Poll: Is Cogito Ergo Sum(I think therefore I am) really a good argument?

[Sewblon]

The argument that everyone remembers Rene Descartes for is "I think therefore I am." I know that he made other contributions to western thought, the point of this is not to critique his work in general, just to critique this one argument. The argument goes something like "You must believe that you exist because if you did not exist you would not be able to think that you do not exist."

It sounds convincing at first, but the problem is characters in fiction do, in a fashion, think things and hold beliefs. For example, the gas station owner in The Great Gatsby believed that Jay Gatsby ran over his wife. I know you could argue that fictional characters don't actually exist or think or that even if they only exist in a story they would still need to exist in that story in order to think in that story, but the point is that you still need to prove that in order to think you must exist for Cogito Ergo Sum to be valid.

 

[Mr. Meslier]

The argument itself is internal, and because of that it has a strange relationship with solipsism. Try to think of it in the terms of the doubt that generated the statement.

Even if someone else asserts they exist, that assertion is never truly justified as the experience itself could be a deception. Descartes imagined a world that contained only him and a great deceiver, where every experience was an elaborate lie. The only thing he could be sure of was that he existed, evidenced by the fact that he was there to make such a statement.

Fictional characters may seem to hold beliefs and thoughts, but you cannot be sure that they do. Epistemically speaking, it is true that I think.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

Characters in stories only exist because the author(s) brought them to life, ergo, they were thought up into existence. Their thoughts are those of someone in the material world.

Storybook characters are not an independent abstraction from reality, they are fictional yes, however the fiction transpired via a material source, grounding it to a real origin. This is not to say that fictional characters are real, rather a part of their creation took "real" effort. Thus fictional characters are perceived real via their perceived thoughts.

 

[Cpt. Red]

You could use use "I think therefore something exists" witch I myself used for some time(but then I started thinking about what does it mean to exist)...

One problem in your argument is that you say that a fictional character still exists and think so how is that in anyway contradict to "I think therefore I am"?

 

[Hero in a half shell]

You can say a character in fiction believes in something, but that is you putting your thoughts into their character, they do not think therefore they are not. It is really an arguement about reality and existance, is what we touch see or think real? or could we be halucinating everything? and his arguement was that because we question our existence we must exist, Gatsby does not question his existence, and the gas station owner did not create any of his own thoughts, they were all given directly to him by an author.
Deadpool on the other hand...

 

[Alakaizer]

I just love it for this joke:

Rene Descartes walk into a bar, the bartender asks him "Would you like a drink?" Rene Descartes says "I don't think so," and vanishes.

 

[rabidmidget]

There is no evidence that, that character ever thought, the only thought one can prove is their own, especially when you bring in the idea that you can't trust external stimuli based on your own senses, as they can be fooled.

 

[Thaluikhain]

but the point is that you still need to prove that in order to think you must exist for Cogito Ergo Sum to be valid.

Which is the only thing you can prove, that being the point of the phrase.

Fictional characters are of no relevance whatsoever. Even "real" people other than the observer don't, so why should fictions? The idea is absurd.

 

[TWRule]

It is possible to argue against it, but not on the basis of literary characters. A literary character is merely a semblance/representation of a thinking being - just as a solipsist would see all beings external to themselves.

Overall, I think it's a reasonable argument.

 

[Link_to_Future]

I just love it for this joke:

Rene Descartes walk into a bar, the bartender asks him "Would you like a drink?" Rene Descartes says "I don't think so," and vanishes.

That was so incredibly lame. And yet you got a really good chuckle out of me. So...good game?

OT: I believe that I exist because in the reality defined by my perceptions, I am a rational, thinking being. By my perception, I both think and exist. I believe that if I felt like giving it thought, I could define my existence in that manner. However, I think that I would much rather ramble off some haphazard philosophic musing and hope that no one calls me out on it.

In my perception, I am a thinking being. In order for this to take place, I have to exist in accordance to my perceptions. I think, therefore I am.

I'm done tossing logical fallacies around. Resume discussions.

 

[Hader]

It is a fairly reasonable argument, if applied in a reasonable fashion. A literary/fictional character is not something this can really apply to I think.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

It really isn't a compelling argument because it forms a strange loop through inherent self-reference. That said, the purpose of the statement was not to win an argument but rather encourage thought. I'd say it is more of a koan than anything else.

 

[klakkat]

I vote no, but on a more fundamental level than just fictional characters. Who's to say perception decides what is correct? If you believe one thing, and someone else believes a contradictory thing, who is right? It is possible that BOTH or NEITHER of you are right, even though the beliefs may be mutually exclusive. This isn't an easy concept to explain; I will try to phrase it as clearly as I can.

