"Cogito Ergo Sum" is circular logic

[hmkpoker]

I believe cogito ergo sum to be circular logic.

"I think, therefore I am" assumes that a thinking medium, a subject, a something unique, is there to be doing the thinking that's obviously taking place. While it seems completely obvious, we know from a scientific/materialist standpoint that this "I" is simply a convenient mental construct. "I" is identified as the brain/body/whatever. The brain/body/whatever is but a convenient illusion in the big ocean of atoms and molecules that has no absolute boundaries. "I" interacts unceasingly with its environment, losing portions of its own physical components to the outside, and gaining new physical components all the time. "I" interacts with everything that is not itself, and the only way it gains distinction is through an arbitrary rule. "I" exists within boundaries that we create.

Claiming that "I" is the thinking medium is meaningless. It is like declaring the medium of walking to be a widgit, and because we know walking is taking place, we prove that widgits exist. Descartes should have more accurately stated that "thinking is taking place." The boundaries of thinking are undefined. With no assumed or forced boundaries, the entire ocean of reality could become the thinking medium. A more accurate statement would be "thinking is taking place, therefore there is a thinking medium."

In other words, the statement is meaningless because it assumes that "I" exists in order to prove that "I" exists.

[MathEconomist]

Yes, but this is hardly a new view. Unfortunately, I don't remember my history of philosophy so well, but I think Hume was the first to formulate this objection. I agree that there is definitely something wrong with assuming that the thought defines a specific identity, at least if we're going to really start with the idea that we know absolutely nothing. However, the claim that thought exists is, I think, definitely correct.

[MidGe]

You are right, in the sense that it is wrong. Not sure if it circular though. Of course the fact of thinking only demonstrate/is proof of the fact that there is thinking... not neccesarily the existence of a thinker. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[hmkpoker]

Really? Crap. I thought maybe this was novel or something. Oh well, philosophy is gay.

[evolvedForm]

Most of Descartes' conclusions have been thoroughly refuted. It's his method that makes him so important a figure in philosophy (rationality, doubting everything away, etc.)

[madnak]

Yeah, it's just an expression really of a basic ontological principle.

"There's something here."

That's all it amounts to. Somehow, there's something, and I know it because...I know it. There is an I, there is a something looking out on the world. How do you know that? You can "feel" it to a degree. Or you can be like Descarte and say "if there's no 'I' looking out at the world, then what's doing the looking?" But it really can't be reasoned. The subjective experiential phenomoenon represents the most fundamental of axioms. Your inherent being is that with which you are most intimately in contact, and also that which is hardest to understand.

[Sharkey]

It is circular, because the conclusion is presupposed in the premise.

[atrifix]

Descartes's "Cogito Argument" is not really an argument; the "ergo" is commonly taken to mean "therefore" but that's not really a fair translation.

Descartes's idea is that simply by doubting your own existence, you are made aware of your existence. E.g., it's an axiom, self-evident. So it's not really circular logic since it's not really logic at all. Of course, the formal argument "P1: I think; C: I exist" is completely circular and unconvincing.

I agree with Descartes on this point, at any rate.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Descartes on this point, at any rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unluckily for Descartes, it really only works for him now if it's: 'I thought, therefore I was'...

[The once and future king]

Can you see how this might impact on the following:

[ QUOTE ]
Praxeology rests on the fundamental axiom that individual human beings act, that is, on the primordial fact that individuals engage in
conscious actions toward chosen goals.

[/ QUOTE ]

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you see how this might impact on the following:

[ QUOTE ]
Praxeology rests on the fundamental axiom that individual human beings act, that is, on the primordial fact that individuals engage in
conscious actions toward chosen goals.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell, you could apply the same level of skepticism to any science in an attempt to debunk it.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you see how this might impact on the following:

[ QUOTE ]
Praxeology rests on the fundamental axiom that individual human beings act, that is, on the primordial fact that individuals engage in
conscious actions toward chosen goals.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Is it your claim that this axiom is incorrect?

[The once and future king]

The axiom is fully dependant on the cartesian cogito. It is an assumption (unstated) of the axiom.

[The once and future king]

I should have added that perhaps a primordial truth that is dependent on one of the most dis credited ideas of the twentieth century perhaps isnt so "primordial" and/or "true".

[Borodog]

So it's your claim that individual human beings do not act, i.e. that individuals do not engage in conscious actions toward chosen goals.

Good luck with that.

[hmkpoker]

Regardless of whether we can be 100% sure of our existence or not, assuming our own existence (and, as a result, developing praxeology) is very useful to us.

The alternative is to render ourselves stupid worrying about whether we are a brain in a vat, and use solipsism as an excuse not to try and accomplish anything.

"dude man, chemistry is just a social construct, it, like, assumes the existence of, uh, atoms and things that can't be known because of the skeptical argument, or something."

[PastorDavidDD]

[ QUOTE ]
So it's your claim that individual human beings do not act, i.e. that individuals do not engage in conscious actions toward chosen goals.

