The topic of the discussion is the notion of self as elaborated on by the philosophers René Descartes and David Hume. The self appears self-evident and effortless. It is continuous and persistent during waking consciousness. In daily existence, the self is a source of identity and self-affirmation. Consequently, it is an unquestionable aspect of human existence. However, the two philosophers under consideration diverge on this almost self-evident existence of the self. Descartes argues that the self is self-evident and is the aspect of human existence that allows thoughts to occur to the human mind. He proposes that the self is as certain as existence since the two are mutually exclusive concepts. On the other hand, Hume proposes that the self …show more content…
By doing so Descartes realized that what remains is doubt. Since doubting exists, then there is a potential self. This is because if everything created in the mind from outside impressions is removed and only doubt remains, then the doubting or thinking mind must necessarily exist. Consequently, a self that is independent of outside impressions upon the mind must necessarily exist. Descartes referred to this as occurrent existence. By removing all sources of knowledge that have no certain truth such as the senses and their impressions on the mind, the remaining part must be a persistent self. Therefore, Descartes states, “I think, therefore I am” (Descartes, pg 161). Since it is impossible for the thinking self to exist by itself without a controlling element outside of the material world, Descartes posited that there must be a transcendent immaterial element responsible for existence. Therefore, Descartes leaves room for a prime mover that is the source of the self. This prime mover is the substance that makes the individual to perceive the self as existing continuously and persisting over …show more content…
This is because he starts from what he immediately knows, which is our own consciousness and commences his analysis on the nature of the self from this standpoint. As he puts it, we cannot know whether the material world is an illusion created by an evil being. Therefore, starting from our own consciousness, which is what we are most certain of as existing beings, is the most proficient and sure way to arrive at truthful understandings of the self. On the other hand, Hume starts from matter, the truth of which we can never be certain. From this standpoint, he works backwards and concludes that a persistent self cannot exist since the matter he relies on to construct his argument about the self is impermanent and always changing. Hume explains the persistence of the sense of self as an illusion created by the rapidity with which the impressions create ideas or thoughts in the mind. Hume’s position inevitably leads to scientific materialism since he starts from what one cannot be certain about, which is matter. The invalidity of his views of the self comes from later advancements in the sciences, which have demonstrated that the brain is the seat of consciousness. Furthermore, current perceptions of the self mostly contend that the self generates experience, rather than the other way round. Hume’s position assumes that experience generates the self while Descartes’ position is the opposite. In hindsight, Descartes’ position
Humans have the capability to think for themselves and therefore can be aware of there own existence. In the first essay we studies, “From Skepticism to Conviction” by Rene Descartes, shows the basis of the human
Through Descartes’s Meditations, he sought to reconstruct his life and the beliefs he had. He wanted to end up with beliefs that were completely justified and conclusively proven. In order to obtain his goal, Descartes had to doubt all of his foundational beliefs so that he could start over. This left Descartes doubting the reality of the world around him and even his own existence. In order to build up to new conclusively proven and justified true beliefs, Descartes needed a fixed and undeniable starting point. This starting point was his cogito, “I think, therefore I am.” In this paper I will argue that Descartes’s argument that he is definite of his own existence, is unsound.
It is in Meditation II that Descartes relates his certainty regarding his existence. He claims that he exists because he is able to think; “I think, therefore I am.” Even though he believes that all of his senses are subject to analysis, he knows for certain that he is thinking. This leads into the concept of separation between mind and body. Meditation II is Descartes assertion that both mind and body are separate from one another. Further on in Meditation VI, Descartes evaluates the existence of material objects, away from the existence of self and the existence of God. He acknowledges that he believes that material objects can exist since they are “objects of pure mathematics.” He acknowledges that God is capable of creating everything for which he is capable of perceiving. Additionally, Descartes acknowledges that the imagination produces evidence to support the perceived existence of external
Descartes assured his existence through the conviction of "Cogito, ergo sum" which translates into “I think therefore I am” (Popkin & Stroll 198). In order to question ones existence one must exist, non-existence cannot question itself. I know that my mind exists because I am here to question its existence. To concretize this idea, imagine a house and you are building a house on ground which you see. The house is built out of wood, metal, and earth on the ground. Does the house exist because of the materials used to build it or because your mind tells you that it exists? Well based on Descartes, there are no such things as wood or metal in reality because the only thing that is real is the mind itself and the built house is a figment of your mind to what you perceive as real better known as an illusion. Therefore all that we sense is an illusion and everything outside the mind is uncertain of existence. Furthermore this leads to the ...
He assumes nothing is certain and argued “So after considering about that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind” (Descartes, p354). It is the proposition for Descartes, so to be sure that “I” can doubt, “I” must exist. For him, even the body or the nature of body and “For, according to my judgement, the power of self-movement, like the power of sensation or of thought, was quite foreign to the nature of a body; indeed, it was a source of wonder to me that certain bodies were found to contain faculties of this kind” do not exist, but he is stills existing because these stuff are separable from “I”. Within his example of dreaming, he has already assumed that we do not have body, and this self-movement surely disappear without a body. So this kind of things is weak to prove the existence of “I”. However, “At least I have discovered it- thought; this alone is inseparable from me” (Descartes, p355). Then because “I” have thought, that is I can think, Descartes claimed “I” am a thinking thing. That
In the second meditation, Descartes reached his first standstill concerning the validity of the imagination. He was able to prove that since the previous meditation, that he exists for his thoughts cannot be separated from himself and therefore, he exists as long as he is able to think. Thus, while Descartes now knows with certainty that he exists, he has reached the dilemma of the self. “What is the self, and where does the knowledge of its existence come from?” Descartes makes the following claim arguing that the understanding of the self and how it cannot be understood through means of the imagination. “I know that I exist, and I am asking: what is this I that I know? My knowledge of it can’t depend on the things of whose existe...
