Descartes' the Cogito

"I think" or "the cogito", is the first certainty of Descartes, the first step to knowledge, the argument that lays the foundation for the philosopher's rationalism, and a central concept of his masterpiece. Reflecting on his certainty, he says that, in his first knowledge, there is only the clear, distinct perception of his affirmation (Descartes, Cottingham and Williams, pp. 113).

He continues by arguing in favor of the general principle, a thought so distinct and clear that cannot be doubted. The cogito, and the path the philosopher follows in order to arrive at it, lays the foundations for his dualism: does he exist? What does stating one's existence or thinking means?

Descartes claims to be a thinking thing, a substance, and, by this, many philosophers thought that he meant to affirm his continuity, his persistence from one moment and thought to another. These philosophers argued that, as long as the existence of the evil demon is possible, there is no way of knowing, of proving the persistence of anything in time as unity.

The only thing that is certain is the succession of his thoughts. The philosopher replied to this objection in ‘Objections and Replies’, the Meditations' Appendix, saying that the existence of thoughts requires the existence of a thinker. He considers this claim distinct and clear, therefore a certitude, but whether he is right or wrong depends on the meaning associated with the term ‘thinker’.

If he uses this term to refer to subjects that persist over time, then this is not obvious, it can be denied. The evil demon could simply create false thoughts, like that regarding the existence of a thinker, of a substance, and, if that were the case, how could the philosopher know it?

But Descartes could be using the term "thinker" with reference to a thought's momentary subject, implying that, in order for a thought to come into existence, something or someone must think it.

It seems justified to believe that the author cares more about the existence of the thinker than about persistence, but, if that is the case, one cannot help but wonder if momentary existence is enough to support the philosopher's later arguments.

It is difficult to perceive how someone who does not exist over time could ever acquire further knowledge beyond the moment's thoughts: "I think" and "I exist". By saying that being a thinker involves doubting, willing, imagining, he implies that these activities or actions are performed by the same subject, thus taking the subject's persistence in time for granted, and it has been already argued that he cannot know this.

But, in order to fully understand Descartes' cogito, it is important to understand what he means by clear and distinct ideas. According to him, ideas should be "open and present to the attending mind", not only clear and distinct, but also precise, separable from any other ideas, to such an extent that they contain nothing else in themselves than "what is clear" (Descartes, pp. 45).

The cogito is Descartes' first idea of this kind. Reflecting on his certainty of it, he says that in this knowledge there is only a clear and distinct perception of what he affirms (Descartes, Cottingham and Williams, pp. 113).

He continues by arguing that, at the time when it is considered, a clear and distinct thought should be believed true, should not be doubted. From arguing that a clear distinct idea can be acknowledged as true when held in mind, he goes on explaining that one cannot keep thinking of one thing in particular all the time, so one cannot continue to perceive it clearly.

Once one has turned attention away from that particular thing, one cannot be certain of it anymore, despite remembering one's certitude regarding it. This is when mistakes occur, when one can wrongly believe to perceive clearly and distinctive an idea that they do not.

Certitude regarding the distinction and clarity of what one once thought only comes with knowing that one was not deceived by an evil demon. This is a starting point from Descartes to try and show that people can be sure of the absence of the evil devil because they are aware of the existence of God, who would not deceive them or allow any evil demons to deceive them.

On one hand, in order to prove God's existence, Descartes has to rely on the things he can perceive as clear and distinct, on the only way to know anything. On the other hand, God's existence is necessary in order for him to know what he can perceive clearly and distinctly. This leads to the Cartesian circle: he uses the existence of God to support his clear and distinct ideas' doctrine, and he uses his doctrine to support God's existence.

Many will interpret his writings to say that he is certain of God's existence only because he is certain of what he clearly and distinctly perceives, and, yet, he is certain of his clear and distinct perceptions only due to his certainty of God's existence.

Descartes, however, gives his writings a different explanation. According to him, he can be certain of his clear and distinct perceptions without knowing of God existence, but at the time they are perceived. The existence of God brings about the certainty that his perceptions are true at all times (115).

Even after embracing Descartes’ replies to the objections and interpretations to his writings, one cannot help but wonder how the philosopher can be certain of his clear and distinct perceptions, even when perceiving them, as long as the possibility for him to be deceived by a demon exists.

While the famous cogito phrase remains a corner stone, a basic principle in philosophy and not only, to this day, the meanings and interpretations surrounding it cast a shadow of doubt over Descartes' reason and ideas.

Rather than clear and distinct, his ideas seem to be circling towards a type of knowledge that cannot be categorized as a priori or a posteriori, or, at least, not without taking the idea of God for granted. 

“Existentialism is a Humanism” and Jean Paul Sartre's Contribution to Existentialism

Philosopher, writer, literary critic, political activist and biographer, Jean Paul Sartre is one of the main representatives of the philosophy of phenomenology and existentialism, his revolutionary thinking having started many controversies that have marked the evolution of the 20^th century philosophy. 

One of his greatest merits is having contributed to the foundation of existentialism, and his work, “Existentialism is a Humanism” is a real reference point for the existentialist philosophy. His whole thinking is built on the idea that existence precedes essence. But does this idea contradict the essentialist principle that essence precedes existence? An overview of Sartre’s theory is necessary before giving such a radical verdict.

