## The logic of "Cogito ergo sum"

Philosophical, mathematical and computational logic, linguistics, formal argument, game theory, fallacies, paradoxes, puzzles and other related issues.

### Re: The logic of "Cogito ergo sum"

zaq222 wrote:What inferences exactly did he have to sneak by to arrive at it (his first philosophy)?

If you can find Owen4x's post in this thread, and my reply to it, that would be my answer.

zaq222 wrote:Are you doubting the validity of his statement in light of the logical means, or just the means he uses to get there?

Neither: I am doubting the epistemic status he claimed for it. I don't know how many more times I have to say this. I don't claim that the statement is false, I claim that it wasn't his first and foundational principle.

Lomax

Posts: 3711
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK

### Re: The logic of "Cogito ergo sum"

No, i was just starting a discourse, didn't mean to come off adversarial.

As far as the logic, i do believe it necessarily follows logically, even if reduced to X->Y because what i meant to say was "I think" (i doubt) when reduced to a predicate still does not simply mean "I think" or "I doubt", it means "as a being capable of thought, expressed through doubting, if i use that ability, it necessarily follows that a being who exists independently used that ability (X).

No?
zaq222

### Re: The logic of "Cogito ergo sum"

What is meant by "following logically" is the result of developing a series of premises from which a conclusion logically follows. To indicate that X implies Y is merely to say it's a premise that can be restated as "if X, then, Y". The premise isn't the conclusion. If Y is the conclusion, then one has to include an additional premise which in this case reads "X".

1. If Wishes are Horses, Beggars can Ride.

2. Wishes are Horses.

Conclusion: Beggars can Ride.

And the truth of the premises becomes something used as a ground of the argument's soundness. Premises, as such, need to be more obviously true than the conclusion reached, else, what's the point of making it. Descartes's argument needs to be spelled out. That famous statement itself isn't the argument.

James
owleye

### Re: The logic of "Cogito ergo sum"

zaq222 wrote:No, i was just starting a discourse, didn't mean to come off adversarial.

No worries; you didn't, and I probably did.

zaq222 wrote:As far as the logic, i do believe it necessarily follows logically, even if reduced to X->Y because what i meant to say was "I think" (i doubt) when reduced to a predicate still does not simply mean "I think" or "I doubt", it means "as a being capable of thought, expressed through doubting, if i use that ability, it necessarily follows that a being who exists independently used that ability (X).

No?

By all means. Owleye's response kind of explains what I'm saying: the famous Latin dictum just isn't the epistemic foundation of Descartes's thought, the first refuge from his Cartesian doubt - which he was clear it was supposed to be - because he derives it from premises, and using a logic, that he already accepts. As such I don't deny that Descartes both existed and thought, only that dubito cogito ergo sum is epistemically special.

Lomax

Posts: 3711
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK

### Re: The logic of "Cogito ergo sum"

I've always been somewhat surprised that 'Cogito, ergo sum' ever received such acclaim and attention. Obviously Descartes felt that this realisation would negate any philosophical argument about whether any of us really exist or whether we are illusions.

But surely we all had a sense of our own being (and separatism) as toddlers or younger especially when we were hurt physically in some way. Without using the actual words we could have experienced the notion that 'I hurt, therefore I am'.

doogles
Active Member

Posts: 1238
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE

Previous