After all of Descartes' study and contemplation of math and science, he decided to find a single principle without doubt on which to build knowledge. His purpose in life became the development of a metaphysical theory that would prove the mathematical truth he had found. His analytical system of doubt led him to doubt everything in the world. He finally reached the conclusion that everything can be doubted except for one thing, his own existence. Even this was called into doubt and found true. Descartes rationalized that by doubting his own existence, he was thinking. If he was thinking, then he must exist. Then he contemplated whether he was awake or asleep. If he was asleep, then he was dreaming that he was thinking and therefore not existing. He decided that one could use sense perception to realize if one was awake of asleep. Finally he concluded, "I think, therefore I am." This became the basis for his entire system of beliefs. Descartes' argument for existence was called "cogito ergo sum." All of Descartes philosophical arguments were made by analytical means. He deduced the conclusion.
In Meditations on First Philosophy, it is the self-imposed task of Descartes to cast doubt upon all which he knows in order to build a solid foundation of knowledge out of irrefutable truths. Borrowing an idea from Archimedes, that with one firm and immovable point the earth could be moved, Descartes sought one immovable truth. Descartes' immovable truth, a truth on which he would lay down his foundation of knowledge and define all that which he knows, was the simple line "Cogito ergo sum": I think, therefore I am. This allowed for his existence.
Baird and Kaufmann, the editors of our text, explain in their outline of Descartes' epistemology that the method by which the thinker carried out his philosophical work involved first discovering and being sure of a certainty, and then, from that certainty, reasoning what else it meant one could be sure of. He would admit nothing without being absolutely satisfied on his own (i.e., without being told so by others) that it was incontrovertible truth. This system was unique, according to the editors, in part because Descartes was not afraid to face doubt. Despite the fact that it was precisely doubt of which he was endeavoring to rid himself, he nonetheless allowed it the full reign it deserved and demanded over his intellectual labors. "Although uncertainty and doubt were the enemies," say Baird and Kaufmann (p.16), "Descartes hit upon the idea of using doubt as a tool or as a weapon. . . . He would use doubt as an acid to pour over every 'truth' to see if there was anything that could not be dissolved . . . ." This test, they explain, resulted for Descartes in the conclusion that, if he doubted everything in the world there was to doubt, it was still then certain that he was doubting; further, that in order to doubt, he had to exist. His own existence, therefore, was the first truth he could admit to with certainty, and it became the basis for the remainder of his epistemology.
“We owe the notion of “the mind” as a separate entity in which “processes” occur to the same period, and especially to Descartes” (Rorty, 2008, p. 234). Plato was the first philosopher to argue that there was something beyond our body. Descartes agree with Plato on this theory and explored this idea more in-depth. Stating that these innate ideas exist, but they remain idle in our minds until a significant event awakens them. He arrived at this idea by doubting everything that he was taught was the truth, and he even doubted his own sense saying that they were deceptive, and after using philosophy of doubt he came to the realization of his existence through the logical reasoning. After he established that his senses were not real, he began to doubt his brain, he stated that our dreams are an interpretation of reality, even though they seem so real. He says that it was only thr...
Descartes’ search for an underlying foundational premise ends when he realises he exists, at least when he thinks he exists ‘doubtless, then, that I exist and, let him deceive me as he may, he can never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I shall be conscious that I am something. So that it must, in fine, be maintained, all things being maturely and carefully considered, that this proposition I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time it is expressed by me or conceived in my mind’. This argument ‘I think therefore I am’ is Descartes’ cogito argument as in Latin it is cogito ergo sum. The cogito argument raises some difficulties, as when thinking results in existence not thinking should therefore result in non-existence leaving the problem of returning to thought from non-existence. Descartes could ...
In conclusion of this paper, from the arguments stated above about Humes’ and Descartes philosophical positions, Hume has a stronger position on the existence of the external world.
Using Strawson’s examination as a guide to Descartes philosophy,i have tried to show how the two issues, of individuation and identity threaten to destroy Descartes’ philosophy of mind-body dualism.
In conclusion, Descartes and Hume believe that one finds the truth through the use of one’s senses. Even though they may be perceived differently and used in memory in different forms. Hume believes that there is no such thing as self. One is ever changing and different in each individual moment in time. While Descartes argues that one is built off of the past and the body and the mind are one. That the body and mind act in sync with one another, whatever the body does the mind directs or understands the task at
...have struggled with the nature of human beings, especially with the concept of “self”. What Plato called “soul, Descartes named the “mind”, while Hume used the term “self”. This self, often visible during hardships, is what one can be certain of, whose existence is undoubtable. Descartes’s “I think, therefore I am” concept of transcendental self with just the conscious mind is too simplistic to capture the whole of one’s self. Similarly, the empirical self’s idea of brain in charge of one’s self also shows a narrow perspective. Hume’s bundle theory seeks to provide the distinction by claiming that a self is merely a habitual way of discussing certain perceptions. Although the idea of self is well established, philosophical insight still sees that there is no clear presentation of essential self and thus fails to prove that the true, essential self really exists.