REFLECTION ESSAY

Answer

1. • Criticism of Descartes’ Dictum “I Think, Therefore I am”

     Following his inquiry into what we know, Descartes is said to have famously concluded that, “I think, therefore I am”. While this can be considered an argument, many a philosopher tend to conceptualize it as an enthymeme, in that since whatever thinks exists, I must also exist because I think. Unfortunately for Descartes, his dictum emerged to be vulnerable to criticisms from equally great minds such as Locke, Hume and other philosophers whose ideas continue shaping the philosophical stage. Indeed, taking the implied criticisms into context, it is safe to infer that Descartes’ dictum is not only confusing, unclear and complicated but also unreliable. This paper advances an argument to this effect.

     First, it is imperative to interrogate why the dictum under focus was an important result for him, and as such the role it played in the overall arguments that he was making vis a vis understanding of the self, therefore human knowledge in general. In this breath, this quote became the foundation for human knowledge in its entirety, at least from Descartes’ point of view. Even away from this viewpoint, the dictum would draw criticisms and counterarguments that in one way or another advanced comprehension of the self. Some in the philosophical sphere have described it as a major landmark in the often-blurred sphere of contemporary philosophy (Reichenback 261). However, other thinkers would dismiss it as having no significance at all, an example being Moritz Schlick who asserted that the statement not only failed to express anything but also could not act as the basis for any other thing (Schlick 218).

     By and large, while Descartes thought he had put forth an eye-opening proposition, it emerges to be confusing, unclear, complicated and unreliable. Critically exploring and interrogating the dictum under focus, one notices that to say ‘I think’ carries the possibility of reporting a kind of first order mental state, perhaps not stated or even meant by this very proposition. This means that based on the proposition ‘I think’, the entire dictum (‘I think therefore I am’) can be interpreted differently, depending on what one takes ‘I think’ to mean. Here, one might ask Descartes how, for instance, does he know that he is thinking. How certain can he be that he is thinking? These questions are of interest more so considering that for Descartes, it seems all knowledge and everything that exists, hence the Essence of things, is pegged upon his own existence, which is guaranteed because he thinks.  Arguably, ‘I think’ also comes out as a proposition whose truth follows from the meditator’s own judgement, just the same way one would say, ‘I judge that she is cheating’. This example compares well with ‘I think’ because the truth of both is guaranteed, at least in the immediate context in which each is asserted. Here, it cannot be disputed that if someone makes any of these statements and comprehends whatever he or she is uttering, then there is no doubt that what that person is saying is true. While this line of thinking may seem to be in support of the dictum and Descartes’ argument in general, in the real sense it opens another front for criticizing Descartes. This is so because to say that a given proposition is so because someone has said it (based on his/her judgment) is fallacious because a statement uttered by self and especially with such kind of express certainty is self-verifying. Thus, from many angles the dictum appears like a self-verifying statement whose meaning may be understood but whose sense of truth cannot be ascertained. Hence, the dictum is not only confusing but also unreliable. 

     The current dictum would equally be dismissed by logical positivists who were also radical empiricists, a school of thought that apparently found every reason to criticize Descartes’s rational arguments.  It is in this context that one must appreciate Locke’s opposition as is made clear in the Essay. To appreciate Locke’s opposition more, it is imperative to synthesize the dictum and take note of the use of the verb ‘think’, thus a contextual implication that all ideas must originate from senses. Locke argues that senses, as implied by Descartes, are not enough to explain the essence of things. This perspective largely forms the basis of Locke’s take on innate principles and ideas. From the manner Descartes seems to base all knowledge and understanding (as in this dictum) on senses, Locke calls him a system builder, thus suggesting that his proposition here is unreliable and unclear since his own system cannot explain any other system (supposing his sense of thinking is proof of his existence/being) (Locke 348). This point is congruent with, and confirms the dispute between empiricism and rationalism, which is the extent to which the gaining of knowledge depends on the sense experience (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy par 1).

      Still, this dictum, while it may seem simple, is quite confusing and complicated. In its simplest, it is a sentence expressing existence and awareness of the same. The confusion and complication arising in this context is owed to the fact that the implied awareness is non-inferential and non-conceptual. Here, it is clear that if one thinks, then it follows that that individual must surely think that he or she thinks. Additionally, as soon as one is aware that he or she thinks, she or he is also aware that he/she exists. This understanding dictates that one’s awareness of his/her existence is pegged upon the very act or process of thinking. Following through this argument, there arises confusion and the proposition comes out more as an implausible cogito merely geared towards advancing the spirit of the phenomenological movement. Here, there is merit in making reference to David Hume’s skeptical claim that in its entirety opposes Descartes’ proposition. Whereas Descartes’ is an attempt to understand the self, Hume dismisses it by asserting that there is no thing as the experience of an individual impression that can be conceptualized as the self (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy p. 24). In his argument, Hume dismisses the very effort of trying to understand the self because the more such an attempt is made the more the confusion there is.

     In conclusion, Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” might have been a major landmark in the history and understanding of contemporary philosophy, but taking the criticisms that have been directed towards it over time, an inference can be made that it is not only confusing, unclear and complicated but also unreliable. However, this is not to say that Descartes’ argument was entirely invalid, rather such validity or lack of it would depend on whose ideas one decides to buy or subscribe to. Presently, this conclusion finds support and as such flaws from the idea of Locke and Hume, two of the most radical empiricists to ever criticize Descartes.