Descartes and Certainty

For those of you who have studied Descartes then you may know that he is the author of this famous quote: "Cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). Descartes determined that whatever he could bring himself to doubt, he would, until he saw reason to no longer doubt. He came to realize that they only thing he could be sure of was his own existence. Doubting his own existence was proof that he did, in fact, exist.

Descartes was sure of his own existence, but could not be sure of others. As far as he could prove (or not prove), nothing outside of his mind existed. With this in mind (pun intended), how does that make you feel? It's a fundamental philosophical problem which really can't be proved. I can't prove that the world outside of my mind really exists. For the sakes of simplicity I accept that it does, perhaps for the sake of my sanity too. To think that the world outside of my body is simply created by my brain is quite disturbing.

[David Sklansky]

So you created me in your mind? Ok but now you come up to me and ask me a tough probability question that you only know haw to do the long way. I give you an answer in ten seconds that you write down. Five minutes later you verify it. That doesn't fully disprove solipsism because it is conceivable that your subconscious brain is as good at math as me. But aside from this technical objection, my scenario should ease your mind.

(A seond example would be to drop something from 13 feet, see how long it takes to drop and then go to the library to look up the appropriate physics formulas and see if they jive. Again not an ironclad proof but good enough.)

Right, not iron-clad proof at all, but I suppose that's the nature of philosophy. Pondering the questions that we can't answer. For the record I do believe that there are objects and other minds outside of my own. I suppose the proper word is that I have faith that there are other objects and minds outside my own. Faith since I can't prove that they do really exist.

[jester710]

I don't think the proofs work at all. Using physical proofs is useless, as he can't be sure the physical world (or anything else) even exists. I don't really see how one can "disprove" solipsism, so offering proofs against it seems like a waste of time.

Of course, Descartes's logic is circular, but I get the feeling you both knew that already.

[m1illion]

[ QUOTE ]
For those of you who have studied Descartes then you may know that he is the author of this famous quote: "Cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). Descartes determined that whatever he could bring himself to doubt, he would, until he saw reason to no longer doubt. He came to realize that they only thing he could be sure of was his own existence. Doubting his own existence was proof that he did, in fact, exist.

Descartes was sure of his own existence, but could not be sure of others. As far as he could prove (or not prove), nothing outside of his mind existed. With this in mind (pun intended), how does that make you feel? It's a fundamental philosophical problem which really can't be proved. I can't prove that the world outside of my mind really exists. For the sakes of simplicity I accept that it does, perhaps for the sake of my sanity too. To think that the world outside of my body is simply created by my brain is quite disturbing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure what I'm, missing here. Hold a loaded .45 caliber pistol, with the safety off, to your knee. Pull the trigger and discuss with me the possibility that the bullet is a figment of your imagination.

[xniNja]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure what I'm, missing here. Hold a loaded .45 caliber pistol, with the safety off, to your knee. Pull the trigger and discuss with me the possibility that the bullet is a figment of your imagination.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is sort of a good, pragmatic argument... but Descartes would probably argue that the bullet, your knee, and the pain you feel from the bullet hitting your knee is your "imagination."

To put it more clearly, it wouldn't make much sense to argue Descartes ideas on existentialism/and/or certainty of reality by addressing physical pain, as physical pain is a manifestation of the mind at best and at worst perceived by the mind.

[DougShrapnel]

When I took philosophy in college, I had a bit of trouble with the proof that anything exists. The story that the world is nothing but shadows on the wall and not real, was difficult for me to grasp as legitimate, however I could not disprove it as impossible. I eventually realized that pioneers of fields aren't normally correct but they are important because of what they started. Not their actual contribution. For instance, the ID, Ego, and Super Ego are certainly incorrect at least partially, but Freud was able to start a new science which was a much more important contribution.

Proofs that I exist and that the world exists aren’t necessary. Just assume it. And get to the meat of philosophy. Where actually important things are discussed.

[m1illion]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure what I'm, missing here. Hold a loaded .45 caliber pistol, with the safety off, to your knee. Pull the trigger and discuss with me the possibility that the bullet is a figment of your imagination.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is sort of a good, pragmatic argument... but Descartes would probably argue that the bullet, your knee, and the pain you feel from the bullet hitting your knee is your "imagination."

To put it more clearly, it wouldn't make much sense to argue Descartes ideas on existentialism/and/or certainty of reality by addressing physical pain, as physical pain is a manifestation of the mind at best and at worst perceived by the mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then, if I may, I will change the argument slightly. I will put one bullet in a (for arguments sake)six bullet capacity pistol. I will place the bullet in the third chamber to fire. You will not have that info nor any way to aquire that info. Place the pistol against your knee and pull the trigger six times. Thereafter, begin your discussion on the relative merits of the bullet's reality.

