Introduction
The modern understanding of philosophy depends mainly on the most important figures of the past. René Descartes, a mathematician, a naturalist, and an essential figure of the scientific revolution, made an immense contribution to the formation of New Age philosophy. This paper examines the fundamental principles of cogito and Descartes’s definition of the nature of thinking. Its analysis aims to construct and summarize the criticisms apparent in the author’s writings.
Central Idea
The basic idea, known even to those far removed from philosophy, has been conveyed to the masses, somewhat distorted in the ambiguity of its interpretation. However, upon closer examination, it becomes possible to determine Descartes’ theory’s lack of logic and completeness. Thus, examining the theorist’s philosophical method, the incompatibility with the mathematical precision of his parallel scientific research, and the recursive contradictions offers a critique of his position in either of the two main treatments.
To understand the essence of Descartes’ critically evaluated arguments, it is initially necessary to summarize his assertions. This examines the foundation of the position, his understanding of the nature of thought and the body, the essential certainty, and its conception. In addition, attention must be paid to an equally important factor, namely, theology (de Peretti 1). The interweaving of theology into Descartes’ philosophical convictions considerably shades the fidelity of critical remarks about the contradiction of his dogmas.
Cogito Ergo Sum Arguments
René Descartes is known as one of the most prominent philosophical theorists and a representative of the Western rationalist trend. Thus, his concept of cogito is an introduction to philosophy with a new meaning based on reflection as an act of consciousness of the subject (Forsman 92). It does not imply a mere thinking activity, image, or desire, but the same act of discovering one’s consciousness in each of one’s experiences.
Accordingly, the interpretation of the most famous principle of cogito ergo sum is often incorrect: the principle does not imply that anyone who thinks exists. In the context of Descartes’ explanation, this argument points solely to the self-discovery of an object in the process of any act of consciousness (9). Thus, implied is the process of observing one’s thinking and stating the fact of having oneself as a thinking being as the primary source of one’s acts of consciousness and their contents.
The Confidence in Descartes’ Knowledge
From the basic argument of the cogito, Descartes dismantles his and any human certainty. He begins to state the basis with doubt and its opposite of certainty, further assuming the universality of this knowledge (Descartes 12). Accordingly, an inversely proportional relationship of one to the other is determined: when doubt increases, certainty decreases, and vice versa. Moreover, in the process of reflection, it becomes clear that as long as there is at least a modicum of doubt about a fact, it cannot be regarded as unequivocally true or existing with complete certainty.
Thus, the only absolute certainty, not subject to even the slightest doubt, consists in the unambiguous existence of the mind. Descartes lists some of his potential certainties but subjects them to his method of doubt (11). Among these, one can list the existence of one’s own body, the knowledge of the fact of its birth a certain number of years ago, and its continuous existence since then. However, this knowledge confirms only the reality of the mind’s existence, and everything else is a consequence of the senses, which can be mistaken, hence causing doubt.
Understanding the Concept of the Nature of the Mind
The nature of the mind, as understood by the philosopher, is based on the sole certainty of its existence through thought. Descartes defines the mind as the opposite of the body, existing elsewhere and having no physical properties or dimensions (9). Separately, the independence of thinking from the body in physical terms and the impossibility of interaction are highlighted. Assuming any change in the body, the person is still the same as long as the same mind is associated with it.
Main Argument and Reflection
There exists an inevitable entanglement within Descartes’ thoughts and statements. The main argumentation of the “res cogitans” conclusion is based on the author’s imagination of a deceptive demon who makes one question the authenticity of one’s beliefs and thoughts (Descartes 10). Descartes argues that a non-existent person cannot be deceived, and in order to be deceived, one must exist (Forsman 92). In the same way, it is argued that one cannot infer one’s non-existence as long as one is convinced to the contrary. Moreover, the argument does not take into account perception through one’s senses, but the statement of the fact of mere existence through reflection.
