Descartes is often recognized as the father of modern philosophy. This recognition is justified by his break of traditional philosophy trend of his time, and development and promotion of new mechanistic sciences. There are two fundamental reasons to justified his break. First, Descartes thought most of the philosophical methods at that time were all prone to doubt given their dependence as a source of knowledge (Descartes, 1650). Second, Descartes wanted to replace the final causal model of scientific explanation with more mechanistic and modern model. To achieve this desecrates developed his method of doubt. This method of doubt serves Descartes purpose of the search for the truth. Descartes believed that clearing the previous beliefs will make one have grounded knowledge. While doubting everything in his life, he founded that it is difficult to doubt “I exist”. At this point, Descartes prove that God exist and in doing so, he will discover what has become the foundation of philosophy. And reaching this conclusion, Descartes begin again to rebuild his previous belief based on this new foundation. This word “I exist” that made Descartes come up with his famous statement “I think, therefore I am”.
“I think; therefore I am” is also known in Latin as “cogito ergo sum”. His skeptical method towards knowledge made him make this conclusion. He founded that because of his doubt in existence. He thought that he must exist so that he can doubt. In this argument of existence, many critics have argued that the statement begs the question. That the statement only makes the assumption that I, that agent exist, but does not prove (Descartes, 1650). By taking that direction, they wanted to remove the grammatical error, instead of focusing on the metaphysical knowledge. Descartes wrote these meditations with an aim of certainty of finding what he knew, and that will be the basis of knowledge (Gruberger,46) To prove his conclusion, he argued that although much he had supposed to be true, was, in fact false. Using his method of doubt, Descartes also founded that even if a mind “demon deceiver” deceive him he cannot doubt is existences. This is because Descartes was thinking, and that process itself was self-assurance that he exists. And for that conclusion, he argues that there was the foundation of knowledge. In this statement, he doesn’t want to prove that he knows everything, but rather he wants to find a step that will make it the foundation of knowledge, and he know way can be doubted.
However, Ayer has argued that Descartes statement “I exist” is tautologous, because if one can think, it is logical that he must exist. Therefore, making the conclusion that it is not knowledge. Furthermore, Ayer added that if one doubts the statement “I exist” it means that the statement was true and not false. But in reply, Descartes specifically state that perhaps, that he was doubting somewhat, which the “malicious demon” might have influence and not everything is certain. In addition, even if such statement is tautologous as a claim by Ayer, it still beyond any doubt, that it cannot be the foundation of knowledge. Because, Descartes objective was to find something that can provide more clear and distinct knowledge, which cannot be just be believed, but known by certainty. Furthermore, for Descartes to prove is certainty of this new foundation of knowledge, he goes on to defend geometry and other concepts of mathematics that if one cannot trust this knowledge it is difficult not to trust that 2+2 =4. This abstract knowledge an assisted him to make more prone statement that “I think, therefore he exists”. He added that he cannot know if he his deceive by “malicious demon” every time he adds two, three and etc.
Though, the response of Descartes on questions he was sure to arise from the argument, Descartes statement is undoubtedly the foundation of modern metaphysical knowledge (Ruscombe-King, 25). Therefore, this statement is the most certain source of knowledge despite the linguistic critics from Ayer. This is because the tautologous not only prove the weakness of the statement but it’s rather solidifies the claim and expound on what Descartes assume or added to the argument. Also, many critics aggress that what Descartes makes in his argument is an individual statement and thus, there is no need for grammatical objections.
In conclusion, “I think, therefore I am” remain valid. There is no separate entity needed for it to remain valid. It is also clear that Descartes is not referring to himself and if he exists, but rather question who am I and finding that the question is undoubted, he argues that it is the foundation in which all knowledge can be rebuilt on successful prove that I exist does go beyond nothing that mind can deceiver one. Because the concept of perfection can be built by applying what we know, Descartes used the argument of mathematics and God argument to prove that with no doubt, there is no one even the malicious demon can doubt our existence.
Work Cited
Descartes, René. "I think, therefore I am." René Descartes(1970): 1596-1650.
Gruberger, M., et al. "I think therefore I am: Rest-related prefrontal cortex neural activity is involved in generating the sense of self." Consciousness and cognition 33 (2015): 414-421.
Ruscombe-King, Gillie, et al. "“I know you think I think–therefore I am”. Mentalisation based therapeutic community: a description." Therapeutic Communities: The International Journal of Therapeutic Communities 38.1 (2017): 1-9.
