# "Cogito, Ergo Sum"



## InSlaveryToChrist (Nov 25, 2011)

I'm looking for a good, concise critique of Rene Descartes' influential saying, "I think, therefore I am." It does not have to be long, so you can even write one for me yourself. I can refute this subjective proposition of Descartes myself, but am just curious how others would go about it. As a part of the critique, I'd expect a defence of the Bible as the only reliable source of truth, justice, morals, meaning and beauty.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Tim (Nov 25, 2011)

The folks at Reformed Forum (audio and video) discussed Cartesian philosophy some time ago. I recommend checking out them if you wish to listen to audio comment on Descartes.


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 25, 2011)

Credo ut intelligam

1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.


----------



## Philip (Nov 25, 2011)

Samuel:

a) it neglects that man, being made in the image of God, is a social animal ("it is not good for man to be alone")

b) it considers man in isolation from God rather than in union and communion with Him: it is absolutely autonomous.

The critique, therefore, is not that the premises or the logic are untrue (they are, in fact, sound) but that the attitudes that the sentence betrays is autonomous and wrong-headed.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 25, 2011)

Before Descartes, Augustine stated "I doubt, therefore, I am" _Dubito Ergo Sum_ I think (from the _Enchiridion_) as well as _Si fallor sum_ (If I am deceived, I am). I like those two phrasings better.

The only major critiques I can think of are that (1) Knowing that I exist does not prove my body exists as it is perceived (I may be hallucinating or have anorexia, causing me to perceive myself in a grossly distorted way, even if I do exist) and (2) If thinking is a proof of existence, perhaps some would conclude that non-thinking things do not exist. 

Finally, we must determine what is meant by "thinking" before we use this property as a proof of existence.

---------- Post added at 04:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 AM ----------

p.s. I suppose some eastern mystics would dispute the assumption of "I-ness" in the _cogito ergo sum_ statement (i.e., they would deny individuality).


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Nov 26, 2011)

I'm not saying that when Descartes says he thinks, he is wrong, or that when he, from there, draws the conclusion that he must exist, he is illogical. The problem is that Descartes has no reliable ground to base his argument on. In fact, he cannot assert _anything_ (even that God exists) _for sure_, or he'll be guilty of irrationality. The Bible is the only reliable ground we have. To say, "I think, therefore I am," without the Bible is to say, "I think, therefore I am, I think," or "I think I think, therefore I think I am." The proposition is totally _subjective_, it presupposes the autonomy of man, and denies man's _rationality_ and _knowledge of God's existence_ that _together_ would lead us to seek and depend on our origin, namely God. But this is where our sinfulness stops us, and thus we're left totally dependent on the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Nov 26, 2011)

Actually, I'm not sure if we can say no-one can assert that God exists without the written revelation of God. Everyone _knows_ God exists, but is that a reliable ground for _asserting_ that God exists? If so, then what else do we know and can assert with confidence _without__ the Bible_, that is, _through natural revelation alone_?


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 26, 2011)

Samuel, I would not critique the _cogito_. It is sound. It's how Descartes uses it in the pursuit of an epistemology modeled as a universal mathematics that is troublesome. Also, it tends to lead to descriptions of humans as _res cogitans_, a thinking thing. That's obviously reductionist, as humans do much more than think.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Nov 26, 2011)

Do we know that we exist in the same way as we know God exists? Has God also put in us the knowledge of our own existence?


----------



## Philip (Nov 26, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> The problem is that Descartes has no reliable ground to base his argument on.



Is it possible for one to doubt that one is thinking? It's not the argument that's the concern---it's the attitude that it exposes. You can know things that aren't in Scripture, you can know things apart from Scripture. And I daresay that some, at least in OT times, came to know God Himself apart from Scripture, given that they were the ones writing Scripture.



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Do we know that we exist in the same way as we know God exists?



No.



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> If so, then what else do we know and can assert with confidence without the Bible, that is, through natural revelation alone?



That I'm sitting in a chair typing this reply to your question.


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 26, 2011)

Samuel, you actually need general knowledge to be true for special revelation to work, especially if your idea of special revelation leans more toward the Bible than toward an infused knowledge by the Holy Spirit. After all, how do you know what the Bible says? That presupposes that you know how to read, or that someone else knows and is reading to you. You have to know at least one language. You have to able to put together basic logical ideas, or Paul's "therefore"s won't mean anything to you.

