Q&A: Until One Does Not Know
Until One Does Not Know
Question
1. I wanted to ask: what is your opinion of David Hume’s argument against Descartes and most of the world with him, that even if we agree with the claim “if you think, that means you exist,” the “self” (the “you think”) they are trying to conceptualize does not exist, because a person only ever sees an experience but never sees this “self”—so why assume it exists? In other words, is there really an “I”?
2. And from there another difficulty arises: the Ship of Theseus. What makes His Honor assume that today’s Michi is the same Michi who was a child? Especially since he has changed all his views and his appearance. And to say, like Locke, that continuity of consciousness explains continuing identity—that seems too big a leap. Especially since people sleep, so if consciousness stops for a moment, then from his perspective the person would be considered a new person, in the sense of “they are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness.”
—
Happy Purim
Answer
1. I didn’t understand the claim. What the cogito proves to exist is the thinking being.
2. You are assuming that a person or an object is the collection of its properties, but that is not so. The object is the possessor of the properties. Therefore, a change in the properties does not mean that the object itself is different.
Discussion on Answer
True. So what? That of course happens at every moment.
What do you mean, so what?!
It shows that the claim about the existence of a continuous self is not within the scope of Descartes’ claim.
And we have never encountered it!
And therefore? Neither has relativity theory.
Descartes only proved that there is a thinking “I,” but indeed it does not necessarily have to be unified. By contrast, Schopenhauer argued that the experiential “I” that observes everything is known from within through introspection (and in this way he argued that whereas Kant held that we know only the phenomena, the “I” is known in itself).
The cogito argument purports to prove that there is something that thinks, but in fact it proves only the existence of a thought. It jumps to conclude that there is also an entity that thinks the thought—but how do we know that?
Am I mistaken?
A thought is not an object but a property. A property of what? If there is a property, there is an object whose property it is. The existence of a thought means the existence of a thinking intellect of which the thought is a property, or an event that occurs in it and through it.
What do you mean, therefore? If it does not prove that the intellect that thought at time X is the same entity that thought at time X+1 (or the day after sleep),
then what good did this whole proof do me!?!?!?
Just say plainly: I think I am the same “I”—QED.
Who said it did you any good? And if I proved the existence of a continuous being, would that help you? In what way? That is what is proved there, and that’s it. If it doesn’t help you, then it doesn’t.
So how do you prove the existence of the whole world, and that it also has meaning?
And if all these claims do not require proof, then why does everyone talk about the cogito? It even has a Wikipedia article.
Why do I need to prove the existence of the world? Are you on pills or something? I simply see that it exists, and that is enough for me. Do you look for proofs that ice cream tastes good before you eat it? Or that the chair exists before you sit on it? Someone who looks for proofs of that belongs in the psychiatric wing, not the philosophical one.
Everyone talks about the cogito because it is a very interesting argument that tries to prove a factual claim using only logical reasoning and conceptual analysis, without assumptions. If it succeeded in doing that, it would have great philosophical importance—but not because someone needs to prove to himself that he exists or that his thought exists, but because it would be a demonstration of the ability to prove factual claims using logical tools (I commented on this in Column 634, which went up just today, and in several previous columns). By the way, Descartes himself also knew full well that he existed even before the cogito, and the cogito did not help him at all on that score. Many have already pointed out that the doubt on which he based himself was methodological, not genuine. He was trying to ground a claim that he knew was true, because the grounding method was important to him (saving rationalism from empiricist attacks).
In short, this argument was not meant to prove that I exist, or that my thought exists, or that my intellect exists. I know all three of those even without it. The question is whether it succeeds in proving something (one of those three) by logical means or not. That is the important discussion regarding it. Therefore it does not matter whether it proves the existence of a momentary thought, the existence of the intellect at the moment, or the existence of an object continuous over time. If it managed to prove any one of these, that would be its achievement (but it doesn’t).
I understand,
but if our claims do not need proof and we simply assume them, then what does the field of philosophy add for us, if it does seem to be trying to get somewhere? From what you say it sounds like an unnecessary waste of time, or rather the less useful sister of mathematics.
