It seems perfectly reasonable, and it is. It certainly follows that something which thinks does in fact exist. But that's the problem. I'm going to break this down a little, and maybe put it into some pseudo-symbolic logic (Help me out, Jason).
Let's start with separating it into premise and conclusion:
- I think
- ∴ I am
What's going on here? When I say “I am.” What I mean is, “I exist.” This was Descartes primal argument - that the one thing he could surely not be deceived about was his own existence. It's a logical necessity.
But when I make any claims about my own actions, I am making an assumption. When I say, “I drive” I'm saying that there is a sort of vehicle which I know how to operate and do in fact operate. But I'm also claiming my own existence. To put it in what is extremely sloppy mixed notation (it's been years): ∃(x) x⊃y. Help me out here logic nerds.1 The point is that if x is “I” and y is “to drive”, then a more accurate way of saying “I drive” is, “There exists an x such that x drives”.
The fallacy “Begging the Question” consists of assuming the conclusion (or a form of the conclusion) in your premise. A commonly cited example is, “God spoke to Moses, therefore God exists.” You're already assuming the existence of God when you say “God spoke to Moses.” In fact, saying “God spoke.” assumes God's existence, doesn't it? How about, “God thinks, therefore God exists”? See the problem here?
So any problem that starts with an existential quantifier (∃(x)) and ends with, “x exists” is begging the question.2
Am I saying that Descartes was wrong? Nope, I'm not arguing that his base assumption, "I exist", is wrong. I am arguing that the argument establishing his existence is fallacious. “I exist” is an assertion, an axiom.
I've been puzzled by this for years. Jason talked to the head of the philosophy department at NMSU about it. Apparently Dr. Tim Cleveland was able to argue that I was wrong. Jason was apparently snorting glue, though, and does not remember the explanation.
Anyone who can show me that I am wrong, and that “I think” does not already assume “I exist” gets a well-deserved candy bar.
1. Seriously, help me out. That expression can't be right.
2. I may be in over my head here. The presence of an existential quantifier may be irrelevant. The same problem seems to exist in arguments using universal quantifiers: “All men think, therefore all men exist.” Putting aside the truth or falsity of that argument, it does seem to suffer the same problem. Plus, all existential statements can be converted to universal, and vice versa: “There exists a man with a flute” is logically equivalent to: “It's not the case that for all men, one doesn't play the flute” I think. It's been 4 years, give or take, since I took Formal (Symbolic) Logic. Leave me alone.|||110330697463196166|||Cogito Ergo Sum
Scooter|||Does work not keep you busy enough on Fridays? ;) Joe|||Bingo.