No one ever wins by playing special revelation against general human knowledge.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Nov 26, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that Descartes has no reliable ground to base his argument on.
> ...



One may think he's doubting that he's thinking, but how can you know you're doubting that you're thinking _in reality_?



> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Do we know that we exist in the same way as we know God exists?
> ...



What's the difference then? Does that mean we know God exists, while we don't know we ourselves exist? Or does our knowledge of God's existence give us reason to believe we must exist also?



> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > If so, then what else do we know and can assert with confidence without the Bible, that is, through natural revelation alone?
> ...



How can you possibly know that is what you're doing _in reality_? How can you know you're not blinded by one way or another from seeing what _really_ is going on? Don't we need Bible to confirm this?


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 26, 2011)

Samuel, how can you know the Bible exists _in reality_?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Nov 26, 2011)

CharlieJ said:


> Samuel, you actually need general knowledge to be true for special revelation to work, especially if your idea of special revelation leans more toward the Bible than toward an infused knowledge by the Holy Spirit. After all, how do you know what the Bible says? That presupposes that you know how to read, or that someone else knows and is reading to you. You have to know at least one language. You have to able to put together basic logical ideas, or Paul's "therefore"s won't mean anything to you.
> 
> No one ever wins by playing special revelation against general human knowledge.



Since we must, then, interpret the world around us, including the Bible, through general human knowledge, and our thinking is never free from presuppositions, how can we know what the Bible really intends to say?

---------- Post added at 10:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 AM ----------




CharlieJ said:


> Samuel, how can you know the Bible exists _in reality_?



Thank you for asking this. The answer is, "I don't." So, we must live by the "reality" that our general human knowledge and presuppositions offer us. Is that right?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Nov 26, 2011)

How should we define reality? My understanding is that reality means the way things are seen in God's mind. Is reality not independent of our thinking? Do not all men have their own perceptions of reality that are faulty in many ways and different from each other? How, then, can we arrive at the point where we see things as God sees them?


----------



## Philip (Nov 26, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> One may think he's doubting that he's thinking, but how can you know you're doubting that you're thinking in reality?



Because you _are_. It's a simple fact that doubt entails a doubter.



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> What's the difference then?



I know that I exist because, well, here I am. I know that God exists because He has revealed Himself. I don't have to reveal myself to myself.



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> How can you possibly know that is what you're doing in reality?



Why don't I? What good reason can you give me that I should doubt it? Sure it's possible that I could be deceived, but I have no good reason for thinking that this is the case. Why should I think that I _am_ blinded? Why should I distrust my God-given senses?



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Since we must, then, interpret the world around us, including the Bible, through general human knowledge, and our thinking is never free from presuppositions, how can we know what the Bible really intends to say?



Because of the Holy Spirit's illumination and regeneration.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Nov 26, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > How can you possibly know that is what you're doing in reality?
> ...



Thank you, Philip! This is exactly what I needed to realize. There is no good reason to think God would create us blind to the reality -- at least no _Biblical_ reason. Do you think we need the Bible to figure this out?


----------



## Philip (Nov 26, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Do you think we need the Bible to figure this out?



I can't think of a good reason outside the Bible either. Turning Descartes on his head is something that plenty of unbelieving philosophers have done (G.E. Moore's famous proof for the existence of his hands, for instance). Even in autonomy, people recognize God's gifts, even if they don't recognize the giver of those gifts.


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 26, 2011)

Samuel, with the level of skepticism you've been throwing around on this thread, you could never come to the conclusion that there is no biblical reason to think that God would deceive us. That conclusion itself rests on premises that _include_ the concepts of self, thought, reason, God, and revelation; concepts that you've been unwilling to grant. Even asking the question, "What does the Bible say about God?" assumes so much general knowledge. 

I think you're confusing phenomenological epistemology, which tells us that our knowledge is finite and perspectival, with the idea that we can't know any truth. The one does not follow from the other.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Nov 27, 2011)

CharlieJ said:


> Samuel, with the level of skepticism you've been throwing around on this thread, you could never come to the conclusion that there is no biblical reason to think that God would deceive us. That conclusion itself rests on premises that _include_ the concepts of self, thought, reason, God, and revelation; concepts that you've been unwilling to grant. Even asking the question, "What does the Bible say about God?" assumes so much general knowledge.
> 
> I think you're confusing phenomenological epistemology, which tells us that our knowledge is finite and perspectival, with the idea that we can't know any truth. The one does not follow from the other.



Charlie,

Thank you for helping me by exposing my presuppositions of self, thought, reason, God, and revelation. I'd really like to learn about these things more, because ever since I've started to question everything, all my knowledge of the Bible, the Gospel, the glory of God has become powerless, and it has obviously led me to sin against my neighbour, and my God, Creator, Lord and Saviour.

I want to learn to trust the Bible without a single doubt of its reliability. Are there any books/resources you could recommend me to read?


----------



## Philip (Nov 27, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I want to learn to trust the Bible without a single doubt of its reliability.



Samuel, I'd say that doubt is a sign of our fallenness and finitude. How does one learn to trust a person? By getting to know them. Faith is not the absence of doubt but the transcendence of doubt: it means having questions and wrestling with them honestly before God. Faith is the attitude of "Lord, I believe, help my unbelief!" You are always going to have doubt, or at least the possibility of doubt---faith is the ability to trust God even when you don't understand---because you and I really don't.

As for books, if you can find it, I'd recommend Lesslie Newbigin's _Proper Confidence_ (with some caveats: Newbigin is shaky on inerrancy/infallibility---which is, truth be told, inconsistent with his thesis).


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Nov 27, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > I want to learn to trust the Bible without a single doubt of its reliability.
> ...



Philip, could you tell me what is the difference between _doubtful_ faith and _blind_ faith?


----------



## Philip (Nov 27, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Philip, could you tell me what is the difference between doubtful faith and blind faith?



I wouldn't calll this "doubtful faith," first off. I would call it "honest faith." It's a faith that is willing to be challenged, willing to wrestle with God. It's a faith of courage---the courage to ask God the hard questions. I have them, you have them.

Blind faith is the faith that refuses to wrestle out of fear. If your faith isn't able to stand up to scrutiny, is it worth believing?


----------



## jwright82 (Nov 28, 2011)

Not to be Johnny come latley but I just read a series of critiques of Descarte. For one what is really proven is that thinking is occuring not neccessaraly a personal substance doing the thinking. Even if it did prove that we assume all those personal attributes that we attatch to the term "thinker" or "doubter" that the argument does not prove. We with common sense attach these attributes but that is not proven by the argument. Also it can only prove that I exist to myself, it will never prove that I exist to anyone else. 

So Phillip is right it is sound as far as it goes but autonomous in the end and therefore useless as a foundation for knowledge. This is why we have seen an epic failure in this sort foundationalism in history, they could never acheive it because it was on autonomous grounds or as Van Til put it "a rock in a bottomless ocean".


----------



## Philip (Nov 28, 2011)

jwright82 said:


> For one what is really proven is that thinking is occuring not neccessaraly a personal substance doing the thinking.



James, Descartes conceives of the person as a thinking thing: thinking is the defining characteristic of persons. It would be a necessary and sufficient condition, in his view.

I would actually put social relationship into a definition of persons.


----------



## jwright82 (Nov 28, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > For one what is really proven is that thinking is occuring not neccessaraly a personal substance doing the thinking.
> ...



I would agree but that argument does not prove that social relationships. So whatever he does prove it is a very shy comparison to what people actually are. Yes thinking is something that a person does but that argument proves a thinking thing, not neccessaraly a full person.


----------



## Philip (Nov 28, 2011)

jwright82 said:


> I would agree but that argument does not prove that social relationship



No---that's my point. My point is that the argument assumes an inadequate definition of a person. If we define a person as a thinking thing, then Descartes' argument is sound. If not, then it isn't.


----------



## jwright82 (Nov 28, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> No---that's my point. My point is that the argument assumes an inadequate definition of a person. If we define a person as a thinking thing, then Descartes' argument is sound. If not, then it isn't.



I totally agree. About the Moore's proof of the external world. If you can find it Anscombe wrote a sympathetically critical paper on this, she contributed to this book http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Moore-Library-Living-Philosophers/dp/0875482856. I think you might enjoy it.


----------