[jester710]

[ QUOTE ]
Proofs that I exist and that the world exists aren’t necessary. Just assume it. And get to the meat of philosophy. Where actually important things are discussed.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I'm pretty sure you're aware of this, Descartes wasn't actually considering the possibility that he didn't exist. One of the basic problems of philosophy is that pretty much anything has to be based on an assumption somewhere. Usually, this is the assumption that the world and what we see is real. If pressed, no philosopher can give up indisputable "proof" of this. This is what Descartes was trying to do, and if he had succeeded, he would have revolutionized philosophy, possibly to the point that most of the great questions could be answered (in this case the existence of God). I think that counts as pretty meaty philosophy, just as molecular biology is pretty meaty science.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
This is what Descartes was trying to do, and if he had succeeded, he would have revolutionized philosophy, possibly to the point that most of the great questions could be answered (in this case the existence of God). I think that counts as pretty meaty philosophy, just as molecular biology is pretty meaty science.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make it sound interesting enough so that I had the opurtunity to rethink my position. I didn't change my mind. I don't think failure is meaty other than to realize not to go down that road. Just assume that the world exists as given.

[usmhot]

An interesting answer to this that I heard before (so long ago I forget the source, unfortunately, but I presume it was a more recent philosopher) ...

Descartes' argument allows me to prove the existence of my own mind. So, let's start there.
My mind exists.
A mind must have content - it must contemplate something, otherwise it is nothing.
But, if only my mind exists, then it is not possible for it to contemplate anything other than itself. And, yet, my mind does contemplate many things other than itself (I 'see' other 'things' and 'people' etc.). At least one other thing must exist outside my mind and be perceived by my mind for it to contemplate something other than itself.
Therefore, there is at least one other existence outside my mind.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
So you created me in your mind? Ok but now you come up to me and ask me a tough probability question that you only know haw to do the long way. I give you an answer in ten seconds that you write down. Five minutes later you verify it. That doesn't fully disprove solipsism because it is conceivable that your subconscious brain is as good at math as me. But aside from this technical objection, my scenario should ease your mind.

(A seond example would be to drop something from 13 feet, see how long it takes to drop and then go to the library to look up the appropriate physics formulas and see if they jive. Again not an ironclad proof but good enough.)

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't do experiments to prove you're not dreaming unless you know some type of experience cannot exist within a dream.

chez

[Georgia Avenue]

This is not "disproving" anything...it is in fact what Descartes was getting at.

It's sad to me that Descartes is associated with solipsism, when in fact it was this sort of Amateur Hour Grateful Dead balderdash that he was trying to move past in “Meditations.” His essential path was:
1. I exist as thought.
2. My thought must be of something.
3. The only thing I can prove I didn’t invent is God.
4. If God exists, all Creation (including Science and Math) exists.
5. Let’s get back to business.

Certainly much to disagree with there, but, not just boring solipsism.

Here’s a sample:
[ QUOTE ]

But there is still another way of inquiring whether, of the objects whose ideas are in my mind, there are any that exist out of me. If ideas are taken in so far only as they are certain modes of consciousness, I do not remark any difference or inequality among them, and all seem, in the same manner, to proceed from myself; but, considering them as images, of which one represents one thing and another a different, it is evident that a great diversity obtains among them. For, without doubt, those that represent substances are something more, and contain in themselves, so to speak, more objective reality that is, participate by representation in higher degrees of being or perfection], than those that represent only modes or accidents; and again, the idea by which I conceive a God sovereign], eternal, infinite, immutable], all-knowing, all-powerful, and the creator of all things that are out of himself, this, I say, has certainly in it more objective reality than those ideas by which finite substances are represented.


[/ QUOTE ]
I *heart* l'goolibrary (http://www.classicallibrary.org/descartes/meditations/index.htm)

Remember kids…YOU CAN’T JUST READ THE CLIFF’S NOTES! Read the actual work of the author.


Man, I’m grumpy this morning.

We are nothing more than highly intelligent animals. We are aware of our own existence, and can challenge our own existence (what is the purpose of life?..etc..) unlike other animals that think and operate on a more instinctual level. "I AM, THEREFORE I THINK" seems like a better way to put it, but thats just my opinion on the matter.

[carlo]

"Digesto, Ergo Sum"

carlo

[jester710]

[ QUOTE ]
It's sad to me that Descartes is associated with solipsism, when in fact it was this sort of Amateur Hour Grateful Dead balderdash that he was trying to move past in “Meditations.”

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not mean to imply that Descartes was an advocate of solipsism, and I apologize if I gave that impression. Like I said, most philosophical arguments are based on an agreed-upon assumption (e.g., things exist); Descartes was simply trying to prove the most basic of assumptions. If he had, he probably could have proven just about anything, including the (non)existence of God. His quote of Archimedes says it best: "Give me a long enough lever and a place to stand and I will move the world."

[DougShrapnel]

I suddenly realized an important aspect of this line of thought. Part of evolution is that when we are young we are designed to believe any and everything told to us. We are inquisitive but haven't developed the ability of skepticism.

Eventually our reasoning abilities develop further up until around 25 years of age when our brains are fully developed, and with the our reasoning ability are then able to question everything we have taken on someone’s word.

Would a better line of thought be I will only believe that which there is evidence for, that which is testable, even the most deeply held beliefs I have must be able to stand the most rigorous scrutiny?

Certainly, if I never questioned what i was told. That would bring some doubt to the validity of my beliefs.