Before blurting "I think, therefore I am!", shouldn't the philosopher first define the terms and critically assess them? For instance, an automatically accepted basic assumption seems to be that "He is!" Must we automatically accept this assumption? At very least, define what "I am" means! Then, perhaps, we can assess his understanding of the famous phrase! ;) Perhaps, more accurately, might be; "I think that I think I am!"
Interesting comment, @nameless-yd6ko. To be fair to Descartes, he might reply that we can define all of those terms and critically assess them after we have first reached the cogito principle. Doubting everything is what led him to realize that he cannot doubt that he exists. So, it's only AFTER that point, in this sequence of ratiocinative steps, he can analyze what it means to exist or what it means for him to exist specifically. What he knows, at MINIMUM, is that he exists; and that he cannot deny this to himself. In my video , I do suggest that Descartes has not reached "first principles" with the cogito. Indeed, you, yourself, raise the issue of what it even means to say "I exist." The deeper principles are metaphysical and logical. Garrigou-Lagrange and Russell challenge Descartes on this -- especially Garrigou-Lagrange. Do you have any thoughts on their challenges?
@@AmateurLogician What he knows, at MINIMUM, is that he exists; and that he cannot deny this to himself. ~~~ Isn't that rather circular? I know that I exist because I think that I exist, therefore I exist? So existence, for him, is thought? Oh, I misspoke about the update! The full updated version of the 'Cogito' is; "Thoughts are perceived, therefore an 'I' to think 'I am'!" Thought = Ego (duality)! Occam suggests that it cannot get clearer than that! With respect, Rene' is an essential link on that chain of though leading here. Please contemplate the 'update' as I check the video. Just a bit into it and his quest for 'certainty' is a fool's errand. Neither science or philosophy deals in 'proof', 'certainty'. 'Certainty' seems to be enjoyed by the pathologically inclined, the area of belief infections rather than rational critical thought, which is never 'certain'. Perhaps that was the flaw in his basic assumptions that prevented his Cogito from being irrefutable and thus needing the critical update. It seems to me that the update is, finally, irrefutable. Rene' says that he's good with it, and thanked me! ;) More?
@@nameless-yd6ko Some have interpreted the Cogito as circular. The premise is “I think.” It seems as if that already presupposes an “I am” that exists; however, if that is the case, then the argument begs the question. But, I don’t think that’s the best interpretation. Actually, I write about this here with the article "Presumption Fallacies" at my website: amateurlogician.com/presumption-fallacies/ As you write, thoughts are just perceived. So, I take it, you agree with Bertrand Russell's critique? I do wonder about "certainty." Is it really the case that we can't get it? For example, are there not mathematical beliefs that are certain? I'm not claiming your thinking is necessarily wrong about certainty, by the way, it's more of an open-ended question to reflect upon.
Before blurting "I think, therefore I am!", shouldn't the philosopher first define the terms and critically assess them?
For instance, an automatically accepted basic assumption seems to be that "He is!"
Must we automatically accept this assumption?
At very least, define what "I am" means!
Then, perhaps, we can assess his understanding of the famous phrase! ;)
Perhaps, more accurately, might be;
"I think that I think I am!"
Interesting comment, @nameless-yd6ko. To be fair to Descartes, he might reply that we can define all of those terms and critically assess them after we have first reached the cogito principle. Doubting everything is what led him to realize that he cannot doubt that he exists. So, it's only AFTER that point, in this sequence of ratiocinative steps, he can analyze what it means to exist or what it means for him to exist specifically. What he knows, at MINIMUM, is that he exists; and that he cannot deny this to himself.
In my video , I do suggest that Descartes has not reached "first principles" with the cogito. Indeed, you, yourself, raise the issue of what it even means to say "I exist." The deeper principles are metaphysical and logical. Garrigou-Lagrange and Russell challenge Descartes on this -- especially Garrigou-Lagrange. Do you have any thoughts on their challenges?
@@AmateurLogician What he knows, at MINIMUM, is that he exists; and that he cannot deny this to himself.
~~~ Isn't that rather circular?
I know that I exist because I think that I exist, therefore I exist?
So existence, for him, is thought?
Oh, I misspoke about the update!
The full updated version of the 'Cogito' is;
"Thoughts are perceived, therefore an 'I' to think 'I am'!"
Thought = Ego (duality)!
Occam suggests that it cannot get clearer than that!
With respect, Rene' is an essential link on that chain of though leading here.
Please contemplate the 'update' as I check the video.
Just a bit into it and his quest for 'certainty' is a fool's errand.
Neither science or philosophy deals in 'proof', 'certainty'.
'Certainty' seems to be enjoyed by the pathologically inclined, the area of belief infections rather than rational critical thought, which is never 'certain'.
Perhaps that was the flaw in his basic assumptions that prevented his Cogito from being irrefutable and thus needing the critical update.
It seems to me that the update is, finally, irrefutable.
Rene' says that he's good with it, and thanked me! ;)
More?
@@nameless-yd6ko Some have interpreted the Cogito as circular. The premise is “I think.” It seems as if that already presupposes an “I am” that exists; however, if that is the case, then the argument begs the question. But, I don’t think that’s the best interpretation. Actually, I write about this here with the article "Presumption Fallacies" at my website: amateurlogician.com/presumption-fallacies/
As you write, thoughts are just perceived. So, I take it, you agree with Bertrand Russell's critique?
I do wonder about "certainty." Is it really the case that we can't get it? For example, are there not mathematical beliefs that are certain? I'm not claiming your thinking is necessarily wrong about certainty, by the way, it's more of an open-ended question to reflect upon.