Also, what would you say to a person who claims that every day he meets an alien from the planet Mars? Psychiatrists have encountered such people.
According to his own view, he is supposedly right. What is the difference between assuming that the ice cream exists and assuming that the alien exists? He assumes both are true to the same extent.
But you think he is mistaken / imagining things, and you would attach all sorts of labels to him.
So can that person who meets the alien arrive at the conclusion that he is mistaken, when from his perspective the assumption that it really happened is no less confirmed than the assumption of the existence of the ice cream?
There is definitely great value in it. See my series of columns on philosophy.
Logical inference shows you what follows from your assumptions, and there will be cases where this causes you to reconsider them. Either because the result seems unreasonable to you in itself, or because you realize that it contradicts your other assumptions. A foundational assumption is not arbitrary, but neither is it forced upon us. We examine assumptions, and adopt or reject them.
Even if the result seems reasonable to you, then philosophy has taught you that very thing. Geometry too teaches you a great many things, even though they were all hidden within its assumptions.
By the way, that delusional person is not “right according to his own view”; rather, he is consistent with his own view. Right is right. There is no such thing as “right according to his own view.”
I didn’t understand what it means that a thought is not an object but a property. Thinking is a property, but the thought itself is an existing thing, and that is what he proved.
The intellect is the object. The thought is an event that happens in the intellect or in the brain.
I wanted to ask something from a different angle.
From what you say, it follows that the purpose of philosophy is reminiscent of a pipeline: examining the process that takes place from assumptions to conclusions and back.
But not in order to prove the foundational assumptions or the conclusions. There it is a matter of renewed intuitive examination.
But if so, insofar as there are two people arguing, one with intuition X and the other without it,
let us say in the extreme case one person claims he met an alien every day for the past month and the other claims no, he is delusional.
How would it be possible to conduct a discussion about who is right? Both are consistent.
(The alien case may sound extreme, but in fact most religions began with charismatic people who had a powerful spiritual experience.)
And from the opposite direction: if there is no way to conduct a discussion on the matter, can the person who claimed to have met an alien reach the conclusion that he was delusional? If not, and he really was delusional, why would you not say that this shows that the skeptical argument has serious weight—how can one trust foundational assumptions?…
Also, what is the situation regarding most arguments in the world? Most people do not fail in logic but have different assumptions, like right and left politically (otherwise we would expect to see in arguments a meticulous logical examination of the person standing before us).
But if the assumptions are different and not amenable to persuasion, then there is no point at all in arguing about anything. Everyone will just continue on his own path. But that is not the case.
Discussion about foundational assumptions is conducted in the realm of rhetoric, not logic. You can cause the other person to look at his assumptions from different angles, to see whether he agrees with the conclusions that follow from them, and thus discuss foundational assumptions. So assumptions certainly can be changed.
Beyond that, even if they cannot be changed, that does not point to skepticism. It only means there is no way to converse, but it certainly does not mean there is no one who is right or wrong.
Obviously an argument does not mean that there is no one who is right or wrong.
But assuming positions cannot be changed through rhetoric, then if there is someone who holds assumptions different from yours, doesn’t that undermine the validity of those assumptions for you? Why are you preferable to him?
Because I’m right. See Column 247.
I started reading it.
But I didn’t understand why the other person would not say that he is right.
If each one says that the other is right, de facto that is skepticism.
Or how can the delusional person know that he is delusional and not that others are mistaken and he is right.
1. The cogito proves that there exists an entity that thinks momentarily, but not that there exists a fixed and continuous self like an “I.” It’s only a product of our perceptions and experiences.
In a similar vein, even in introspection we do not encounter a stable and unchanging self, but rather various perceptions, thoughts, and sensations that keep arising all the time.
Also, it is not clear how reliable introspection and reflection are as a means of grounding the existence of an essential self, when our perceptions are often fragmented, inconsistent, and influenced by various factors such as emotions, biases, and external stimuli. (For example, Michi at age 20 versus Michi today.)
2. Sounds reasonable.