In a world filled with uncertainty, people are always trying to find certainty. Something to cling onto. Something that gives worth to other things. In search of this “certainty”, humans have come to different conclusions of what’s certain, and what is not. A popular phrase used when determining some of these conclusions is René Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum”, a phrase that has impacted Western philosophy for years. To this day, it is still being widely discussed. Though, even with its “bulletproof” reasoning, the phrase has not been immune to scrutiny. Over time, it has faced many different opinions on whether it’s valid or not. Though, is this because Descartes is incorrect, or because we viewed his statement incorrectly?
The Birth of The Cogito
To understand the cogito, we need to first understand the background and context to its creation. Descartes, known as the father of modern philosophy, tried to discover a piece of knowledge that was bullet proof. Something that, no matter what kind of radical skepticism came in its path, couldn’t be proven wrong. For Descartes, that piece of knowledge was the act of doubting. Descartes realized that, while one may doubt the existence or legitimacy of everything else, the very act of doubting proved our existence. At least as a thinking entity. Thus, the cogito was born.
My Personal Breakdown
Now that we have context to the cogito, let’s actually understand how it’s meant to be interpreted. Firstly, we need to understand that the phrase is not a syllogism, but rather a self-evident statement. “Cogito” is the act of mental activity, though broadly claimed. “Ergo” is the connecting phrase. And finally, “sum” is the conclusion; it is the assertion that we exist. Due to this wording and meaning behind the wording, many tie this phrase to a metaphysical argument, though I believe it’s better to think of it as an epistemological starting point when critiquing it, as this phrase is only the beginning of a huge rabbit hole.
Criticisms From Others
Even though the cogito was made to be unstoppable, humans will always find something to criticize. One of those criticisms, which is often recurring, is that in Descartes’ formula, there is an “I”. In asserting “I think”, many believe that presupposes a subject, a thing, thereby rendering the conclusion “I am” redundant. Another criticism is the fact that the cogito only focuses on the individual. Many argue that other factors (e.g. other people) should also be factored in. Arwen Alvesteffer states that “[The mind isn’t the only reference], because there are always exceptions. For example, if someone were brain dead, then they themselves may not realize their existence, but others definitely will.” And yes, I would say that’s true. There are always exceptions, since we don’t know as much as we think we do. Alvesteffer later goes on to explain how, while there are exceptions, “your mind is where all your decisions come from; [it’s what allows you to know what is real].” This is how Alvesteffer thinks about it, which matches the viewpoint of many others.
My Viewpoint
Even though Alvesteffer’s ideas may be commonly shared amongst many, it doesn’t necessarily make it correct. You see, the cogito isn’t supposed to be affected by external factors. As it isn’t a conclusion, at least in the way I interpret it. “Cogito ergo sum” means “I think, therefore I am”, not “I think, therefore I am. So if I don’t think, then I am not.” This is exactly why it’s so hard to disprove the cogito. I personally feel as though many people seem to forget this very important factor: It is not the end, but the beginning. It’s a fact “without” borders.
With all this breakdown, I feel as though Descartes isn’t necessarily wrong. While yes, it is very difficult to truly prove something as 100% scientifically true, I would say his theory is very solid. In my mind, “Cogito ergo sum” works like this: The I isn’t a presupposition, or at least it isn’t meant to be. Though I do admit the wording could’ve been better (e.g. Using “it” to make sure you aren’t accidentally giving the subject “life”). But I still believe that the phrase is fine as it is, because, again, it isn’t a conclusion. I feel as though that’s what makes the cogito so unique. It’s flexible, and that’s what a lot of people don’t factor in. The cogito isn’t a conclusion. In the end, I believe it is completely up to interpretation.
