One of the recent controversies about Descartes’ cogito argument centers on the extent to which the argument is an inference accomplished in the pragmatic performance one carries out in uttering it—Hintikka started this, I think, maybe in the ‘60s.
Descartes’ statement of the argument in part 4 of the Discourse (as distinct from the version in Meditation 2) comes tantalizing close to supporting this pragmatic interpretation: “But immediately I noticed that while I was trying thus to think everything false, it was necessary that I, who was thinking this, was something.” It’s clear that this version relies on a psychological (timed) process. Just imagine restating it in a timeless way: it seems to alter its meaning to say that “whenever I think such-and-such” instead of the way Descartes put it.
So, two questions.
One: does a psychological process unfolding in time have a pragmatic form, such that to describe its logic, one must describe the effect owing to its use on this or that occasion? (That sounded less theoretical in my head than it looks now that I’ve typed it—of course I can’t get to the bottom of that here.)
And two: So what if it does? That is, even if it has a pragmatic restatement, must it have that restatement? (Is its pragmatic form essential?) After all, couldn’t we just as easily go from a psychological fact about some sequence of thinking to a semantic fact about the proposition being entertained, rather than a pragmatic fact about the proposition being uttered?
In this way the cogito argument stands precisely on the pragmatic/semantic interface.
Descartes’ conclusion does just enough to kick the ambiguity along without deciding the matter: “And observing that this truth ‘I am thinking, therefore I exist' was so firm and sure that all the most extravagant suppositions of the skeptics were incapable of shaking it, I decided that I could accept it without scruple as the first principle of the philosophy I was seeking.” All the key terms in his report of his reasoning are ambiguous in just the same way: ‘observing’, ‘firm and sure’, ‘suppositions’, and ‘shaking’, any or all of which could be construed as either occasion-sensitive features of an uttered proposition or else occasion-insensitive features of an entertained proposition.
Posts
Timothy Chow on the NF consistency proof and Lean
16 hours ago
8 comments:
If by the first question you mean does an idea being processed in the mind have to explained including the process, then I would say yes. The mind processes alot more information than can be demonstrated by a person outwardly. And for anyone to understand anything about another person's ideas they have to try to understand the person also. Why was Descartes looking for anything at all? I don't know if I read the questions the right way, but that is my answer.
Steven Leckel
Trying to understand this...
We process endless amounts of information a day, like you said on the first day of class, we remember only a fragment of what happened in one single day. I believe the thought process has many steps, just thinking about how we think to formulate and idea or concept is impossible. We relate irrelevant information to see if its the correct piece to the thought, We might do this billions of times in our mind in a split second and find the right scattered information; now all one string that is a complete and connected thought.
I'm not really sure what you mean in the first question. Do you mean does your thoughts have to have fact behind it as they are forming? I'm not sure how to answer this.
How we formulate our thoughts may have to do with what we are surrounded by. Im not sure if I'm on the right track as far as your question or theory is concerned but I'm going to take a stab at it. What I mean by the above statement is suppose for example you work at a pizzeria and you have worked there for some time now. Any thought that may occur to you will probably benefit you as a pizza man as opposed to a computer engineer. I guess this is kind of tough to think about although its almost like common sense. Im a finance major but I spend more time working as waiter than analyzing financial data in order to better understand the financial world. Now any innovative thought that I have has to do with being a waiter as opposed to anything to do with finance. So if you think there fore you are then if I think about pizza there fore I am a pizza man, but my passion is finance which in turn means that....kinda tough.
Interesting idea Arjan, makes sense to me
Arjan i really dont think that descarte is trying to say that if you think one way thats how you are (if you think about pizza your a pizza man ect.). I think is thinking more abstract and trying to say that since he is thinking that means he exists. Not phyically saying he is what he thinks he is. But thats just my take.
ps sorry if this posted like 10 times my computer kept getting messed up!
To reiterate what you said prof (I hope) D was getting at any action that occurs exist because you are experiencing it. But how does that make it real. What do these experiences consist of that makes them real. His cogito doesn’t say. Since it appears to be necessarily true I could say I am, but not what I am, right?
I don't think a time sequence to psychological process really matters, because they never stop and I am the entirety of my thought/memories. I suppose it is impossible to get beyond any psychological process to check its pragmatic form; so, I guess one can only assume it is either existent from god or from itself. I would think it to be less of an assumption to go with it's existence pertaining from itself.
Ok so I think you are saying that in the Discourse that he is asking if everything is ture or false.
Then you asked question of "I think therefore I am?" Dosent one thought lead to another? For example if you are thinking about what you want to eat, you then think of your favorite foods, that then make you think of the best places to get that food, then who you might enjoy eating that food with and now you are no longer thinking about what you want to eat. But about someone or something different. Iam I thinking of this wrong or not seeing it in the right way?
Post a Comment