One of the popular philosophies is essentially that perception defines reality; there is no universe outside our minds because there is no way of interacting with it outside of our perceptions. I feel this point of view is fundamentally flawed because it ignores the CAUSE behind our perceptions. In other words, complex interactions occur in the world that cannot be perceived (some, on a fundamental level can NEVER be observed directly). So, the perception reliance argues these things do not exist, yet they affect our lives. This is a logical paradox. Just because you cannot perceive something does not mean it cannot affect you; this should be obvious to any biologist as they know (at least in concept) out utterly limited our senses really are, and our perceptions are guided by our senses.

Another way to look at the problem is to look at abstractions. Fictional characters come into play here, though I'm going to focus on more quantifiable and more fundamental abstracts: Ideas. Ideas can be many things; you have them all the time. They exist, sometimes very briefly, and yet have no physical substance. I'm not speaking of pure data here; the pure data in the internet is a physical thing, but what it means when read produces ideas in the readers that have no physical location. Neural pathways are associated with them, but those are just some chemicals and electrons flying around, not an object, and yet the arrangement of those pathways generates something that can be described as real.

To simplify this a bit, let's look at the biggest, most universal idea on the planet: mathematics. Math doesn't have a physical counterpart. It is purely ideological. Sure, you can use physical objects to represent mathematical concepts, but those are just symbols, another level of abstraction. Math exists; without it our society would not function. And yet, it has no real part, no measurable existence; it would cease to be if all humans died (not addressing extra terrestrials here. Not the topic). It exists only in concept, and while we rely on the physical world to transfer the idea to propagate its existence, it is not physical; you cannot hand someone a "math" no matter what technological concepts involved. It CAN'T exist physically, and yet, it does exist.

The statement "I think, therefore I am" ignores these ideas. All that can truly be said, is "I am." If you can say such a statement without being taught it, then you think. Regardless, the statement is true.

 

[Aurgelmir]

The argument that everyone remembers Rene Descartes for is "I think therefore I am." I know that he made other contributions to western thought, the point of this is not to critique his work in general, just to critique this one argument. The argument goes something like "You must believe that you exist because if you did not exist you would not be able to think that you do not exist."

It sounds convincing at first, but the problem is characters in fiction do, in a fashion, think things and hold beliefs. For example, the gas station owner in The Great Gatsby believed that Jay Gatsby ran over his wife. I know you could argue that fictional characters don't actually exist or think or that even if they only exist in a story they would still need to exist in that story in order to think in that story, but the point is that you still need to prove that in order to think you must exist for Cogito Ergo Sum to be valid.

But the character neither exist nor does he think. The character in the book only exist if YOU the reader think him to do.

Besides, what Descartes argues is that he can not prove that the world he lives in is true or just a figment of his imagination, and because of this he doubts his own existence. But because he can think and wonder if he exist, he must in fact exist, because he himself is thinking the thoughts.

Notice how the only thing he can prove is his own existence. He can not prove that you or me exist, because we are not him. We could very well just be part of something he was dreaming.

In the same sense you can not project "Cogito Ergo Sum" onto other living people, or fictional characters for that matter. You can only use the saying to prove you yourself exist.

 

[Mr Thin]

It sounds convincing at first, but the problem is characters in fiction do, in a fashion, think things and hold beliefs.

No, they don't. They are purely creations of the author and have no capacity of thought themselves. They are nothing more than words inked onto a page.

I'm afraid the argument is quite solid.

 

[Layz92]

I always figured the statement was purely internal to the person. Since there is no guarentee outside influences are true, to you, what you think is truth. If you think a book is a pizza to you... it is a pizza.

It sounds convincing at first, but the problem is characters in fiction do, in a fashion, think things and hold beliefs.

You are a Tim Minchin fan?

 

[Jonluw]

Even if someone else asserts they exist, that assertion is never truly justified as the experience itself could be a deception. Descartes imagined a world that contained only him and a great deceiver, where every experience was an elaborate lie. The only thing he could be sure of was that he existed, evidenced by the fact that he was there to make such a statement.

I imagine pretty much every person alive has imagined such a scenario at some point...

OT: Like someone said, the argument works on the presumption that youi have to exist in order to think. Perhaps that is wrong, I don't know. I'm in too much of a hurry to think it over in any case right now.

 

[TheNamlessGuy]

DELETED

 

[TWRule]

Well, both yes and no.
On a simple level, yes.

But if you think about it, that statement states that inanimate objects don't exist...
Just saying.

No, it just states that you can be certain of your own existence, while you cannot necessarily be certain of anything outside your own mind (until you have solid evidence of the contrary) - it could all be something your mind or some outside force made up for you to experience.

 

[TheNamlessGuy]

DELETED