Q&A: The Cogito
The Cogito
Question
Hello Rabbi, in your book Truth and Not Stable, p. 100, you show that the premise “I think” is not necessary, and therefore the rationalist miracle does not occur. What about the formulation “I doubt, therefore I exist”? In this formulation, it would seem that one really cannot doubt one’s own existence, and from this it follows that Descartes succeeds in defending rationalism. What do you say?
Answer
I don’t see a difference. “I doubt” is itself not necessary. It is similar to “I walk, therefore I exist.” My argument there applies to this formulation as well. In other words, there are three different states here (not just two): I doubt. I do not doubt. I do not exist (there is no one who doubts or does not doubt). Therefore the “either way” argument does not exist here either (exactly as I wrote there regarding “I think”).
Discussion on Answer
I answered your question in the parallel thread. The fact that you experience that you feel is an observational claim, and from that you infer that you exist. Perfectly fine.
I just want to understand your opinion. Is the sentence “I think” necessary, or can one simply say that I do not exist and therefore do not think at all, and therefore it is not necessary? Right now I’m torn between the argument: maybe I simply do not exist and therefore do not think, so this whole argument is invalid (because in the end it is based on a premise that is not necessary), and the argument: so what is happening now? I could answer myself that I am not thinking and it is not happening, but in the end something is in fact happening here, supposedly, and it’s not like “I walk,” where maybe I’m imagining it, but rather the most basic thing that can be.
It is not necessary. It is observational. You experience that you exist and think. The claim that it is necessary is based on the idea that even thinking that I do not think is itself a thought. But who says that I am the thinker? Observation.
1. I agree that it is observational; I would just claim that it is also genuinely necessary because of the “observation” (the term is a bit problematic, but let’s go with it), since it cannot be explained in a way where I am not thinking. Even if I claim that I am not thinking, there is still always the observation or the thought that I am not thinking—so how can one ignore that and simply say that maybe I just am not thinking (and do not exist)?
2. So who is thinking? “I” is simply the name I gave to the thing that thinks. Obviously this is not meant to say that it is specifically the body, but rather some kind of soul or something spiritual.
If we’ve arrived at “observational necessity,” the discussion is over.
I wasn’t trying to argue that this is an argument based on pure logic. The logical inference is only the move from thought to existence. I’m saying it is necessary because what you experience exists in some way (after all, you experience it), and as such it proves the existence of the “I.”
Do you agree with this inference, and what you are trying to say is simply that this lowers the force of the cogito, which tried to prove facts about the world without any observation—but you do agree with what I said? Or do you not agree that this inference is valid and certain?
The logical inference is this: I experience myself. Therefore: I exist. Where the hidden premise is that what I experience is reliable. Is that the argument? It is entirely valid. And of course no less entirely trivial…
Certainly there is something that exists and thinks this. Beyond that, nothing more can be said (for me, that is “I,” because my definition of “I” is the thing that thinks all these thoughts).
Is there any other possibility for what is happening while I supposedly think?
Isn’t it possible to say that “I think” really is necessary, just not because of the explanation of all the options that doesn’t mention one of the options, as you said, but because I feel that I think?
Basically, the excuse for why “I walk, therefore I exist” is not necessary is that maybe I’m imagining it (thinking it). And the most basic thing here is some kind of thought, which is necessary and supposedly can’t be explained in any other way. I feel that I think—how would you explain that feeling? Originally I answered that you simply do not exist and also do not think, but I do in fact feel that I think, so what is this feeling? Supposedly there has to be something (thought / feeling or something else), and from that I infer that “I think, therefore I exist.”