How do I go about answering this question?
December 12, 2008 5:08 PM   Subscribe

I'm stumped with a college seminar question, hopefully just due to semantics. What is the main argument of Descartes, with regards to proving that he is a thinking thing?

My first thought was Foundationalism (the lead-up to the argument of proving that the only thing we can be logically certain of is our own minds. But then Dualism sprung to mind. If my understanding is correct, this theory could also be seen as proof of the mind. At the moment I've started writing about both. But the "thinking thing" phrase is what is confusing me. Thoughts? Thanks in advance.
posted by jhighmore to Religion & Philosophy (15 answers total)
 
Response by poster: There should be another bracket in there somewhere.
posted by jhighmore at 5:13 PM on December 12, 2008


"I think, therefore I am," right? Cogito ergo sum?

And the response, from existentialists and solipsists, is that the first self-referent (cogito) refers to a different "I" grammatically than "sum."

It's foundational, and there's more here.

And while Descartes was a dualist, I don't believe that CES is a dualist argument.
posted by klangklangston at 5:15 PM on December 12, 2008


The Cogito argument is what comes immediately to mind.
posted by dunkadunc at 5:42 PM on December 12, 2008


Have you thoroughly, repeatedly read the relevant sections of Descartes's Meditations (which is available free online if you don't already have it) and not understood certain passages? If so, which are the problematic passages? Descartes is actually a relatively easy-to-understand philosopher for his time (though not as lucid as most writing in the present day), so it pays to focus on his actual language. If at all possible, it's better to use your direct reading of the primary text to understand it, instead of getting your understanding from some middleman who claims to know what Descartes said.

But if the primary source isn't working for you, good places to look would be Wikipedia (as linked by another commenter), the Stanford Encyclopedia ("Cogito ergo sum"), or the Internet Encylopedia ("Cogito ergo sum").

You're mentioning "dualism" and "foundationalism" -- theories that, yes, Descartes subscribed to. That's the wrong way to approach a philosophical problem. Don't start with a lofty theoretical edifice that you can stick an "ism" on and then try to explicate the "ism." Rather, break things down as much as possible into common-sense ideas/questions/images and simple, everyday language. Grapple with it at the level where you would feel comfortable explaining it to a friend, then once you've fully understood it that way you can end up by saying: "and that's _____ism."
posted by Jaltcoh at 5:59 PM on December 12, 2008 [4 favorites]


I think, the way you've worded the question, it has to be the cogito because the proposition that Descartes is a thinking thing doesn't depend on his mind-body dualism. Obviously, we are thinking things; you don't have to be a dualist to recognize that.
posted by smorange at 6:01 PM on December 12, 2008


On post-view: I don't think it's the poster's understanding that's at issue; it's the question the professor is asking. The way it's worded, it's not entirely clear what the prof wants. Maybe the prof wants to hear about the argument for Descartes' existence, and maybe the argument for Descartes' existence qua thinking thing. But I think it's the cogito that he/she wants.
posted by smorange at 6:05 PM on December 12, 2008


What is the main argument of Descartes, with regards to proving that he is a thinking thing?

This is a weird question, because the whole point of Cogito is that no argument is necessary, or available, to prove that he is res cogitans; it is self-evident.

Nam quod ego sim qui dubitem, qui intelligam, qui velim, tam manifestum est, ut nihil occurrat per quod evidentius explicetur.

"That is it I who doubt, who understand, who desire, is so manifest, that nothing can happen to make this more evidently explained."
posted by nicwolff at 6:28 PM on December 12, 2008


Best answer: Foundationalism is the theory that gets Descartes going in the first place, I suppose, because he's looking for a firm foundation for his beliefs. Foundationalism doesn't directly lead to the "thinking thing" argument, though.

Similarly, dualism results from the argument and some later God-related machinations, but isn't the key to the "thinking thing" argument itself.

I might call the most applicable -ism Rationalism. Here's why - rationalism is a rejection of empiricism, and so argues that sense data absolutely cannot be the only/best source of knowledge. This is certainly the case for Descartes, who does not trust his senses for a number of reasons (dreams, the evil genius, basic confusion, etc.) Just to run back through it, Descartes gets to the "thinking thing" phrase like this:

He decides that in order to find a firm foundation for his beliefs and knowledge (Foundationalism), he's going to doubt every piece of knowledge that he has. If he finds that any piece of knowledge is not "clearly and distinctly" true (if it is in any way doubtable), then he will reject it as a possible foundation, because he needs something that is absolutely and indubitably true upon which to build up a store of similarly certain knowledge. He runs through all of his arguments rejecting beliefs, and finally comes to a point where he can trust almost no belief at all - not that he is a physical thing, that he has a body, that his senses tell him anything about the world, et-cetera.

Finally, though, he reflects upon the nature of doubt itself. He recognizes the truth of the statement "I am doubting." What "I" is, at this point, is unclear, for Descartes has rejected the certainty of most of what we would think of as a human identity - embodiment, etc. Whatever "I" is, though, that "I" is doubting. For "I" to doubt, "I" must exist, because something that exists can't doubt. Therefore, the "I," whatever it is, must exist. Better yet, we know something about the "I" - that it doubts. Extrapolating a bit, we can place doubting in the category of thinking, and so can say that the "I" both exists and thinks with absolute, foundational certainty.

This is where "I think, therefore I am" (AKA cogito, ergo sum) comes into play. Another form is "I doubt, therefore I am" (dubito, ergo sum). Descartes knows that this is true because he, whatever he is ("I"), is engaged in the process of doubting beliefs, and whatever takes an action like doubting must exist. Therefore, Descartes knows that he ("I") exists, and that that existence is characterized and proved by doubting and thinking. Thus he calls himself "a thinking thing" as the most basic definition of what he knows himself to be.

