Wittgenstein vs Descartes - "I think therefore I am"? Think again!

Descartes reckoned he'd found the point where Self and Philosophy begin. Wittgenstein was not so convinced.
#philosophy #wittgenstein #descartes #cogito

[@jameslovell5721]

This is fantastic.

[@philosoverses]

Cheers! 👍

[@PirateRadioPodcasts]

Q - How does one say/write/think "Je pense donc je suis" in a more passive FRENCH tense? Is it even possible? If not, it seems we have a little problem. The ENGLISH is of course simply (a significantly more ego LESS): "i thinks therefore i IS."

[@RC-qf3mp]

Descartes wrote it in Latin. Cogito ergo sum.

[@PirateRadioPodcasts]

@@RC-qf3mp Meanwhile, thoughts Rrrrrrrrr ...... RESTRICTED by language. English allows for the more passive: "i THINKS, therefore i IS." THINK, say, write this in LATIN :)

[@RC-qf3mp]

@@PirateRadioPodcasts Descartes knew many languages. And you are the last person to lecture anybody on what he said or meant.

[@willieluncheonette5843]

“There is a famous dictum of a western philosopher, Rene Descartes: COGITO ERGO SUM - I think, therefore I am. This is absurd: I THINK. therefore I am? It shows that thinking is primary and being is secondary - I think, therefore I am. Thinking is secondary. being is first. First you are, then you think. If you are not, then who is going to think? Thinking cannot exist in a vacuum. If somebody says, “I am, therefore I think”, it is right. But to say “I think, therefore I am” is simply absurd. But still there is a meaning to it: Descartes is the father of western philosophy, and the whole western mind has been influenced by two persons - Aristotle and Descartes. So in the west everything goes through thinking; EVEN BEING GOES THROUGH THINKING. Even being is not a simple fact; you have to think about it first, then you are - as if it is a logical conclusion. It is existential, it is not logical. So first stop thinking that you are a man or woman. Just know it. Knowing is direct. Somebody else can be in suspicion, but you should not be in suspicion. Somebody else can think about whether you are a man or a woman - and if you live in hippie style, sometimes it can be very difficult… If others are in suspicion as to whether you are a he or a she, it is okay. But you yourself? - then the doubt has entered very deep and has become a disease. Drop that.”

[@Avi_oz]

Nicely done. How do you think would he responded to the following counterargument: The thought of existence "I am" is on pre-lexical level. However, conveying the cogito argument to others requires words and language.

[@philosoverses]

Thanks! I daren’t speak for Wittgenstein but my personal response, for whatever it’s worth, would be… Is it right to describe a pre-lexical “I am” as an actual thought? Or would it be more like a feeling? i.e. like what an animal may feel, an awareness of existing rather than an assertion of existence. And it’s unlikely that a pre-lexical mind would come up with the state of doubt and the search for a way out of it that the cogito is a response to - so, if Descartes did feel a pre-lexical “I am”, language would still be required for it to be an actual response to a problem, as opposed to an in-the-moment animal sensation.

[@thejimmymeister]

I think this is a bit of a misrepresentation of Wittgenstein. He surely disagreed with Descartes's argument and project, but that was due to his views on the self and on doubt, respectively, not on language's arising from activities.

[@philosoverses]

You’re quite right, Wittgenstein did take issue with Descartes on the existence of the self and the problem of doubting everything, but from what I’ve read, his rejection of private language also plays a part in his objections to the cogito. In trying to make these ideas more accessible, there’ll always be a danger of oversimplification. Does this attempt cut a corner too far? I hope not, but I readily accept that no verse can tell the whole story!

[@thejimmymeister]

@@philosoverses I understand that the limits of verse, short-form videos, and accessibility may have played a role, and in light of that, maybe my criticism is unwarranted! After all, it's hard enough to interpret Wittgenstein in the first place. My understanding is that interpretations of the private language argument are very controversial, but I read it as about referential theories of semantics rather than about Descartes. I guess it has implications for a kind of Cartesian skepticism about understanding others because it undermines doubts about correctly identifying a referent, but I don't think Descartes himself had those kinds of doubts (despite claiming that he doubted everything). I also think that Descartes, if confronted with Wittgenstein's private language argument, could have replied that his language is shared between him and (what are possibly just) his delusions. The social activity is still there; Descartes just isn't sure whether the society is real or imagined.

[@philosoverses]

Thanks for your generous response. No doubt about it, the Private Language Argument has quite a history of interpretation and in this case, perhaps, extrapolation (the In Our Time ep on Wittgenstein includes biographer Ray Monks talking about it - about 33’00 in). As for Descartes’ possible defence, I wonder if ‘delusions’ fall into a similar category to the evil demon he tries to discount, ie the kind of outside influence he is determined to doubt - which would presumably be a problem if he wanted to believe in the absolute primacy of the cogito. Apologies if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick on that one, but many thanks for commenting - not only for getting me to think more, but also to underline how open to interpretation all this stuff is!

[@thejimmymeister]

@@philosoverses Thank you for engaging and for creating the video in the first place. Thanks for the In Our Time recommendation, too. I really enjoyed Ray Monk's biography of Wittgenstein, so I'll be sure to check it out.

[@nonamehere-y2t]

But pure consciousness need only silence..

[@edwardlawrence5666]

Pettifoggery

[@Maxb49]

Wittgenstein. Portrait of a nutcase.

[@Maxb49]

@@AdamWEST-yu2os That has to be a joke. He had court ordered forensic, following his beating of children in a school.