Default Sidebar

[Addy]

I think therefore I am does not work, and Descartes himself replaced it with I am, I exist in the Meditations. However, that does not work either (complex philosophy approaching!).

Ok, why does I think therefore I am not work? Because it is meant to be the ultimate proof of everything, doubting everything. Ie, we cannot exist without thinking, and recognising that you are thinking is proof that you are thinking therefore existing. However, you cannot assume logic is safe (doubt everything, as a hypothetical evil demon could exist who could distort anything, including logic, for all we know). The cogito in its first form is not a fundamental statement, but a logical argument. There are actually 2 fundamental statements contained within it, one explicit (I think) and one implicit (that which thinks exists). Logical arguments cannot be proven if logic can be doubted, which here it can. I believe that I am, I exist, is essentially the same, and I will prove this by rephrasing one as the other. There is one other fundamental point I must make before going any further. What we are dealing with is thought, and the equating of thought to existing. There are several types of thought. One of these is conception. Therefore "I conceive, therefore I am" essentially the same as "I think, therefore I am". This must be accepted because the former is the version I will arrive at.

According to the Evil Demon Hypothesis we could be misled about anything. However, there is one thing we cannot be misled about: that there is something there to be misled. Descartes doubts everything, but reasons that he must exist in order to have those doubts. I am, I exist. This, he claims, is necessarily true each time he conceives of something. I conceive, I am, I exist.This is now shaping up into a logical argument. Consider the following: I cannot be certain of anything. However, in order for something to be uncertain, or to possess doubts, it must exist [logic]. I am capable of conceiving of these doubts, thefore I must exist. I conceive, therefore I am. We have proven that the two statements are, for all practical purposes and intentions, identical.

Now, in order to complete my theory, let us ignore whether or not the statements are the same, and actually disprove them. This is not easy, since it seems *logical* for conceiving (read "thinking" to occur without a conceiver (thinker). The key point here is logic. The demon could make your logic not work. At first sight it appears that not even distorting logic could stop this proposition. However, A J Ayer has claimed in the past that thinking does not require a thinker, therefore proving that you are thinking is essentially irrelevant; by accepting that you cannot prove anything else you have done enough. This is similar to David Hume's rejection of Ockam's Razor (which states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one), when he disputed the Cause and Effect Hypothesis (ie, when something happened, it is caused by something else), suggesting that a ship travelling through a wake could be a cooincidence (i.e. we cannot prove that the ship itself caused the wake, something else could have caused it at exactly the same time for all we know). The other point here is that the demon could be using anti-logic. This is the antithesis to logic, and amounts to a complete reversal of the way the world works. To use a crude example from the Simpsons (cringe) in a world controlled by anti-logic hot snow would rise. Or, as here, thought would indeed require no thinker, conception no conceiver. One might even go as far as to suggest that thought could not happen with a thinker! This would also mean the demon would not need to exist to do all of this, for those of you thinking that might be the way out of this. Doubting everything, assuming nothing, there is no way of confirming that such a scenario is not the case.

Conclusions? The most I will ever accept is cogtatur, i.e. thinking is happening, but not necessarily with a thinker (even if a thinker does indeed exist, it could well be the demon itself). And given the potential for use of anti-logic (which I had not considered when I last posted this proof) I will not even accept that.


I apologise for all the tough philosophy, but that is my perspective on life: we can prove nothing about anything.