Question #1 for Atheists?

Question

A few months ago I attempted a series of questions for atheists. Unfortunately, I didn't start right, and realizing this had to step back for a while to try to think about how I was going to try to discuss certain concepts in a Q & A format. I believe that I'm better prepared at this point.

"I think, therefore I am." What is wrong with taking this as the first principle of philosophy?

Subquestion:

Do you agree with my answer:

Before you can acknowledge, "I think." you have to have thought about something other than yourself. If you had never sensed anything (felt, smelled, tasted, saw, heard) you would never have thought about it.

Try thinking about yourself without imagining yourself either thinking something, or doing something. Difficult, isn't it? Before you can perceive yourself as a thinking individual, you must have thought about something. More than likely, the first thing you had the first semblance of "thought" or "knowledge" about was the feeling of bumping against you mother's placenta. You did not even know, at that point, that you knew this.

Paul S, there is no truth or falsehood in "logic". Logic is contentless. I can say if a=b, and b=c, then a=c, and be absolutely logical. But in the end, I've said nothing. Logic has to be given external content to mean something.

Also, Paul S you seem to know (certainly) that knowledge can not be certain. I understand the sentiment, but such an idea has the danger of undermining science. What is the point of studying the universe if it is not understandable? Better put, what is the point if it is not understandable by us?

Answer 1

What do you mean by "first principle of philosophy"?

Descartes meant to establish his beliefs as true beyond any doubt. He set himself to doubting things he saw and experienced, and finally concluded that no matter how much he doubted, he himself must exist to be doing that doubting. So far, fine.

But then in two quick sleight-of-hand steps (including St. Antshelm's argument), claimed to have established beyond doubt that the rest of the world is largely like what it seems to him, and that God exists. In short, his dogged skepticism went right out the window when he hit the dead end.

In fact, Descartes had simply chosen a bad starting point. He set himself to only believing what he could prove beyond any doubt, and that's an awful standard for knowledge. If you follow it faithfully, you wind up believing only in the truths of mathematics and logic, as knowledge of the world can't be obtained through pure reason. Most people wanting to know for certain did what Descartes did - they pretended not to notice the giant unwarranted assumptions polluting their "pure reason" for the purposes of establishing their prior beliefs.

The solution? Accept the fact that knowledge is not certain: that there is always the chance of being wrong in our claims about the nature of the world. But also take note of the fact that we CAN establish those facts quite firmly - not 100% with no chance of error, but easily firmly enough to build bridges and cities and learn about the universe and develop new drugs and immunizations and the like. Science simply works, and has done more than everything else put together to improve our lives.

Answer 2

I think it's misguided to look for first principles.

But, as first principles, that one's not bad.

As the fella said, I can doubt everything (as an intellectual exercise), EXCEPT my own existence. If I doubt, then there must be an "I" that's doing the doubting.

So, yes, it's irrefutable, or, as philosophers say, self-evident.

But what of it, and why is this question addressed to atheists? And, especially, why isn't it in the Philosophy category (under Arts & Humanities)?

BTW, I think you're not grasping the purpose and nature of this site. This is NOT a disucssion site, but a question and answer site. (Please read the Guidelines.)

Also, it has possibly tens of millions of users, coming and going all the time; only small sub-sets of whom will see any given question.

You may want to explore other avenues, such as Yahoo groups, or more general Internet News Groups, which are more discussiony.

Edit: You're missing PaulS's point. He's rejecting the unrealistic standard of "certain without any possibility of being wrong".

Science does, in fact, work; bridges don't, in fact, just fall for no reason, but usually hold up under their traffic. That's because the designers knew what they were doing.

Holding the idea that, of any one belief, one could be wrong in that belief doesn't mean one thinks that every belief they hold IS wrong.

(See, this isn't a good venue for discussion. You need to find one and use IT, not this question-and-answer site.)

