Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Philosophy Rethinking Cogito Rethinking Cogito It is the purpose of this essay to examine both Descartes’ Cogito argument and his skepticism towards small and universal elements, as well as the implications these arguments have on each other. First, I will summarize and explain the skepticism Descartes’ brings to bear on small and universal elements in his first meditation. Second, I will summarize and explain the Cogito argument, Descartes’ famous “I think, therefore I am” (it should be noted that this famous implication is not actually something ever said or written by Descartes, but instead, an implication taken from his argument for his own existence). Third, I will critique the line of reasoning underlying these arguments. Descartes attacks small and universal elements with the problem posed by the possibility of God being an omnipotent deceiver, but he seems to think his Cogito argument is immune from this type of criticism. Fourth, I will show how the Cogito is actually harder to establish than the existence of small and universal elements. And, fifth, I will establish small and universal elements as an Archimedean point In Descartes’ first meditation, paragraphs 9-12, he arrives at the final and most devastating stage of questioning his beliefs. In his first two stages, he questions both small and distant objects and medium sized objects, and concludes that neither can be held as true with any certainty. He throws out the first because of the possibility that the small and distant object is a mirage, and throws out the second because of the possibility that we are actually dreaming while perceiving medium sized objects. In his third and final stage of doubt, Descartes’ examines small and universal elements. To this category belong things such as mathematics and the Law of Non-contradiction, which deal with the most basic and elementary of concepts; such as that 2 + 2 = 4, and that one cannot be both alive and dead at the same time. Descartes attacks the possibility of certainty with regards to the existence of small and universal elements with the possibility of our thoughts being altered by an omnipotent deceiver. In paragraph nine, he states, “How do I know that he did not bring it about that there be no Earth at all, no heavens, no extended thing, no figure, no size, no place, and yet all these things should seem to me to exist precisely as they appear to do now.” His point is that this omnipotent evil deceiver could create in our minds an understanding of mathematics and logic that is at odds with reality, causing us to construe everything wrongly. Thus Descartes ends this final and devastating doubt with the preliminary conclusion that everything he perceives can be called into doubt. Descartes answers his seemingly hopeless skepticism from the first meditation with the Cogito. The basic point of his Cogito argument is that for me to either perceive awry, or even to doubt my own existence, I must exist. It is, as Descartes says, “’I am, I exist’ is necessarily true every time it is uttered by me or conceived in my mind (Med2, par3).” He makes two arguments for the Cogito in his second meditation. Descartes arrives at the Cogito through the notion of an omnipotent deceiver actually. He starts to question his own existence with the possibility that maybe even he doesn’t exist and the deceiver has managed to fool him into thinking so. But, in thinking this thought, Descartes realizes that for the omnipotent deceiver to fool him, he would actually have to exist. For false notions to be put into his thoughts, he must have thoughts. Thus he finds his existence to be immune from the doubts that the omnipotent deceiver argument cast upon small and universal elements. Descartes’ second tact to verify his existence is drawn from his perception of a piece of melting wax. He watches the wax melt and notices that, though its physical properties change, he still clearly and distinctly perceives it as wax. He notes that this perception is not any sort of sensed thing, but rather something known by what Descartes calls the “light of nature”. He then states that his perception of the wax seems free from deception, but, even if it were not, he would still have to exist to perceive it. He ends meditation two with a firm belief in the Cogito. He may not know what he is, but he exists. The underlying thought behind Descartes’ doubts about the existence of small and universal elements seems to stem from a couple assumptions about omnipotence and logic. He implies in the first meditation that an omnipotent deceiver could make me believe that something cannot be both alive and not alive at the same moment, and that in reality the omnipotent deceiver has made it so things can be both alive and not alive at the same moment in time. For this to be true, an omnipotent being would have to be able to do that which is logically impossible as well as that which is possible. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is logically impossible that such a being exist. Such a being would have to have the power to make himself not omnipotent while still being omnipotent. Since this can’t be done, it must be the case that an omnipotent deceiver unbound by the laws of logic cannot, by definition of the word omnipotent, exist. Even assuming for the sake of argument that such a deceiver does exist, Descartes’ Cogito is still very much in trouble. If an omnipotent deceiver can fool him on the Law of Non-contradiction, what makes Descartes think that same evil deceiver can’t fool him on his own existence? True, it is most definitely logically impossible to doubt one’s existence without existing, but the omnipotent deceiver, according to Descartes, has the power to do the logically impossible. So it would seem then, he could deceive us on the matter of our own existence. Descartes next tact might be to draw a distinction between the non-self and self, saying that the evil deceiver cannot fool us about our own existence, but he can fool us about other logical impossibilities. But Descartes’ deceiver could merely have fooled in the first place by making us think that such a distinction between self and non-self exists, when it in fact might not. One can even go further in criticism of the Cogito. Take, for example, what I call the “Someone Else’s Dream” argument. It is seems possible that I might ‘exist’ only in another person’s dream, and my every thought, word, and action is the product of their mind. If I say, “I am, I exist”, it is they who have said it for me. I certainly exist in the ‘reality’ of that dream, but since I might only exist in that dream, I cannot truly say that I exist. All of Descartes’ assertions of the Cogito fail when examined by this argument. The omnipotent deceiver? He’s manipulating the thoughts put in my head by the dreamer. The melting wax? It is being clearly and distinctly perceived under the “light of nature” by the dreamer for me. Thus, the assertion, “I am, I exist”, is not necessarily true. However, it must be noted that for this argument to work a dreamer must necessarily exist. The Cogito, therefore, fails whether there is or there is not an omnipotent deceiver. Descartes considered his Cogito his Archimedean point, a claim foundational to all other subsequent inquiry. The Cogito, as shown above, can be falsified. What foundational claim(s) are we left with? It is first necessary to note that the omnipotent deceiver has been falsified. This leaves the only objection to the Cogito the one I raised above. I noted there though that for me not to exist, a dreamer must exist. Therefore, I can claim that either the dreamer or I must exist. This is a necessary truth. It should further be noted that even in dreams, everything in that dream is a construct of existing things. The people, for example, are usually people we know or constructs with various parts taken from various different people we’ve seen. Thus, I at least exist as someone else in the dreamer’s world or as a unicorn-like construct of real things. The lack of an omnipotent deceiver and the reality of the existence of small and universal elements lead to an even broader foundational claim; there is a world where the small and universal elements exist. Either it is the world around us at his very moment, or, if this is a dream, it is the world of the dreamer whose small and universal elements make up this In concluding, a few things must be noted. One, Descartes’ omnipotent deceiver does not and cannot exist in the manner Descartes relates. Two, even if the deceiver did exist, the Cogito would not be immune from the pall of doubt the deceiver’s existence would cause to fall on reality. Three, even without the deceiver, the Cogito is falsifiable because of the “Someone Else’s Dream” argument. Four, there is a world where small and universal elements we know of exist. Bibliography: Word Count: 1539
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.