Does Existence Precede Essence?

Sartre’s theory according to which existence precedes essence involves elements like freedom and responsibility as far as the human choices are concerned. According to this theory, the human beings and their reality exist before and above any concepts of value or morality. People are born as blank slates; humanity does not have any universal, predetermined ethics or principles.

Without an essence or definition of what being human means, people must form their own perception on existence, by assuming control over it and taking responsibility for their actions and choices. In other words, human beings gain or build their essence through the choices they make, through their actions. This process of living is the definition of radical freedom.

What Does Radical Freedom Mean?

For Sartre, each human being is unlimitedly free, but it is not the ability to act the one that defines this freedom. Freedom is a form of spontaneity. The accent does not fall on the physical or social constrains influencing our decisions, but on the fact that we have the freedom to choose, we are actually forced to choose. The essence of our freedom are the choices we make, the fact that we cannot avoid making choices, no matter if they refer to what we eat, how we dress or more important aspects, like our education, our relationship with the people around us.

For Sartre, a person’s life is an original, authentic project unfolding throughout time. The individual is not fully aware of this project, but rather changes it, influences its progress with every choice made.

The radical, authentic dimension of Sartre’s notion derives from the fact that the consequences of our freedom of choice are felt at a universal level. By choosing to take one step instead of another, we influence not only the rest of our life, our future, but also that of the people around us, who, in turn, influence the future of others.

Every choice we make starts a wave of repercussions that propagates throughout the universe, influencing the essence of the human nature, so we are free to choose, not only our own fate, but also that of the entire universe.

Does Existence Precede Essence or Does Essence Precede Existence?

The antithesis between the two theories is obvious, up to a certain point. While Plato, Aristotle and their essentialist followers applied this principle to any specific entity, Sartre only applies it to human beings.

He actually accepts the essentialist theory for objects, but considers the purpose they serve as essence and stating that, had it not been for that purpose, they would not have been created in the first place.

Sartre’s vision does not leave room for divinity, or, at least, is based on the principles that even if God existed, things would not be any different. The human beings, in his perception are the only ones responsible for their actions and the consequences these actions have.

Although Plato, for example, puts essence above existence and promotes the existence of the divine, of perfection, he does leave room for freedom up to a certain extent. In his theory, essence (referred to as Ideas) is lost at birth, and human life is actually a quest to rediscover it. However, not all human beings rediscover it, or, at least, not to the same degree (philosophers being superior to laborers, for example). According to the philosopher, each person’s soul has a rational side and an irrational one, reason and desire related to the material world. While serving the soul means not giving in to desire, does that not leave the possibility for one to pursue desires? Does that not leave room to freedom and choice? Indeed, while Plato’s theory does not give credit to freedom and responsibility, these elements are among the ones founding Sartre’s theory.

Ethical Implications of Sartre’s Existentialism

Sartre emphasizes in Existentialism and Humanism that authenticity, freedom, is accompanied by an ethical normativity. If we are to act authentically, how can we assess what this means for the ethics of our choices?

Being and Nothingness includes numerous statements that emphasize a criterion of universality partly similar to Kant’s. It is not surprising, considering that the approaches of both philosophers are based on the value of a radical notion of freedom.

As Sartre points out, when choosing, the individual acts, not only on himself, but on the entire humanity. Although Sartre does not believe in a priori values, the choice the individual makes creates values just as the artist creates beauty.

The values created by exercising our freedom gain a universal dimension, meaning that they would make sense to anyone placed in the same situation. This universality is expressed differently from one authentic project to another. Sartre later calls this the ‘singular universal’.

At a closer look, in the French philosopher’s perspective, there are no predetermined values, no a priori definitions of good, bad, beautiful, etc. All these notions are created by the individual, through the choices he makes.

If we had a God, we could blame him for our lack of courage in certain situations, for our selfishness, for our failure in seeing how our actions would impact the lives of others. Also, religion promotes, in general, altruism, peace and love and convinces people to follow these principles with the promise of an afterlife.

Without all this, there is no telling what people will put first, if they will pursue their goals at all costs or focus on what their actions would mean for the people around them. There is no telling whether they will perceive that great responsibility as their fault for not succeeding to build a better life, materially and socially speaking, or as a duty to protect the people around them and serve the interests of the society they live in.

But let us not forget that, for Sartre, the responsibility each human being takes when acting one way or another (the acknowledgement of the implications each choice has) is so great that it leads to anguish. The impossibility to control the actions of the people around us and the knowledge that their own choices will impact our life leads us to despair.

In the end, our choices could be influenced by the anguish and despair we resent and could be made taking into account what is best for those around us, for the universe, in the hope that the others would take into account what is best for us.

Conclusions

Justified or not, Sartre’s theory is built in an optimistic tone. We are the result of the choices we make, we are the only ones responsible for them and we are immensely free. These being said, even if not everything works out the way we would want it, we can still take comfort in our unlimited freedom.

Did you find the paper useful? Do you need to write a similar paper and you could use some help? Email me at mihaela.c.olaru@gmail.com and I will gladly help you! I guarantee your paper will be 100% original and compliant with your teacher's requirements!