Due Apr 6
Cogito, Ergo Sum
Reading: Descartes, selections from the Discourse on Method (Blackboard).
Writing: Respond to ONE of the following prompts. Keep your response short, posting as a reply under the appropriate heading in the comments section:
- Comment on the way that Descartes presents himself to the reader, quoting a relevant passage. On what ground does he recommend his experience as worthy of our interest?
- In Part 2, Descartes introduces an architectural metaphor—one to which he recurs in Part 3. Quote a relevant line and then riff a bit on what this metaphor suggests as to the dimensions and implications of his intellectual project.
- In Part 4, we encounter the famous line “I think, therefore I am.” Except our translator has rendered it as “I am thinking, therefore I exist.” What does Maclean’s translation get right about the meaning of the Latin phrase, “cogito, ergo sum”? Alternatively, what does it miss that the traditional phrasing gets right?
- Having proven his own existence, Descartes goes on to argue the certainty of God’s existence. Quote a relevant line from this section and comment on the logic of his argument.
Descartes’ Manner of Self-Presentation
⤹Click the reply button just below—or the reply button in your classmate’s comment if you’re responding to someone.
At first, he appears humble when he claims that he does not consider himself to be an accomplished individual. Later, he claims to add progressively to his knowledge, and that he received a good education. He also travels often. Based on this, he already does a lot of things to expand his knowledge compared to an average person.
Yeah, I agree. I think he wants to connect with the reader, who he expects not to be the most intellectual, which is why he starts with the line, “I have never presumed my mind to be any way more accomplished than that of the common man” (5). I think by doing this, he is much more likely to be able to convince the reader, who will be more likely to believe what he says if they feel he is speaking as an equal and not as someone who believes they are on a higher level. This is probably why he tries to start out as humble, even though his knowledge is much wider than that of an average person during his time, due to his wide education.
Descartes’ Housebuilding Metaphor
⤹Click the reply button just below—or the reply button in your classmate’s comment if you’re responding to someone.
“This example convinced me that it would not be reasonable for an individual to set out to reform a state by changing everything from the foundations up, and overthrowing it in order to rebuild it, or even to set out to reform the body of knowledge or the established order in schools for teaching it;” From this quotation, we can garner that Descartes thinks of his mental reworking as being of a grand scale. This is made evident in the immensity of the tasks that he has attributed of similarly complexity. The first being the reformation of a state, which is nigh impossible under the political will of one person alone, for even kings require aid to do so. The following example, overthrowing and rebuilding a nation, is even more complex as it requires that one not just create, but create after having left the canvas blank and devoid of guidelines. The last example, regarding the reformation of knowledge, encompasses restructuring of the mental efforts of all of mankind for all of time. Think of how many almanacs, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and books on ferns have been published. The understanding of humanity is truly beyond the scope of one to reform in its entirety and in accordance to their sole will.
Translating Cogito, Ergo Sum
⤹Click the reply button just below—or the reply button in your classmate’s comment if you’re responding to someone.
I think that this question has two separate parts when trying to analyze this from how Descartes intended it, and how Maclean translated it. To the best of my understanding, Maclean’s translation points to the idea of the present act of thinking, and how we must exist because we are actively thinking in the present. In this way the verb tense of “thinking” versus, “I think” speaks to that. He also ponders with the idea of how even if we didn’t exist, everything could, and vice versa. Maclean basically talks about how we are actively thinking, but the idea that something exists, whether it be us or not, is still valid even if we are not presently “thinking” which therefore leaves the translation as not fully representative of what I think Descartes was trying to say. Descartes does not argue if the idea of existence is dependent, in fact he says dependence is a “defect” of society as one is bound to rely on the other.
I definitely agree with you that the translation “I am thinking therefore I exist” is a much more present translation. While “I think therefore I am” feels much broader in its phrasing, MacLean’s translation is very present and precise. Especially contrasting the words “am” and “exist,” the specific word choice of exist makes the concept of what Descartes is trying to say even more real because it explains the very moment of thinking and existing. While they are both the same concept, I think the phrasing still adds a drastic difference to it. I think the original phrase provides a wider scope of philosophical intent, while the translation feels restricting in a metaphysical sense.