Good luck with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you!

In addition to that, many humans have been educated beyond their levels of understanding. Hopefully, some of the understanding part may come later in life.

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of whether we can be 100% sure of our existence or not, assuming our own existence (and, as a result, developing praxeology) is very useful to us.

The alternative is to render ourselves stupid worrying about whether we are a brain in a vat, and use solipsism as an excuse not to try and accomplish anything.

"dude man, chemistry is just a social construct, it, like, assumes the existence of, uh, atoms and things that can't be known because of the skeptical argument, or something."

[/ QUOTE ]

Skepticism doesn't entail such vulgar behavior. When you say 'The alternative is...' you make it sound like we are faced with merely options A and B; this is a false dilemma. One can have doubts about brains in a vat, without being a solepsist much less invoking solepsism to get out of work. Just because we don't know whether or not there are other people does not mean there are no other people. Though even the solepsist must think he knows that he exists. Im in the camp who thinks we know that their are some other people, but your dim view of skepticism is not quite accurate.

As for the OP, cogito ergo sum is not meant to be meant to persuade others that you exist it is just meant as a way to illustrate that it should be obvious to you that you exist.

If you are looking for a real argument try this one:
1) Some thought exists.
2) A thought cannot exist without a mind.
3) Some mind exists.

[hmkpoker]

Right. I have no problem with any of that.

Now tell that to TOAFK, who is trying to use this to argue that people don't act toward goals.

[The once and future king]

The cogito isnt just used to demonstrate that I exist. It is used to demonstrate that I exist as a singular monadic identity. In other words it is an entire ontology of being. It it used to demonstrate that I exist in a very specific way.

I am doing far more than asking for praxeologists to demonstrate other mind (which should be easy given the primordial truths involved), but to demostrate the agentic modality of a unified consciousness.

In essence for the quote to be primordialy true, an individual in terms of being must be something very specific, and that being is supplied by the cogito which is generaly regarded as false.

[ QUOTE ]
So it's your claim that individual human beings do not act, i.e. that individuals do not engage in conscious actions toward chosen goals.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when we look at this we see that the cogito supplies the ontology for the defintion of action. "Individuals" do act, that which is acting and the motivations for that which is acting are open to conjecture and conclusions about such things can never achieve the status of "Primordial truth."

[hmkpoker]

http://www.writingshop.ws/assets/images/Borg-Intro.jpg

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
The cogito isnt just used to demonstrate that I exist. It is used to demonstrate that I exist as a singular monadic identity. In other words it is an entire ontology of being. It it used to demonstrate that I exist in a very specific way.

I am doing far more than asking for praxeologists to demonstrate other mind (which should be easy given the primordial truths involved), but to demostrate the agentic modality of a unified consciousness.

In essence for the quote to be primordialy true, an individual in terms of being must be something very specific, and that being is supplied by the cogito which is generaly regarded as false.

[ QUOTE ]
So it's your claim that individual human beings do not act, i.e. that individuals do not engage in conscious actions toward chosen goals.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when we look at this we see that the cogito supplies the ontology for the defintion of action. "Individuals" do act, that which is acting and the motivations for that which is acting are open to conjecture and conclusions about such things can never achieve the status of "Primordial truth."

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said:

So it's your claim that individual human beings do not act, i.e. that individuals do not engage in conscious actions toward chosen goals.

Good luck with that.

[The once and future king]

Were do I say humans dont act?

I am just saying that your defintion of action and the intentionality towards action is supplied by a defeated ontology e.g. the cogito or the agentic modality of a unified consciousness.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Were do I say humans dont act?

I am just saying that your defintion of action and the intentionality towards action is supplied by a defeated ontology e.g. the cogito or the agentic modality of a unified consciousness.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just mental masturbation. Assuming that humans don't act intentionally might make you feel philosophical but it means that you seal yourself off from any possible understanding of human nature.

Besides, praxeology does not rely on cogito ergo sum, whose error lies in the ergo. Praxeology takes it as simply axiomatic that humans act intentionally to exchange less satisfactory states of existence for more satisfactory ones. There is no logic contained within an axiom, therefore there can be no logical flaw in an axiom. The axiom is either accepted or rejected.

Cogito ergo sum fails as a logical argument precisely because it presumes its conclusion. In otherwords, there is nothing wrong with taking it to be axiomatic that either I think or I am. It is only fallacious to take one as axiomatic and then deduce the other.

Rejecting the human action axiom necessarily demands that you accept that humans do not intentionally act to exchange less satisfactory states for more satisfactory ones. I reject that axiom as I can find many counterexamples. I adopt the original axiom as I can find no counter-examples. If you adopt the second axiom, like I said, good luck with that.

[Sharkey]

I think that I think (I think),
Therefore, I think: ergo, I sum,
Meaning I add to myself, I become
More than what I am,
By the thought of myself thinking.

[soon2bepro]

Agreed with OP

[Jdanz]

nicely stated.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
nicely stated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.