Given Descartes’ religious reflections, the concept of the mind often resonates with the soul. The author does not directly draw a parallel between the two concepts but explicitly acknowledges the connection between them (Descartes 10). However, the relation between soul and body on the physical plane is denied. In this case, the fundamental mistake in the problem of body and mind, according to Descartes, becomes evident: he describes the interaction of these concepts simultaneously while completely denying the intersection of the sphere of existence of the mind and the physical world (12).
Doubts about reality and the existence of any object are products of thought, and it is impossible to affirm the existence of anything other than the mind entirely. Beyond this, Descartes believes in the existence of God, who created him as a thinking being as he is (Forsman 95).
It is asserted in parallel to the certainty of the truth of the existence of the mind alone and the doubt of everything else. Correspondingly, the philosopher’s religious beliefs do not coincide with the periodic logicality of his reasoning. Moreover, it is necessary to notice the lack of definition of the meaning of being in this philosophical theory. Descartes defines cogito and continues with ergo sum without defining the mere essence of sum.
What exactly defines the importance, the clear sense of existence, and the environment in which this existence occurs was not taken into account. Thus, put in place of man’s being, his thinking regards not being as the essence of man but cognition itself. Being, in other words, is presented as the object of cognition, confronting it as a subject.
Furthermore, one cannot fail to note the exceptional subjectivity of Descartes’ philosophy and methods. He provides no objective criteria, conditioning everything solely on his understanding of truth. Thus, there is a possibility of falling into the logical trap, based on the fact that to prove the truth, the exact notion of truth must be clear and understandable, but the idea is valid only to the extent that it is true.
Descartes claims that subjective truth can be determined by intellectual intuition (11). This idea only underlines the non-objectivity and non-universality of his theory. In addition, this reasoning makes it unclear how the philosopher draws a parallel between personality and thinking. However, he denies the possibility of body and mind influence, and the sheer fact of thinking cannot be identified with the personality.
By fixing the cognitive process, the most logical conclusion in this reasoning was: “It thinks.” In this case, it is implied in terms of an impersonal subject with no reference to place or identity. The connection precisely with the person of the thinking thing is unobvious and not justified by the philosopher, which emphasizes the undeveloped nature of this theory.
Possible Objections
Possible objections to this criticism have been considered in the context of similar remarks throughout the study of the author’s writings. Many critics concurred, confirming the logic of the abovementioned criticisms (Christofidou 254). An example of an objection is to deny the influence of religious beliefs on the formation of Descartes’ ideas. However, upon closer examination, the contradiction of believing exclusively in the existence of a thinking process and doubting everything else becomes apparent in parallel with the unshakable confidence in the existence of a higher power.
Conclusion
Thus, Descartes’ philosophical reflections look inconsistent and incoherent and do not resonate with his scientific achievements. The relationship to the philosopher’s religious beliefs can be seen in the strange intertwining of his position and perceptions of human nature. His mutually exclusive assertions, his lack of rationalism, and his deafness to the criticisms of his contemporaries make one wonder about the importance of teaching Descartes’ philosophical ideas in modern education. His undoubted achievements in geometry, mathematics, and analysis should be what focuses society’s attention.
Works Cited
Christofidou, Andrea. “Descartes’ Flash of Insight: Freedom, the Objective World, and the Reality of the Self.” The European Legacy, Toward New Paradigms, vol. 27, no. 3–4, 2022, pp. 251–268. Web.
de Peretti, François-Xavier. “Stop Doubting with Descartes.” Topoi: An International Review of Philosophy, 2022, pp. 1–11. Web.
Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy. Translated by Donald A. Cress, 3rd ed., Hackett Publishing, 1993.
Forsman, Jan. “Can an Atheist Know That He Exists? Cogito, Mathematics, and God in Descartes’s Meditations.” International Journal for the Study of Skepticism, vol. 9, no. 2, 2019, pp. 91–115. Web.