Descartes didn't prove anything
"I think, therefore I am"
This is not an absolute proof for the simple reason that we can't ever prove that we have understood our proofs correctly. All the thinking like "even if we fail, we still have to exist to fail." could be just meaningless nonsense that has nothing to do with anything. And all our proofs to show that it isn't could also be just meaningless nonsense.
We pretty much have to just look at the history of philosophy or mathematics to realize that people and peoples often think things as absolute logical proofs as a mistake. Anything can be a mistake. A possibility of a mistake is impervious to a logical proof. Therefore nothing will ever be "an absolute proof" aka something that can't be wrong or a mistake.
I guess the simplest way of saying this is: One can't prove that he didn't make a mistake.
ps. I trust logic and science very much, but I'm just criticizing the idea of an absolute proof
This is not an absolute proof for the simple reason that we can't ever prove that we have understood our proofs correctly. All the thinking like "even if we fail, we still have to exist to fail." could be just meaningless nonsense that has nothing to do with anything. And all our proofs to show that it isn't could also be just meaningless nonsense.
We pretty much have to just look at the history of philosophy or mathematics to realize that people and peoples often think things as absolute logical proofs as a mistake. Anything can be a mistake. A possibility of a mistake is impervious to a logical proof. Therefore nothing will ever be "an absolute proof" aka something that can't be wrong or a mistake.
I guess the simplest way of saying this is: One can't prove that he didn't make a mistake.
ps. I trust logic and science very much, but I'm just criticizing the idea of an absolute proof
Comments (44)
How does your OP then? Is it not attempting to facilitate the functions of an absolute proof?
Since my criticism is pretty much: even logical necessities can't be trusted completely since it's impossible to prove that we have understood them correctly... If we assume that logic and our analysis of it works, logical necessities are true including "I think, therefore I am". All I can say that it is an assumption and in our history humans have thought many untrue things as absolute proofs even thought they were meaningless nonsense. I think the problem is that whenever we describe anything formally, these proofs work... the problem is that we haven't proved that formally describing things itself works... and I have no idea how to prove something absolutely without describing it formally.
by Lewis Carroll (1895)
A classic paradox, but not necessarily a true paradox since it assumes that distance can be divided into infinite number of distances which modern quantum mechanics disproves... it also assumes that time can't go through an infinitely complex system of distances in a finite time... these are assumptions... not proofs... although even if this was a true paradox it would not really apply to this subject very much.
Correct my proofs here, if I misunderstood them... I am in a hurry and therefore not that confident about this post.
I think it is not so much a proof but rather the result of some reasoning steps.
Quoting Qmeri
Since the "I think, therefore I am" is neither scientific nor merely logical, it is a philosophical realization or insight, which one either accepts or not with good reasons. Nietzsche, as is well known, criticized that the experience of thinking, which was also indubitable for him, does not necessarily have to presuppose a subject.
"I think, therefore I am" Is a formal logical necessity and if Nietzsche disagreed with that, he was wrong... My argument is about the capability of anything to prove that it did not make a mistake with absolute certainty.
ps. even if you don't define a function to need a subject... you will still have the function existing, which still demonstrates the main point of descartes
This is controversial in the philosophy debate. Descartes himself did not consider the "Therefore I am" as a logical conclusion.
probably a more foolproof way of trying to prove some existence as logically necessarily true.
You might like this:
[quote=link]
Schlegel’s critique of first-principle philosophy is rooted (like Novalis’) in a sense of the ungraspability of the absolute or unconditioned. (As Novalis puts it in the first of his “Pollen” fragments: “Everywhere we seek the unconditioned [das Unbedingte], but find only things [Dinge].”) More specifically, Schlegel holds, against Reinhold and Fichte, that “there are no first principles that are universally suitable [zweckmässig] companions and guides to truth” (KA XVIII.518, #13): even “self-evident” propositions can be doubted and so require demonstration (thus opening up an infinite regress), and any proposition can be proved in an “infinite” number of ways. For Schlegel “every proof is infinitely perfectible” (KA XVIII, 518, #9), and the task of philosophy is not one of searching to find an unconditioned first principle but rather one of engaging in an (essentially coherentist) process of infinite progression and approximation.
...
The Schlegelian philosophy that results from this engagement with idealism is non-foundationalist, holistic and historical (see Beiser 2003, 123–26). Schlegel himself describes his philosophical approach as resembling both a circle and epic poetry because it must forever “begin in the middle”: “Philosophy must have at its basis not only an alternating proof [Wechselbeweis] but also an alternating concept [Wechselbegriff]. In the case of every concept, as in the case of every proof, one can in turn ask for a concept and a proof of the same. For this reason, philosophy, like an epic poem, must start in the middle, and it is impossible to pursue philosophy piece by piece starting from a first piece which is grounded and explained completely in and through itself. It is a whole, and thus the path to recognizing it is no straight line but a circle” (KA XVIII, 518).
[/quote]
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schlegel/
Quoting Qmeri
Descarte's "I think therefore I am" is seen as the one thing we can be sure of.
