constructs the Meditations – Philosophical work of Descartes –.This is because it would not be God, who is the ultimate foundation of knowledge, but the clear and distinct
Since time immemorial, man has constantly tried to prove the existence of God, to no avail. From one philosopher to another, the proof for the existence of God has proven to be elusive and mythological. Rene Descartes was one such philosopher who was not satisfied with mere “faith.” In the Meditations, René Descartes discusses what he knows about the world, beginning with what he knows for certain, which leads to what can be doubted and also what causes the doubt. In order to prove these ideas he must establish a foundation for these ideas, which is the existence of God.
St. Anselm and Descartes are known for presenting the first ontological arguments on the existence of God. The word ontological is a compound word derived from ‘ont’ which means exists or being and ‘–ology’ which means the study of. Even though Anselm and Descartes’ arguments differ slightly, they both stem from the same reasoning. Unlike the other two arguments on God’s existence (teleological and cosmological), the ontological argument does not seek to use any empirical evidence but rather concentrates on pure reason. The rationale behind this school of thought
Rene Descartes an academic, scientist, mathematician, and philosopher. Which landed him the title of the father of modern philosphy for defining doubt in everything us humans possibly take for granted, making us doubt in everything we may or may not know. I find this to be one of the biggest issues with one of Descartes main arugments is the fact he believes that the idea of God is impossible through anyone other cause than God, also that any being less than God is not worth of his divine nature, proving that the meditiator cannot be God since he is a thinking thing as my argument pertains aganist Descartes views of how God exists, because if we as humans are all thinking things, God is a nonbeing therefore he has no thoughts or causes to create such thoughts. Decartes reasoning being in this sense he is his god because saying I am gods creation and he gave me this idea because he is my maker, almost like God is creating a trade mark.