Q&A: Regarding the Previous Intro to Philosophy Lecture (2)
Regarding the Previous Intro to Philosophy Lecture (2)
Question
Hello Rabbi, I had a specific question about the previous lecture, and I didn’t get a chance to ask it in real time.
The Rabbi singled out Descartes’ cogito as a symbol of a rationalist philosophical proof, rather than an empiricist one.
I wanted to clarify the point, because I didn’t fully understand why this is not an observation. When I walk, that is certainly an observation.
But when I think, that too is an observation. I observe that I am thinking, and from that I infer that I exist. It is simply a necessary observation that cannot be deceptive, unlike other observations.
I would appreciate it if the Rabbi could sharpen this point for me. Thanks in advance.
Answer
There will be a column about this soon. Briefly, I’ll say that according to Descartes, “I think” is not the result of observation, because he proves it logically: even if I am not thinking, the thought that I am not thinking is itself a thought, and therefore I am again thinking. So either way, I am thinking. That is exactly the difference between “I think” and “I walk.”
Discussion on Answer
No, because that can be disputed, and one could claim that I do not observe. You need an assumption that is proven on the basis of itself (without observation).
Maybe it can be phrased this way: in the sentence “I observe that I am thinking,” the sting is already in “I observe” — meaning, I exist. If “I think” is my observation of my own state, then the cogito applies to the observation itself.