Personally, I feel like it's better to think of the cogito as a poem, rather than a complete thought. I think the ego-less interpretation fits within Descartes thought process well enough already, as long as you're willing to let the word 'I' have some wiggle room. That's why I'm not personally using that as a basis to disagree with the cogito.

I fully agree with you. At the risk of offending, I think the poetry metaphor applies to much metaphysics. Perhaps not in the conventional way we view poetry. But, at the end of the day, isn't metaphysics necessarily metaphorical? This does not mean it is not deeply enriching to our particular form of existence. On the contrary, like all art, it is very enriching.

You are correct about his conclusion fitting the present. But this "I" which "is," is not the same "I" as the "I" which was nanoseconds ago thinking. The "I" is successive. Just as there isnt really a linear narrative, there are only successive nows. — ENOAH

For Descartes, ultimately, duration is an attribute of a substance, so it would remain through time; but for him, that is only possible because God allows it. It is a convoluted double cop-out, and the two parts don't seem like they fit here. Which is why I made this thread a while ago https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14823/reasons-for-believing-in-the-permanence-of-the-soul/p1

Descarte's discovery was really "thinking therefore is-ing,." It does not rest thus no "am"; it does not rest thus no "I". — ENOAH

There are additional issues to that. When we conclude that that thought isn't ours and we only have a memory of it, we can no longer conclude that anything exists, as that memory is no proof of anything thinking; if anything, it is proof that I exist, because I am remembering it, and remembering is thinking. Furthermore, "someone thinks therefore something is" is a phrase, it is hard to articulate (and perhaps that is the issue) how that phrase translates to thoughts, ¿is it a single thought or 2+ thoughts one after the other? If the latter, perhaps the first "something" is not the same as the second "something".
If the former, when we say "I think" in "I think therefore I am", we can be talking about "I think therefore I am" itself, then it can be taken as self-fulfilling.


Sadly, this thread has reached 1.1 replies.

Relevant article https://www.jstor.org/stable/40694016?seq=4

Very informative.
Also, dishearteningly, so.
Logic. Damn!
It seems there is no place for the thinker to rest their weary head.

I think the "problem" with Descarte's thought experiment is the "I". — ENOAH

Just adding to the "Same." chorus. :up:

...unless Descartes was stating the discovery from his meditations is that "he" is a thinking thing.

In which case he could just as easily conclude that he is a breathing thing; a heartbeats thing; and so on, shaved down to the is-ing thing.

But no. Not if it was he who simultaneously decided he was a dualist. Was it he? Or did we superimpose that upon him?

Personally, I feel like it's better to think of the cogito as a poem — flannel jesus

Is the poem sufficient to give you 100% certainty?

I read the poem and figure out what it means. It's not the poem that gives certainty.

It's not the poem that gives certainty. — flannel jesus

Then what?

The stuff that's already been talked about. I must exist in order to think. I think. Therefore I am.

I can be certain I'm thinking, and existing.

The poem doesn't grant certainty, the poem is just a poem. The poem is there to trigger you to think.

So you think of the Cogito as a poem, and are not convinced by it, but by the argument you find in it?

I don't follow that.

The poem doesn't grant certainty, the poem is just a poem. — flannel jesus

So what grants certainty? Is "I must exist in order to think" an inference? Or an intuition?

I don't follow that. — Banno

You don't follow what? That this poem is stated as concisely at possible for aesthetic purposes, but implies a more complete argument within?

So what grants certainty? — Banno

My thoughts. My thoughts grant certainty to me. Descartes thoughts grant certainty to him.

That this poem is stated as concisely at possible for aesthetic purposes, but implies a more complete argument within? — flannel jesus

So it's a poem and an argument? In your own words, it's not

a complete thought — flannel jesus

You were convinced by an incomplete thought?

My thoughts grant certainty to me. — flannel jesus

All of them, or just the incomplete ones?

I feel like you're asking me a bunch of questions you already know the answers to. This whole "incomplete thought" "poem" line of questions. It doesn't seem very serious to me.

It doesn't seem very serious to me. — flannel jesus

Walk away, then.

The question is, what can I know with 100% certainty? You seem to be claiming the Cogito as the source of your certainty. I'm asking how that works. What you have said in the last few posts does not appear coherent.

you asked questions, got answers to your questions, and kept asking the same questions again. It's not a serious thing, you're clearly not being serious.

