Descartes (de’kart): I think therefore I am (cogito ergo sum), Extended objects and his “bait and switch”
It was during my youth that I first heard the quote “I think therefore I am,” and I was clueless to what it actually meant. I simply played along like I understood. At that time, all I knew was that some French dude, began to doubt and then discovered he was thinking and therefore existed. So what is the big deal? At that time, this statement was beyond my intellectual capabilities and it just seemed random or poetic. But in college I was finally required to read the document that this statement was written. It is from Rene Descartes’ Meditations. I had to read Meditations a few times to understand what the big deal was and after a few examinations and definitions of terms, the “light” was turned on.
Here are some terms and steps that might help in understanding the statement, what Descartes is talking about (or perhaps thinking about) and why it is important:
Doubt: Descartes begins to doubt all human knowledge, all observations, all information, all Divine truth, all things he “knows.” He asks himself, how do I really know that is true? How do I really know I exist? How do I know that these images are “real” things or just my imagination? How do I know that this reality is not simply my single mind play tricks on me? From all the doubting, the one thing that Descartes concludes is that he is a “thinking thing.”
Thinking Thing: Descartes was thinking. He was sitting in his pajamas, looking into a fire, holding wax and wondering what the true “form” of the wax is as it melted into his hands. He sits and wonders if God or a creator has given him real or actual information about life and reality or perhaps the Devil was tricking him and giving him false information. Regardless, the one thing he observed was that despite all things he was doubting, he was a “thinking thing.”
Existance: Because he was a “thinking thing” he knew he existed, was a being, or in his words “therefore I am.” Because he experienced the action the “thinking” he was a “thinking thing.”
Essence: He did not know what his essence was; he was simply a thinking “thing.” In order words he had no clue what the “thinking thing” was made out of, or what it consisted of. All he “knew” was that he was a “thinking thing” but was not sure what the essence was. He had existance, but did not know what the essence was.
Extended Objects: Descartes then makes a connection. He makes the connection between the informration recieved from what appeared to be “outside” himself. He called this “extended objects.” He was a thinking thing that existed (I am), but did not know what he was made out of and observed that there was received information externally.
He then proposed this question: Where did these extended objects come from? Who created it? He concludes that these extended objects must be created by God.
That is the most basic summary of the statement “I think therefore I am.”
But wait… How in the hell does he assume these three things:
1) Can he really doubt everything away? (I doubt that!)
2) How does he know that “external objects” are external (that is assumed. According to the Matrix it is all internal objects from computer programs!)
3) How does he know that these assumed external objects are created by God. I call this the “bait and switch” for two reasons. The first reason is that he builds up to a thinking thing, without a known essense, that experiences external objects… and then switches to the existance of God. The second reason is more contextual to his life. He lived in a Christian culture. He was developing Christian theology and an arguement not simply for his own existance, but also for the existance of a creator of external objects. He wants me to believe in the God of the Bible from this argument. I call that a “bait and switch.”
roger schmeeckle said,
March 10, 2008 at 6:45 pm
With regard to your first alleged assumtion: I consider it as what today would be referred to as a thought experiment. Descartes is seeking a method to obtain certainty, the kind of certainty that had impressed him from the study of mathematics. He did not, as he himself makes clear, doubt everything away.
Re 2) Computer programs only simulate external objects. Such simulations either presume the existence of external objects, or are themselves external objects.
Re 3) I think you are correct in suggesting that Descartes wanted his readers to believe in God. What is wrong with that? I doubt that Descartes would ever have used the expression “God of the Bible.”
But you seem to be approaching Descartes by thinking, therefore you are (an external object).
mealtime1211 said,
March 12, 2008 at 9:04 pm
RE 1: the search of certainty does not constitute actual certainty (he was a rationalist… ). and I see no inconsistency here.
RE 2: the matrix comment was satirical (and highly anachronistic…) but it is more complicated as we both make it seem (I am writting a blog, not a book).
RE 3: Descartes was a Christian, he was in the church.. he read the bible. This is well established. He was attempting to defend the faith against skepticism, he helped to set into motion a rationalistic approach to knowledge and theology… and set the stage to human autonomy as the measure of all things. There is nothing wrong with a belief in God (I did not say there was, I assume things all the time, esp. my belief in God).