The Trademark Argument and Cogito Criticisms Know: The argument Explain: How the argument works Evaluate: Is the argument successful

The Cogito How successful is the argument? Can you think of any major criticisms?

What’s wrong with the cogito? 1) Is there a questionable hidden premise? Most criticism is of the cogito in its earlier format: “I think therefore I am”, in the Discourse on Method. 1) The hidden premise: (First raised by Lichtenberg) I think Thinking things exist Therefore I am

What’s wrong with the cogito? 1) Is there a questionable hidden premise? The hidden premise: I think Thinking things exist Therefore I exist This premise is questionable -Does the existence of thoughts necessarily imply a thinker? David Hume argued that we have no right to assume this, as does the anatta (no-self) doctrine of Buddhism. Perhaps Descartes should have said, “There is thinking going on; therefore there are thoughts.” The cogito therefore doesn’t actually establish the existence of a self. “I” is merely a linguistic convenience. It doesn’t actually refer to anything, any more than the “It” in “It is raining.” Descartes strays from his rationalistic agenda here since “thinking things exist” is an a posteriori, empirical observation.

What’s wrong with the cogito? 1) Is there a questionable hidden premise? The hidden premise: counter arguments I think Thinking things exist Therefore I exist Ownerless, thinkerless thoughts – pretty weird! The suppressed premise argument assumes that Descartes intended the cogito as a piece of syllogistic (deductive) logic. However, Descartes did not intend the cogito to operate this way. The Meditations should be seen as a course in guided self-discovery and the cogito as a self-authenticating proposition. According to Cottingham, Descartes expressly made this point to Leibniz at the time. Descartes restates the cogito in the Meditations as “I exist is necessarily true.” to clarify this and overcome the criticism

What’s wrong with the cogito? 2) The cogito is circular. I think Therefore I am According to Bertrand Russell the cogito is circular since it assumes what it is setting out to prove.

What’s wrong with the cogito. 2) The cogito is circular What’s wrong with the cogito? 2) The cogito is circular. Counter argument I think Therefore I am But as with the hidden premise argument, Descartes never intended the cogito to be a deductive argument, and his restatement of the cogito in the Meditations (I am, I exist is necessarily true) overcomes this criticism.

What’s wrong with the cogito What’s wrong with the cogito? 3) The cogito is trivial - It doesn’t tell us anything of significance. Most critics of Descartes are willing to grant him the cogito, but would argue that if this is as far as his argument goes then he has established very little indeed. His task is to overcome scepticism and produce some certainty about the world out there. He claims this is his Archimedian point, his foundational proposition upon which he will build knowledge but, as we shall see, he abandons this as a foundation, and uses arguments for God as his means of overcoming scepticism.

What’s wrong with the cogito? 4) Could you exist without a body? Descartes is a dualist - he believes in the existence of a body and a mind. He argues that although he may be deceived by an evil demon into believing he has a body, he must have a mind since he has thoughts. This viewpoint is contrary to modern neuro-science (study of the brain) which takes a monist position – we only have a body. Thoughts exist in the brain nerve cells. Without a brain there can be no thoughts. If you can’t exist without a body then Descartes’ position is seriously undermined.

What’s wrong with the cogito. 4) Could you exist without a body What’s wrong with the cogito? 4) Could you exist without a body? Counter argument Descartes argues that he has more certainty of the existence of the mind than that of the body because, whereas he may be deceived into believing that a physical world (including his body) exists, he, as a mind, must exist to be deceived in the first place. He says that although he can’t establish that he has a body, he can establish that he is a “thinking thing”. https://youtu.be/lLufNgQDTOI

But is there a more Significant Problem? What if there is an Evil Demon after all?! How does that affect Descartes Argument?

Clear and Distinct Ideas We can only doubt that we have ‘clear and distinct ideas’ if we are being deceived. But if God exists then we don’t need to worry about being deceived… an Omni God would not deceive us!

Can we possibly know for sure that there isn't an Evil Demon?

The Trademark Argument 1st The idea of God is like an imprint or stamp… a trademark if you like. Every idea we have must come from somewhere and have a source. Adventitious- grasped by experience and not mind. Fictious – created by the mind Innate – born within

Trademark argument 2nd How can we explain our own existence if we don’t believe in God? I created myself? I was passed on by my parents? Was made by lesser gods?

I created myself? I would have made myself perfect! I am not Therefore I did not create myself

Existence passed on by parents This pushes the same problem back onto our parents and their parents. Infinite regress problem!

Lesser Gods? Our Idea of God is of a perfect unity. Our idea is not of a group of lesser unperfected beings. Therefore we have to have been created by God.

Degrees of reality

A cause must have more reality than its effect. Eg. A substance can exist independently, a property is an accident and a mode is the determination of the property. A book is the substance Colour is the property Red is the Mode

The substance has more reality than the property as it relies upon the property for its existence. The mode relies on the existence of the property. The causes of ideas must have at least as much reality as the effect. (How we get the idea must be greater than the idea).

Because we are thinking things we have considerable reality and therefore could have caused most ideas. The idea of God is more real he is thought to have a perfect reality which is more than us. The only cause of the idea of god as a perfect being, is a perfect being and this is God. Therefore he exists.

Problems I am not perfect and finite, I could be the cause of those ideas. We can be the cause of God by simply thinking away his limitations. Response: God is not just the absence of limits but something that is unable to have limits. The ideas about infinite and perfect are positive.

Problem It may be the case that mostly the cause must be greater than the effect. This ought not have to apply to ideas. We cannot create God because he is more real than us. However, we could have created the idea!

Problem Science shows that somethings can come from nothing and so perhaps the relationship between cause and effect isn’t as clear cut as we once perceived. Isn’t the idea of something having more reality than something else just absurd?!