Philosophers

René Descartes said that "I think therefore I am". Would it not be more true to say: "I am therefore I think"?

Comments

In the Discourse on Method, Descartes summarizes the 'meditations' that led him to discover new foundations for philosophy. He explains that he began by trying to reject as false everything about which he could have the least doubt, but then "noticed that while I was trying thus to think everything false, it was necessary that I, who was thinking this, was something. And observing that this truth 'I am thinking, therefore I exist' was so firm and sure...I decided that I could accept it without scruple."

Descartes thus began by supposing that nothing existed, but then noticed that the fact that he could make this supposition--that he could suppose, or think, that nothing existed--required that he exist, and consequently concludes, from the fact that he is thinking (that nothing exists), that he himself must exist.

Descartes could not, therefore, accept your proposed reformulation of the cogito (as it is sometimes called), because it assumes what is supposed to be in question--that something exists.

It's worth noting that Descartes formulates the cogito very differently in the Meditations. He writes: "So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, 'I am, I exist', is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." It's worth considering whether there is any philosophical significance to the fact that Descartes formulates the cogito differently in these two works.

I can see why you suggest that "I am therefore I think" is a better way of putting things: existence is necessary for thinking in a way that thinking is not necessary for existing. Indeed existing is necessary for a thing to have any properties whatever, whereas there are things that exist but do not think. But Descartes was here not interested in the order of reality; instead, as Sean points out, he was interested in the order of knowledge. And he comes to know that he exists by means of his awareness of his thinking, not vice versa.

My pet rock, Rocky exists--he's on the desk in front of me. But this doesn't entail that Rocky thinks. In fact, I'm pretty sure he doesn't. That's why I like him so much. But if Rocky were to think something, then he would surely think.

"I am" is something that a thinker could think. So is "I think". So, someone (not Rocky, alas) could think either of these, and on the basis of doing so conclude that she thinks. But of course her thinking wouldn't follow from her existence any more than it does in Rocky's case. Her thinking would follow from her thinking one of those thoughts.

So, what does "I am, therefore I think" mean?

It's false if means: I exist, and because of this I think.

It's true if it means (roughly): I think that I exist, and because of this I think.
(Or: I'm a speaker/thinker (as we can see from my currently asserting that I exist), and because of this I think.)

On the second interpretation, the statement is "truer" than what Descartes said, if what he said is false. Of course, it's also less interesting.

Read another response by Sean Greenberg, Peter Lipton, Joseph G. Moore

Read another response about Philosophers