English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

4 answers

No. The phrase "I think therefore I am" is a fallacy (insofar as this is Descartes' attempt at empirical skepticism). The presumption that thought must necessarily involve the presence of a thinker could merely be the result of a mental habit from language (i.e., the predicate of a sentence always relates to a subject). It is an assumption that because something is being done, there must be an entity that is doing it. What if thought is just a reactive process that happens in a vacuum, without a thinker? Descartes doesn't address this. A true skeptic would concede the possibility, at least (Hume certainly did). He's not really an empirical skeptic anyway -- he's only feigning to be one to prove his rationalism.

I especially find it problematic that he uses this maxim to prove the existence of the Christian god and, by proxy, the material world. I'm way too drunk to expound on this in detail, so I'll just discredit one of his crucial steps in the logic he uses. The idea that God is perfect, and perfection cannot beget imperfection, is patently absurd. If the Christian God exists, then the idea that perfection cannot beget imperfection is false -- Christianity's view of humanity is that humanity is, by its very nature, imperfect. Therefore, perfection *can* beget imperfection. Likewise, unlike Descartes, a true skeptic would concede that it's entirely possible a perfect god would deceive people. Descartes, on the other hand, believes because God is perfect, he is incapable of deception: We can't prove that a perfect god's logic would be that deception is imperfect. Especially if this god defines the natural laws of the universe: If he does, he can decide whether deception is perfect or not.

Like I said people -- I'm really drunk, I apologize if this makes no sense.

2006-12-05 19:49:59 · answer #1 · answered by Dr. Rock 2 · 0 0

. . . Philosophy Built On Wax
[Or: Reality is NOT What U Perceive]
.
So the Great Doubter sayeth to himself:
.
"All these philosophies of yesteryear claim to show us
knowledge of very many things, but the conclusions of
their reasonings are not knowledge at all, but merely
opinion, for their truths lack the rigor and clarity of
mathematics. Therefore all their works are lacking in
true knowledge; for true knowledge must be simple
and clear to the point of absolute certainty, so as to be
incapable of being doubted. Away with them all then,
and let us begin anew! Let us build philosophy upon firm
foundations of certainty and reliable knowledge. Let us
begin by doubting everything; and then admit only that
which has passed the test of doubt.
.
"What, then, can we really know about the world? Can
we trust in our senses to give us accurate information
about all the things in the world? Look at this funny
lump of wax here on my table. Now it is cold and hard
and solid as a rock. But when I apply a little heat to it, it
becomes warm and soft and pliable as dough. And when
I apply even more heat it becomes a liquid; clear and
smelly and too hot to handle. What then do my senses
tell me about the nature of wax? That it is hot and cold,
soft and hard, solid and liquid, colorless and colorful,
odorless and stinky.
.
"Clearly this is most absurd; a contradiction of terms
that makes no logical sense whatsoever! Therefore
our senses are ultimately unreliable and incapable of
providing us with true knowledge about the world.
Therefore only Reason can provide our minds with the
true knowledge that we need. And the most basic truth
that escapes all doubt is the fact of my own personal
awareness, and the fact that this awareness (ie. this
'I') is now doubting and reasoning: . . .
I think, therefore I am!"
.
Now the most curious thing about Descartes' new
method of philosophy is the strange way in which he
dismisses the senses as a source of reliable information
about the world. Please note that he uses the
experimental and empirical method (so beloved by
science), such that he could just as easily have said, 'I
observe, therefore I am' (ie. observing is logically prior
to thinking and reasoning about what you observe).
.
Thus Descartes observes the wax as it moves from one
physical condition to the next in response to external
forces being directed upon it (ie. fire). He very carefully
observes these changing states and conditions of the
wax, and the sensory data / information that they
provide, and then concludes that because wax behaves
so irrationally (by providing contradictory sensory data)
that our senses cannot be trusted. In other words,
Descartes relies upon the accuracy of sense perception
to show that the senses are unreliable! Apparently this
little contradiction, this little logical inconsistency, this
minor wrench in the gears as it were, was beyond (or
perhaps beneath) his notice. :(

2006-12-06 14:51:29 · answer #2 · answered by ? 2 · 0 0

No. The details are too long to relate here; see reference, or any text on philosophy.

2006-12-05 19:33:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

i dont know.

2006-12-05 19:11:34 · answer #4 · answered by les miserables 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers