Rene Descartes and methodical doubt

[luvroftheWord]

Descartes believed that we should never accept anything about which we can entertain any doubt. So in his attempt to find intellectual certainty, Descartes engaged in a process of methodical doubt, in which he began doubting EVERYTHING until he could find the one thing that could not be doubted. His conclusion was that of all the things that can be doubted, the one thing he couldn't doubt was that he was the one doing the doubting. So Descartes concluded that the one thing he could not doubt was that he existed. He expresses this in the phrase [i:42cac3b3f4]cogito ergo sum[/i:42cac3b3f4], "I think, therefore I am".

But the thing is, it seems to me that Descartes conclusion is a logical fallacy. Isn't he assuming his conclusion ( "I am" ) in his premise ( "I think" )? And if this is really fallacious reasoning, why was Descartes so dumb not to see it?

 

[luvroftheWord]

Right, I understand that. But even though it is blindness, sometimes I still can't help but be amazed at the things people believe, and the things they overlook. Of course, I say that as though I'm so smart and spiritual on my own, apart from God's grace.

 

[SmokingFlax]

quote:

"Sin makes you stupid."

I like that. I think I'll borrow it and call it my own.

 

[JohnV]

Craig:

Is it really so dumb?

Didn't you have to assume it as well in order to ask the question?

Let's say that someone is really caught in the dillemma of knowing what to believe anymore. He can't trust his elders, let's say; nor his teachers, nor his upbringing, (that is, his sense of orthodoxy); and he doesn't have any reason anymore to trust even his senses.

Have you ever been in such a situation? It's like you've just landed on Mars, and you have no idea anymore of right or wrong. You have really had the rug pulled out from under you, as far as standing on faith is concerned. Where do you start? You have to put all the pieces back together; and I mean [b:793be74175]all[/b:793be74175] the pieces. I've been there, and let me tell you, it's no picnic. Descartes helped me a lot here.

Just from the systematic standpoint, I can see what you're saying. But I've seen people go off the other end as well. All they know for certain is the Word of God, and not even the table in front of them on which the Word of God is resting. You see, it's no good; because they have to assume that the book, the letters, the words, by which the Word of God is transmitted, is real before they can know the Word itself. Or does the Spirit transmit it without the words and letters? And then they get all upset if I don't believe them. If what they say is true, then why do they get upset with me because I disagree with them? Do they know I'm real? How? Is that too in the Word of God, even when I disagree? They have just betrayed themselves. It's a vicious circle for them, because they doubt everything but what they call the Word of God.

Now I'm not suggesting that a strictly logical view of this demands such a conclusion. I'm just saying that it can also be one of those ontological "can't get out of it" things. Once you realize that your doubt extends even to your doubting, then you have to set your feet on something very solid again. For those who are caught in the philosophical milieu, and don't have the wherewithal to comprehend the philosophical complexities, I would not hesitate to use it.

In fact, is it not similar, in kind, to the salvation road as well? We think at first that we have come the Jesus, that we have turned ourselves around, that we have decided to follow Jesus. And in many ways we have done just that. But when we know our Bible a bit better, and know the character of the One who saved us, how He is three in one, working in us both to work and to save for His good pleasure, then we come to realize that it wasn't us at all, but Him. In a similar fashion, we can take heart when our minds are quite perplexed about truths, and right and wrong; when everyone else around us has fallen off the perch we've set them on. We can at least know that our struggle is a real one, and set our philosophical feet back on terra firma, or what we may take for terra firma without doubting it. For it is true that we may doubt everything, but we can at least be assured that our doubting has the inbuilt qualification that we are.

[Edited on 7-10-2004 by JohnV]

 

[philosopher82]

luvroftheword, a common misconception in logic is that of circular reasoning in all logic. this is not so. a syllogism for example builds off the implicide things contained within a statement or propisition. a circular argument is one in which the conclusion is assumed true in your first statement and then from there you attempt to prove it to be true an example of the two:

syllogism:
1. all men are mortal
2. presedant bush is a man
3. therefore bush is mortal
notice that are first statement was not bush is mortal and are conclusion was bush is mortal. we moved from one idea logically into a conclusion about another. we could have started with bush is mortal, all men are mortal, therefore bush is a man. thats fine two your conclusion is different from you premises

circular:
1. the bible is the word of God and without error
2. the bible says its the word of God
3. therefore it is the word of God
here the first premise is our conclusion. the conclusion must always be establishing a different but related truth than whats assumed.

 

[knight4christ8]

What is more interesting to me . . .

is the fact that Descartes believed that he began by doubting everything. When in fact, in order to test his ideas, or even think, he had to assume the laws of thought as infallible.

 

[Brian]

luvroftheWord,

Just a quick thought: Maybe the reason Descartes et al didn't think cogito ergo was fallacious was because ontology was the premise, not necessarily the I am . That ontological necessity may not be correct has not been challenged until some of Heidegger's earlier stuff, but fleshed out in Emmanuel Levinas. I think, specifically, God, Death, and Time . Martin Buber probably helped as well, so basically any late twentieth century continental work.

Hope this helps.

 

[Brian]

knight4christ8,

Yeah, that is fascinating. Just to nuance what you say a little bit, Rene didn't automatically assume that the laws of thought were infallible. He realized that their could be skewed thinking (symbolized in the Evil Genius). What is even more astounding was that Descartes sandbagged a properly functioning cognitive process with the notion of God (a supreme deity) and that this God's disposition was generally positive towards him! That is what seems incredible to me!