A serious and thought out post? Surely you jest! Well, someone quoted Descartes to me today, and I was implicitly reminded of the junior ToK discussion the previous year. At that time, I thought the saying was brilliant... now, I'm not so sure.
When Descartes came upon his great conclusion, “I think, therefore I am,” he likely never assumed what impact it would have on the future of philosophical thought.
His quotation spawns a question which stands the result of timeless turmoil and inner debate. The answer itself is brilliant, motivational, deep, and just downright interesting to perpetuate.
The question it addresses. “What if everything is just an illusion, controlled by some outside force, and everything I know is a farce?” This concept – that life as we know it could be some sort of false alternate reality – is known as Cartesian Doubt. To be blunt, there is no concept that is more unworthy of argument. Yes, it is a thought provoking what-if; it is indeed a philosopher’s gold mine of what is possible and what is probable. The concept even spawned a successful movie: The Matrix – a robot controlled cyber world that every human is connected to – which is basically an expression of Descartes pre-answer musings. Still, beyond the side note of a philosophy class’ thought bubble, Cartesian Doubt has no place in discussion.
Doubt is self-regressing. Doubt rewrites every system of knowledge we currently have.
Every statement under a doubted system is illogical, impossible to prove (and at the same time, proof of all), but mostly just a waste of everyone’s time. Cartesian Doubt is inherently useless because it offers so many webs of possibility, while destroying any logical background of proof. It leaves no way to construct knowledge other than what we “think.” If there is no knowledge, there is no truth. Without truth, an argument is baseless, and thereby completely unnecessary. Cartesian Doubt has neither purpose nor place.
I think, therefore I am. Otherwise, there is no point.
Short version: I don't like the saying because I think it is a terminating way to view logic.
No comments:
Post a Comment