So you are convinced by incomplete thoughts. Ok.

I don't think it is I who is not being serious.

That is a very unserious comment to make given what's been said

I told you what I am convinced by, and I didn't say it was an incomplete thought.

You said:

"the cogito as a poem, rather than a complete thought"
"It's not the poem that gives certainty"
"this poem... implies a more complete argument within"
"My thoughts grant certainty to me"

So, what is the compete argument that grants you certainty? Presumably: "I must exist in order to think". But that is not an argument, or at the least is not valid. Sure, something is doing the thinking. Why presume it is you?

Are you just stipulating that you are the thinking?

But then, why did you laugh at the suggestion from @Corvus that you cease to exist when not thinking?

Presumably for you all this holds together somehow. I'm not seeing it.

I fully agree with you. — ENOAH

Then perhaps you might explain it to me?

isn't metaphysics necessarily metaphorical? — ENOAH

Are you suggesting that the arguments in the Second Meditation are metaphors? Metaphors for what? They look very much like arguments to me.

I do not have access tot he full article. What do they take Russell's argument to be, and why do they reject it?

Ooo I take that back. I hadn't logged in. And now the reply I write as an edit to this post has gone into the aether.

Roughly, I take Russell as making a point about the illegitimacy of the move from "Something is thinking" to "I exist". See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-free/#inexp

Sure, something is doing the thinking — Banno

Unless I know it is me, I can't say it is thinking, as I only have access to my own thoughts, not anyone else's.

When we conclude that that thought isn't ours and we only have a memory of it, we can no longer conclude that anything exists, as that memory is no proof of anything thinking; if anything, it is proof that I exist, because I am remembering it, and remembering is thinking. — Lionino

why did you laugh at the suggestion from Corvus that you cease to exist when not thinking? — Banno

Because things don't cease to exist when they don't think. And his suggestion was based on denying the antecedent, which is bunk.

Because things don't cease to exist when they don't think. — Lionino

Well, they do if they are by definition thinking things. That's rather the point. It seems that the defenders of the Cogito now want something like "I am by definition that which thinks", which is not "I think therefore I am", and which has it's own difficulties. In particular, the bit where you stop existing when you go to sleep.

Yes, you went into great lengths about the difference between extended substance and cognitive substance, but having to invoke dualism to solve this issue counts against the whole enterprise.

My general take is that there is no good way to say what the cogito is trying to say. But at the same time, what it is trying to say can’t be denied, and so is useful to science.

My general take is that there is no good way to say what the cogito is trying to say. But at the same time, what it is trying to say can’t be denied. — Fire Ologist

But it is denied...

Here's my position again. The enterprise of the Second Meditation relies on doubt, and doubt is a language game. Doubting some proposition implies a range of other propositions which are held to be true - if only those that set the doubt out. Hence doubt is only possible if some things are held to be indubitable.

The things which need to be taken as granted in order to accept the Cogito include far more than one'e existence. One has to be a member of a language community...

And all this is to show that the very idea of finding some foundation that is "100% certain" is somewhat fraught.

Yup. It’s hard to say anything without presupposing. Even hard for you to say “It is denied” without presupposing all of the logic and games surrounding the words involved.

So it is hard to say what Descartes was trying to say. Established that. Cogito isn’t perfect. But you haven’t denied the existence of saying (something, anything, any game), and the saying is all you need to see what is said about existence.

, your post here: sets out a denial of the need for hyperbolic doubt, while seemingly defensive of the Cogito.

But if you are saying "I am" will do, without the "I think, therefore...", then we can agree.

I am.
..saying that.

I have been.
…saying that.

I say, therefore I am.
(Just ignore the “therefore” if the game of expressing “I say” or “I am” as a conclusion rather than a premise or just a present fact is no fun.)

P = I think, therefore I exist.
Q = I don't think, therefore I don't exist.

P - > Q
Not Q (Q is FALSE)
therefore Not P (P is FALSE) — Corvus

You have this wrong. The logically entailed negation of 'I think, therefore I exist' is 'I don't exist, therefore I don't think' not 'I don't think therefore I don't exist'.

It's a rookie mistake you're making.