“Cogito ergo sum,” which is Latin for “I think, therefore I am,” is a philosophical statement famously postulated by Rene Descartes in order to logically prove that he indeed exists. Descartes took a very skeptical stance towards all knowledge, and was looking for something that was undoubtedly true to serve as a valid foundation for the rest of his philosophy. He one day concluded that even if he doubts he is thinking, he must exist in order to doubt; thus he concluded that he must exist, and “I think, therefore I am” was born.
This statement is well known in modern society. Many people take it as a fact that we exist, and many of them would use Descartes’ “cogito ergo sum” as logical support for that belief. While Descartes’ conclusion appeals to intuition and provides an ostensibly irrefutable argument for the validity of our existence as we perceive it, his argument contains fallacies that undermine its validity.
First of all, his argument, if looked at carefully, begs the question by assuming that an “I” exists before making that conclusion. Even unchanged, that statement assumes that an “I” exists in order to think before concluding that an “I” exists. An argument that simply assumes its conclusion is valid before actually making that conclusion loses considerable validity. Soren Kierkegaard, a great existential philosopher, was an early objector to Descartes’ “cogito ergo sum” that pointed out this logical fallacy.
Furthermore, the false validity “cogito ergo sum” relies on the validity of grammar in metaphysical argument, as noted by Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzche. Why does there have to be a subject that does the thinking and why does it have to be this “I,” whose very existence we are contemplating? It is intuitive to think that we are doing the thinking, but what if we do not create these thoughts-what if these thoughts come to us? If that is the case, then we have no proof that an “I” exists. Nietzche and Russell, both very influential philosophers, contend that while Descartes’ line of reasoning makes apparent that “something” exists to think, Descartes’ reasoning does not logically lend to the conclusion that an “I” exists. Therefore, they both independently conclude that Descartes’ “cogito ergo sum” is not a logical validation of our human existence.
These two criticisms, even independently of one another, can undermine the logical soundness of Descartes’ famous “cogito ergo sum.” Together, they make it clear that Descartes’ conclusion has no logical worth, despite the extent to which it appeals to our intuition that we do indeed exist. These criticisms, however, do not preclude our existence; they just mean that if we do wish to prove our existence through philosophical logic, we need to use a different line of reasoning than Descartes. Furthermore, perhaps philosophy cannot lead to proof of our existence (which is ironic considering that the contemplation of existence is a stereotypical philosophical concept) because such a fact lies outside the realm of logic and reason. In that case, we may have to simply believe our intuition that we exist or live as true skeptics that cannot even be sure of our very existence as sentient beings.
Sources:
http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-fallacy/begging-the-question/
http://www.lehman.edu/deanhum/philosophy/BRSQ/09feb/sullivan.htm
