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
At the start of the meditation, Descartes begins by rejecting all his beliefs, so that he would not be deceived by any misconceptions from reaching the truth. Descartes acknowledges himself as, “a thing that thinks: that is, a thing that doubts, affirms, denies, understands a few things, is ignorant of many things” He is certain that that he thinks and exists because his knowledge and ideas are both ‘clear and distinct’. Descartes proposes a general rule, “that whatever one perceives very clearly and very distinctly is true” Descartes discovers, “that he can doubt what he clearly and distinctly perceives is true led to the realization that his first immediate priority should be to remove the doubt” because, “no organized body of knowledge is possible unless the doubt is removed” The best probable way to remove the doubt is prove that God exists, that he is not a deceiver and “will always guarantee that any clear and distinct ideas that enter our minds will be true.” Descartes must remove the threat of an invisible demon that inserts ideas and doubts into our minds to fool us , in order to rely on his ‘clear and distinct’ rule.
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.
In his "Synopsis of the Following Six Meditations," Descartes writes the longest paragraph by far on the Second Meditation. This is hardly surprising, since it is the one most critical to his methodology -- the one without which, his entire system of reasoning would collapse. In the first sentence of it, he presents exactly that conclusion which, as we have just seen, Baird and Kaufmann discussed: "In the Second Meditation," he says (p. 23), "the mind uses its own freedom and supposes the non-existence of all things about whose existence it can have even the slightest doubt; and in so doing the mind notices that it is impossible that it should not itself exist during this time." He goes on to say that this will enable the mind to distinguish itself from the body. At this point he spends a good deal of space speaking of exactly why he will not attempt to prove the immortality of the soul in this section, though perhaps some of his audience might have expected him to.
middle of paper ... ... The operations of our own mind have created this idea of God, which rebuts Descartes’ argument that we have knowledge of the external world because of God. Descartes would argue that Humes’ idea of God is natural and never derived from impressions. Hume’ consequently has the better argument, claiming that the idea of God is actually based on ideas of perfection and infinity is inferred from the ideas of imperfection and finitude.
In this paper, I will explain how Descartes uses the existence of himself to prove the existence of God. The “idea of God is in my mind” is based on “I think, therefore I am”, so there is a question arises: “do I derive my existence? Why, from myself, or from my parents, or from whatever other things there are that are less perfect than God. For nothing more perfect than God, or even as perfect as God, can be thought or imagined.” (Descartes 32, 48) Descartes investigates his reasons to show that he, his parents and other causes cannot cause the existence of himself.
In the second meditation, Descartes is searching for an Archimedian point on which to seed a pearl of certainty. By doubting everything in his first meditation, Descartes consequently doubts his own existence. It is here that a certainty is unearthed: “If I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed”(17). However, Descartes “does not deduce existence from thought by means of syllogism, but recognizes it as something self-evident by a simple intuition of the mind,” or in other words, by natural light (Second Replies:68).
Rene Descartes was a philosopher credited as the “Father of Modern Philosophy.” He was given this title because of his impeccable ideas he continuously came up with. He is well-known for his many famous pieces such including his very own Descartes Mediations 1 and 2. In these pieces he discusses how he came about his ideas of “I think, therefore I am.” His way of thinking is incredible and far from a normal humans perspective.
Hume’s discussion of the “Operations of the Understanding” (Hume 15) ably frames a first comparison with Descartes. Hume divides the objects of human inquiry and reasoning into two categories: relations of ideas and matters of fact. Matters of fact occur in nature and their opposites are conceivable. Relations of ideas are “intuitively or demonstratively certain” (15) and pertain to the disciplines of geometry and algebra. Reason can discover relations of ideas in the realm of thought “without dependence on what is any where existent in the universe” (15) and the opposite of these propositions are inconceivable cont...
Once Descartes recognizes the indubitable truth that he exists, he then attempts to further his knowledge by discovering the type of thing that he is. Trying to understand what he is, Descartes recalls Aristotle's definition of a human as a rational animal. This is unsatisfactory since this requires investigation into the notions of "rational" and "animal". Continuing his quest for identity, he recalls a more general view he previously had of his identity, which is that he is composed of both body and soul. According to classical philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, the key attributes of the soul involve eating, movement, and sensation. He can't claim to h...
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 efforts to find truth, Descartes used only his logic to identify his existence. He also proved that there is some type of knowledge that we are born with. “Some of our ideas seem to be “born with me,” some “invented” by me, whereas others “come from without” (Descartes, 2008, p. 211). Which means Descartes believed that we enter this world with some innate ideas that overtime helps us to develop understanding of our sense (invented by me) and through our experiences (comes from without). Descartes was a dualist; he stated that there existed something outside of our bodies. Descartes suggested that at the “ghost in the machine” theory developed by Gilbert Ryle, which states that there is some mystical being, which we understand is the mind, that is primary to the machine (or the body). Which leads me to believe, innate ideas are active within our minds.
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
He expands on this by explaining the notion that there is a divine, infinite being, such as God, that is innate. Among these statements, Descartes doubts everything he has ever been told in his life, and only keeps the belief that there is an infinite being out there. In Meditations, he explicitly states “Nevertheless I have long had fixed in my mind the belief that an all-powerful God existed by whom I have been created such as I am.”
In the second meditation he has found one true fact, "I think, therefore I am". Descartes then attempts to discover what this "I" is and how it perceives reality. The "I" is a body, a soul, and a thinking thing. It gains perception and recognition through the senses, the imagination, and the mind. He runs into two major problems in these meditations. The first was the existence of reality. The second is the connection between body and mind as he defines them.
...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.