The translation is definitely not the same thing, but it does get some things right. The quote “I am thinking therefore I exist” is more emphasizing that being alive means to be thinking. This is accurate with the first quote, “I think, therefore I am” but definitely more of a passive approach to the quote. I think just looking at the definitions of the two phrases, they are very similar, but “I think, therefore I am” is definitely more prideful in my eyes. He is not just claiming that he exists, he is claiming that he is who he is because he thinks. The quote is assertive, it’s a statement to push forward and emphasizes the fact that he exists, not a passive approach to it. The two quotes are very similar, and it’s hard to put into words the difference, but the assertiveness and sense of pride from the original gives the impression of the statement being more powerful.
In the context of what Descartes is arguing “I think, therefore I am” and “I am thinking, therefore I exist” serve the same purpose: Descartes can accept as a principle belief that he exists because he’s observing his thought. So they’re both the same in that aspect. But when It comes to closely examining the statements themselves, I think that “I am thinking, therefore I exist” lacks the ambiguity that “I think, therefore I am” has. That’s what makes the first statement feel a little less profound. When you read the latter you think: what does the phrase ‘I am’ even mean? And I think it leads you reflect more on your life and your existence.
I agree with you that based off of what Descartes is arguing, the two statements serve a very similar purpose. However, on a broader spectrum, the phrase “I am thinking, therefore I exist” is primarily just saying that having thoughts equals existence. Meanwhile, the phrase “I think, therefore I am” is meant to prove your own existence by observing the fact that because you are thinking and actively using your mind, you have a consciousness. This awareness of consciousness allows you to acknowledge your existence. The two phrases do have similar meanings, but “I think, therefore I am” goes a bit deeper below the surface level of the phrase. It doesn’t just use thoughts to prove existence but also consciousness.
Arguing the Existence of God
⤹Click the reply button just below—or the reply button in your classmate’s comment if you’re responding to someone.
Decartes’ argument centers largely around perfection. He argues that because he can imagine something that is more perfect than himself, a more perfect being must have placed that idea into his head. Nothing in the natural world is perfect, but he can still imagine something better (29-30).
His argument is flawed because it assumes perfection exists in the first place. Perfection is a concept humans made up, and there’s no reason why it should exist. Something can always be “better”, because improvement is subjective.
n part 4, Descartes outlines how his general sense of doubt is a quality that is imperfect, and his own idea of perfection could not be derived from his own consciousness. Because of this, the idea of this nature must have been “put into” his mind by a superior, perfect being, which, as he explains, would be God. “…As I thought about the fact that I was doubting and that consequently my being was not altogether perfect (for I saw clearly that it was a greater perfection to know than to doubt), I decided to look for the source from which I learned to think of something more perfect than I was myself, and I came to the incontrovertible realization that this must be from some nature that was in fact more perfect” (Descartes, 29). The realization that humanity could not be perfect, and things in nature that were perfect could not derive from personal experience, Descartes concludes something of a higher “perfect” nature must have embedded this idea into our minds, given we could not have come to this conclusion on our own.
“Accordingly this ‘I’, that is to say, the Soul*
by which I am what I am, is entirely distinct from the body and is even easier to know than the body; and would not stop being everything it is, even if the body were not to exist.”(30)
I think that his argument of the mind and body being distinctly separate brings an underlying idea that the soul has to go somewhere. He proves that he exists in two different spaces. By proving that of himself, he brings up the new question of where that soul needs to go, and with that connection brings the connection of whether God exists and has a connection to the soul of a person and essence of the earth.
After proving his own existence, Descartes argues that the idea of a perfect being couldn’t have come from him alone, “it was manifestly impossible that I should hold this from nothing… I could not hold it from myself either… it had been put into me by a nature which was truly more perfect than mine… which was God.” His reasoning is that an imperfect being can’t create the idea of something more perfect, so that idea must come from something that actually is perfect, and that thing is God. The argument is convincing in how logically it builds, but it relies on the assumption that ideas must come from equally real causes, which isn’t necessarily proven.