However, you are right. We can't be sure we are applying logic correctly or even that it is possible for our species on this speck of dust to know how to use logic (e.g. we might not have the processing power).
Sure. And?
The idea that we do not have access to absolute truth or certainty is common enough: fallibilism.
But anyone can say D may have made a mistake - the trick is to identify the mistake. Can you?
What he is actually saying is 'consciousness, therefore me.' A common critique is the presupposition there is a me or I involved.
Descartes’ proof took the form of truth insofar as its negation is impossible. Technically, he attained apodeictic certainty under very strict conditions, which is sufficient for proof for the validity of those conditions.
Generally speaking....correct, not a proof, for it lacks necessity while obtaining sufficiency. But a proof for the manifold of all instances of congruent conditions? Why not?
""I think, therefore I am" presupposes logic without any proof of it.
Side note: You can´t prove logic logically. If you try, it is petitio principii (begging the question).
And conclusion from that and plus some extra thinking what I made is:
My hard statement is that all knowledge is based on intuition. The deductive and inductive reasoning. Disagree, prove me wrong!
If we assume classic logic in general to be true "I think, therefore I am" is analytically true.
But: empirical fact could be, that a being will think in some part of her/his brain, and make conclusion "therefore I am", even when the first thinking part of the brain has died, and the other part is alive. So, there´s somebody, who thinks and therefore exists, but this conclusion is wrong, because the first thinking part doesn´t exist anymore. That part, where "therefore, I am" is denoting.
So, statement may technically be right, but not for the right reasons.
(Augustine think way similar than Descartes over thousands years before)
This was more of stream of consciousness. I don´t think that there´s any serious arguments against Descartes, I certainly think that he proved logically his existence for himself.
I thought he was wrong. I made conclusion that only sure thing is that things are certain or uncertain. I didn´t understood those "things" have to exists, although I was implicitly assuming them to be, to exist.
At those times, little bit later, I was in a car with my family me speaking about certainness and uncertainness, my grandmother asked me: Is it that true, at least, that we are in a car?
I was astonished and replied: That definitely is not sure!
I've always considered this nonsense. But his mathematical ideas had great merit. :cool:
Quoting Qmeri
Sorry but I think that is nonsense.
You don't require understanding to know you exist.
The very fact that you can 'think and do' means you exist. Understanding only explains why. That is not necessary to the basic premise.
2. If I think then, I am (I exist) [suppressed premise]
Therefore,
3. I am (I exist)
Time to send an invitation to Agrippa of Agrippa's trilemma fame aka Münchhausen trilemma and ask him to take a look at Descartes' supposedly airtight argument.
What's the proof for premise 1? seems to be the best route to bring Agrippa's trilemma to bear down, quite heavily I'm afraid, on Descartes' admirable attempt. The proof, if it even deserves that label, is as follows:
1. I think
So,
1. I think
Hopelessly and devastatingly circular. No proposition can justify itself or, more accurately, should be allowed to execute that maneuver. Would you believe me if I e.g. told you, "God exists" and justified that with "God exists"?
That said, all is not lost, there's still a glimmer of hope for Descartes if one is of the opinion that there are such things as virtuous circularities. Indeed, if I think then, surely and indubitably, I think.
Intriguingly, the very process of trying to come up with a proof for premise 1. I think, is itself, thinking. This might be one of those rare occasions where the attempt to prove something, here 1. I think, is itself sufficient the proof of that thing. I'm sure many would give their eye teeth for a deal like that. Even more interesting is the other side of this coin - trying to disprove premise 1. I think, itself being thinking, has the opposite effect i.e. it proves premise 1. I think.
I was hoping Agrippa's trilemma to seriously damage the credibility of premise 1. I think. It doesn't look like that's possible.
However, premise 2. If I think then, I am (I exist) is a sitting duck for Agrippa's trilemma. It lacks the self-justifying feature of premise 1. I think. That being so, Agrippa's trilemma applies in full to it and there no prizes for guessing what happens next.
....which rejects a priori judgements.
Quoting Antinatalist
...which is necessarily an a priori judgement.
——————-
Quoting Antinatalist
People do think of it that way. But here, in the sections following the section in which ”Cogito... is posited, is found “the first and most certain...”, which is congruent with your “analytically true”. So Descartes himself didn’t logically prove anything, per se; he merely espoused something as impossible for him to not know immediately, without any intervening arbitration.
“....I have often noticed that philosophers make the mistake of trying to explain things that were already very simple and self-evident, by producing logical definitions that make things worse! When I said that the proposition I am thinking, therefore I exist is ‘the first and most certain thing to occur to anyone who philosophizes in an orderly way’, I wasn’t meaning to deny that one must first know what thought, existence and certainty are, and know that it’s impossible for something to think while it doesn’t exist, and the like....”
(Principles of Philosophy, I.10., 1644, in Cottingham, Cambridge, 1985)
Even so, the serious argument....assuming there is one..... revolves around exactly what existence, and thereby what kind of existence, Descartes was so sure of. All he said about “....I am”, is “...we can’t suppose that we, who are having such thoughts, are nothing....” (ibid, Sec 7). He is saying what I am not, but doesn’t say what I am, only that I am.