Coming back to rationalism, then, Descartes relies not on external sense data, but on the operations of his mind to come to truth. He comes to truths in the process of exercising foundationalism and eventually finds his foundational truths in rationalism. From there, he'll go on to make claims about God and attempt to reassert the existence and trustworthiness of the rest of his knowledge of the world, and it's in there that he asserts his Dualism. The "thinking thing" argument is very much a rationalist one, though, if you think you must apply an -ism to it.
posted by Rallon at 6:53 PM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


Best answer: I teach and test on this question a lot. The 'thinking thing' argument comes later than the famous passage that everyone else here is explicating. Cogito ergo sum does have a kind self-founding-foundationalism to it: "Hey, I may not know much, but I know that there's something here thinking, because... duh...."

When Descartes concludes that he is a thinking thing, however, he's trying to build on that first certain foundation. I exist, yes: but what am I? Well, it's unclear, at this point in the meditation, if I take up space or whether this flesh I inhabit is just an illusion. But I think. I'm a thinking thing.

He is articulating the distinction between the sort of stuff that thinks, the res cogitans, and the sort of stuff we're used to experiencing, the res extensa, 'extended things' that take up space and have weight, color, etc. Basically, having concluded that something (I) exist, he sets out to describe it. And he finds that the usual predicates for things he's used to describing don't apply: am 'I' heavy or light, soft or hard, large or small? The only predicates that are clear and distinct at this stage are the mental predicates: hoping, believing, fearing, doubting, thinking. Well, I'm none of those physical things: I'm a thinking thing.

Contrast with Locke on identity for extra credit, and for real laughs, contrast this with Descartes Passions of the Soul. Two words: pineal gland.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:09 PM on December 12, 2008


Best answer: If you're looking at the Meditations, what you want to do is sit down with the book and look very carefully at just the passages you need. You want to do sentence by sentence, and in the key sentences you'll need to go clause by clause, to unpack the premises of the argument he's working through.
Don't throw your net wide and include everything you can think of about Descartes and the mind. Narrowly focus on exactly what you're asked.

What's the argument he gives for the claim "I am a thinking thing"?

Notice that this is not the claim "I exist", and it's not the claim "my mind is distinct from my body". It's a different claim, and requires its own argument.

Probably the passage you're working with is Meditation II, margin numbers 24-30, and you can even focus more narrowly than that once you've read it through. We're talking about just a few pages here. Read them ten times and try to diagram the argument in the margin in pencil as you go.

Note what suppositions he is working under (which kind of skeptical hypothesis is he entertaining during this stretch -- what is he holding to be doubtful here?). He's taking baby steps to build up his knowledge from nothing. So you want to see how he gets from "I know I exist" to "I know I am [at least] a thing that thinks".

The final section you're working with may be just a paragraph. Again, don't try to throw in everything you can think of. Work through the argument he gives.
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:57 PM on December 12, 2008


Best answer: You should ask your professor to clarify the question. As it stands, it's a bit hard to see exactly what he wants. However, anotherpanacea seems to have at least part of the response that I would be looking for, where I to ask a similar question.

More importantly, you should avoid using any -isms in your response. In fact, you should attempt to speak as plainly as possible, avoid metaphors, jargon, fancy turns of phrase, etc. . If you can't answer the question using straightforward, simple language, then there is a good chance that you don't really know the answer at all. Furthermore, your professor will really, really, really appreciate it.
posted by oddman at 9:02 PM on December 12, 2008


Response by poster: Thank you all for your help. I think my confusion has resulted from me leaping from the "I exist" claim to the "I think" claim.
posted by jhighmore at 4:59 AM on December 13, 2008


leaping from the "I exist" claim to the "I think" claim

That would be a problem all right, as it's backwards.

The nut of the argument comes as he concludes his program of doubting everything that can reasonably be doubted. He finds he can raise a reasonable doubt about the existence of the external world, and even the existence of his body. But when he tries to doubt his own existence as a thinking thing, he finds he can't. How, he reasons, can that which does not exist doubt anything. Doubting requires a doubter (or so his argument goes).

And while this is probably an unnecessary clarification, keep in mind at all times that the "sum" of the CES is not Descartes the embodied human; it is the thinking thing only. Doubting requires a doubter, but it doesn't follow that that doubter must have a physical body, only that it be capable of thinking. Since we can at least imagine the possibility of a disembodied thinker, that is all the cogito is held to prove. His subsequent argument that his body and the external world must then exist as well is much more complicated and problematic.
posted by bricoleur at 5:47 AM on December 13, 2008 [1 favorite]


I had question like this once on one of my Philosophy exams a couple years ago. What the professor had wanted us to do was take the idea of doubting is a form of thinking, thinking predicates a sort of being, being predicates that there something that is. He is thinking, therefor he exists, at least as a vehicle for thought, and not necessarily as anything physical -- he knows he's a "thinking thing".

What's ambiguous about the way the question is asked is that it's so broad. Descartes uses a progression of his thoughts in a big way, but also backs up his claims with specific examples. You'll have to ask your professor if s/he wants big picture or little picture. It's been a bit since I've read Meditations (and I can't find it! dammit!), so I can't think of any of the specifics off the top, but s/he may want you to deconstruct one of those. I really have no idea.
posted by Gular at 9:16 AM on December 13, 2008


I don't think it's the poster's understanding that's at issue; it's the question the professor is asking. The way it's worded, it's not entirely clear what the prof wants.

Asking how Descartes proves he's a thinking thing is about the most common question you could ask about Descartes in a college class. I'm not saying it's easy -- philosophy is hard -- but it's a perfectly straightforward and legitimate question.
posted by Jaltcoh at 10:48 AM on December 13, 2008


« Older Film of 70s(?) group on road trip   |   What do I do with my luggage? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.