Answer 3

From a position of classical philosophy, its not based on traditional axioms. The classic philosophers based their systems of thought on metaphysical axioms (self-evident truths) such as the principle of non-contradiction and the principle of identity. What Descartes argument succeeded in doing is casting doubt on the external world and sundering the body and soul creating a chasm of dualism. Materialists on one side, idealists on the other. Traditional philosphy, most especially christian philosophy unified the two aspects of personhood making them distinct but insperable.

Now, Descartes errors were numerous. One, he casts doubt upon the external world without any justification. We can be a brain in a vat, we can be deceived by an evil demon, but we have NO proof or reason to think this is the case at all, or even that it is plausible. Secondly, by undermining all reason and metaphysical knowledge, he sucks the veracity right out of his own arguments. In other words, he "upholds reason to destroy reason." If you do not believe in truth or objectivity you cannot come out and argue for something to be true and objective. In order for one to have the kind of absolute knowledge that Descartes envisioned, they must be Omipotent and Omniscient. They must be God and must exist outside of time. Clearly with us, this is not the case. We are limited beings and must accept our limited knowledge. Yet, because it is limited does not mean that we cannot have reasonable knowledge. We may see a part of the picture but the entire thing eludes us. That does not mean that what we do know is invalid.

Those are just some of his errors. Now, I think what you are getting at is his starting point. He went off track in not beginning where traditional philosophers began. That is one of the great errors of modern philosophy, which has spent centuries in doubt debate and confusion.

I'm a catholic, not an atheist.

Peace.

Answer 4

Descartes was wrong. I think therefore I think. Or I am therefore I am.


I think the fore I am is just the basis of existential arguments because it implies that this is all I can be certain of. For that basis it is a first principal of a philosophy.

You can have almost any basis for a philosophy. Philosophy, like mathematics is not bounded by what is real (square root of -1 ?) But as long as the ground rules are set up and built upon logically it can produce results that are meaningful, or it can produce results that are meaningless.

Answer 5

A few people have already made the points about problems with Descartes. I'll mention another that I haven't seen:

Descartes had no justification for the premise "I think." Most modern philosophers will grant him only the truth of "There exists a thought." However, from this fact one cannot get to the existence of anything except the thought! (Including a thinker.)

Unless he presupposes that "I" am the one doing the thinking, he cannot validate the existence of the "I" who thinks.

Answer 6

"I think, therefore I am" is the core of Descartes' dualism, which separates a "soul" or mind from the body. It was his way of saying that if he could think, then he had an observing mind that was beyond his material body. (I'm oversimplifying for brevity.)

While this has been philosophy's prevailing sentiment (a word chosen carefully here), it has lost ground as neurological research has found, through functional MRI and other studies of brain activity, that mind functions have strong and distinct neurological correlates. It seems that the brain has a way of constructing a "self" as a way of carrying out its decision functions, much as we collectively construct "families" to carry out our reproductive and collaborative functions, an "economy" to carry out our need for gaining food and shelter, and "religion" to quell our anxieties about ethics and death.

Cartesian dualism places a greater emphasis on mind, and sets it above the body as a discerner of truth and creator of ideas. It seems that in philosophical materialism, which is diametrically opposed to dualism, "I think, therefore I am" should be reframed, "I think, therefore I function," where "I" refers to the overall workings of body, including neurology, and where the "mind" is simply a construct that is useful in describing one part of that physical functioning.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 7

I think,therefore I am is valid,though not exclusive.If one thinks,then logically one must exist.This does not mean only thinking creatures exist,but if you think,you do.Just about on par with"I breathe,therefore I am.That covers more ground and is just as valid.Many things exist without breathing.One word would have made it more sensible...I think,therefore I am SENTIENT

Answer 8

Given a month, I might flip any theist into an atheist. Although many theists might attempt to kill me earlier than they permit that occur, regardless that. There might absolutely be a factor wherein violence might be their most effective safeguard.

Answer 9

If one thinks, one "is."

but one can "be" without thinking.

ADDED: your subquestion seems to rely on a presumed limit to imagination. You and I may have differeng assumptions, but neither of us has a way to test them.

Answer 10

because we have no direct effect on reality through our thoughts, the only way to effect it is through actions, and there are limitations as to what we can do.