My interpretations only, of course.
Good Question! It would also seem a better question if it was asked: Is there a paradox - or do I believe there is one?
Perhaps so, but what is the relation between a priori judgments and knowledge? Just asking (what you think).
Quoting Mww
Yes, it is. At same time, it seems to be true. The judgment of this is intuitive, I argue.
I don´t think that there´s any serious arguments against Descartes, I certainly think that he proved logically his existence for himself.
— Antinatalist
Quoting Mww
I agree. If you mean, that he didn´t found any new logical truths.
Quoting Mww
I agree. It is mystery what this "I" is.
What I think:
All empirical judgements are intuitive, hence contingent; all a priori judgements are discursive, hence necessary. Knowledge from intuitive judgements is experience; knowledge from discursive judgements is reason.
———-
Quoting Antinatalist
Yep, that’s what I mean.
—————
Quoting Antinatalist
Not for the hard sciences, for the most part finding no empirical reason to acknowledge the validity of it. Brain states, recyclable neurotransmitters, variable ion potentials and all that jazz, doncha know. And not for speculative epistemology, which grants that the “I” represents the unity of the manifold constituency of consciousness. But then, metaphysics is a mystery in itself, so....there is that.
So you think all a priori judgments are reasonable and discursive, but there is no intuition at any level.
Quoting Mww
I agree. But then again, if you radically doubt everything, you doubt also science etc.
And I don´t think such a doubt is a rational way to view life.
No intuitions, at any level? Yes, there are, at the empirical level. The sensible level, of real things, represented in us as phenomena. There is no knowledge of real things of experience without representations by intuition, just as there is no knowledge of abstract things of thought without representations as concepts.
You might see the problem here. Nothing given from concepts alone can tell us about the world of objects and nothing from intuition alone can tell us about abstract things, like beauty, justice, moral obligation, even though experience is rife with examples of them.
———-
Quoting Antinatalist
Agreed. Radical skepticism prohibits knowledge.
I was thinking that perhaps reasoning about a priori judgments is itself intuitive. That reasoning, which evaluates is some a priori judgment true or false.
Quoting Mww
Yes.
If this is valid it applies to your “proof” too. A proof that disproves itself false is nonsensical.
What makes you think you haven’t made a mistake? If the possibility of making a mistake is justification to reject Descartes then it’s also justification to reject your proof that we should reject Descartes. And I’d rather reject the latter.
In that case, all we’re doing is exchanging the general form of the judgement, with particular matter that can be used to verify or falsify it. We are still reasoning about an intuition and not reasoning about an a priori judgement, the validity of it being a consequence. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, the judgement, requires us to reason to the physical construction of the representations contained in the concepts of point and straight and line, such that the judgement is shown to be true.
When someone is making an reasonable a priori judgment, I understand it so, it has to be true by definition. It is another question that are a priori judgments true. But you prove/"prove" it intuitively, the question of is some a priori judgment true or false, is judged by intuition.
Do you see flaws in my logic?
And maybe I´m repeating myself.
Close enough. We’re saying about the same thing.
I made a mistake, nonetheless, in that judgements don’t have truth values, as such. They stand, a posteriori, as the correctness of the relation between an object we sense and the object as it becomes known. Or, in the case of mere thought a priori, they stand as the validity of the relation of conceptions to each other.
Best to bear in mind the perspectives involved. When there are two distinct and separate cognitive systems in play, they are required to conform to each other in order to facilitate the possibility of productive communication. When either system operates on its own, for its own purpose, to its own end, there is no communication, the system is confined to itself internally. The difference is language, necessary for the communication between multiple systems, not even present in each singular system in its internal operations. So when it is said a judgement is true, what it meant is that the proposition composed and presented externally to represent the internal judgement in one system, conforms to the internal judgement in the other, from which his composed proposition would have been congruent, had he been the speaker rather than the listener. In effect, it is the proposition that holds truth value, and then only because a judgement has been made on the validity of the relations in the proposition given by one system, to the relations in the internal judgement of the other system, with respect to it.
Are we having fun yet?
I agree.
Quoting Mww
I have to agree. And yes, I think we are having fun.
I think therefore I am not physical?
I used to think that statement has been always wrong.
One cannot deduce "am" from "think".
It is a category mistake.
Existence cannot be logically proved by thoughts.
It can only be perceived.
Perception has possibility of error.
Reason has its limitation.
It is not a logically deduced or proved by reason being.
That I am not physical, is true, but it isn’t true because I think.
————-
Quoting Corvus
To be perceived implies the use of the senses. “I” am never available to any sensibility, even my own. “I” am a perceived being is therefore false. And impossible besides.
The only possible means for “I” at all, is by logical deduction. In humans, all logical deduction is only possible by reason. But “I” am not a being at all, so whether or not a being logically deduced or a being proved by reason, is moot.
————-
Beware reification.
Can't agree. It sounds like if one had no logical deductive reasoning capability (such as children or non philosophical people - who don't know a thing about logic), then he or she has no concept of "I".
I dream therefore they are physical?
"I" is simply a being perceived by the being, even if they don't realise.