Why Descartes’ views on existence are flawed.
I think therefore I am. That was french philosopher Rene Descartes’ famous proof for existence, and while I may disagree with the statement, no one can deny its impact. As one of the first true rationalists and the father of modern philosophy, Descartes’ views are not only highly respected among intellectuals, but are considered to be concrete answers to some of life’s greatest questions.
Of course, since Descartes made that statement back in 1637, he couldn’t have known of the arguments formed from the creation of artificial intelligence, self-driving cars, etc. So for the sake of discussion, my arguments will be based on the knowledge Descartes could have accumulated during his time and will not include any arguments based on technological advancements over time.
Now, let’s begin with the concept of thought itself. The most popular definition of thinking is “the process of using one’s mind to consider or reason about something”. When using this definition, it’s clear to see where Descartes was coming from. By using one’s mind to consider a topic (or in his case, doubt a topic), the mind must exist, and existence of mind is existence of self.
The problem here doesn’t necessarily lie in the definition itself, we’ve been able to scientifically prove that thinking causes brain activity. Rather, the problem lies in the assumption that proof of mind is proof of self. You would need to define existence to prove this relation, and defining existence to prove existence is problematic in and of itself, since you can choose a definition that fits the relation you want to achieve. Choosing a definition to fit that relation would be like trying to prove x = y by starting out with “let x equal y”.
(Note: This is the problem with the rationalist school of thought in general. One person can achieve a different outcome by using the same logic and frameworks, simply because of the assumptions they might make. Even by eliminating biases, you can’t eliminate human error with complete rational thinking, you can only minimize it. What one person may consider to be rational, another may consider to be irrational, and vice versa.)
Of course, the argument could be made that once you fully break down these ideas, assumptions must be made, otherwise nothing would make sense. So fine, let’s assume that assumptions can be made. Even then, we can logically prove that proof of mind is not necessarily proof of self.
One possibility that Descartes considered was the theory that we’re all living in a dream. Some sort of simulation exclusive from the real world. By being apart of this world, you wouldn’t exist. His proof against that theory was the proof of mind, but the act of thinking alone doesn’t include you in that realm of existence. One could argue that if all of this is a dream, assuming that your thoughts are a proof your existence is nothing but ignorance to that fact. It would be like saying a drop of water is part of the ocean because it’s made of water, and the ocean is made of water. In reality, the state of being water doesn’t include you in the greater body of water that is the ocean. In the same way, having a mind that’s able to produce thoughts doesn’t include you in the greater realm of existence, since you could still produce thoughts in some sort of simulation.
But again, this all comes down to how you define existence. Defining existence as “the fact or state of living or having objective reality” (the most common definition) might lead you to the conclusion that existence is true for all living creatures. On the other hand, if you define existence as the state of not being simulated or dreamt of (a more accurate definition in my opinion), it becomes much harder to prove, as there’s no way to determine what’s simulated and what’s not without knowing the physical rules of said simulation.
This is the true logical fallacy of Descartes’ argument. Without knowing the rules of the simulation, we can’t determine what is and isn’t part of it. Maybe thoughts don’t determine reality, there would be no way of knowing. In a similar sense, how do we know what reality is? Even if we are in a simulation, how would our simulated minds be able to comprehend reality? Perhaps the fact that we can’t comprehend worlds and dimensions beyond our own is as much a proof for the simulation as Descartes’ philosophy is a proof against it.
In the end, the main problem with “I think therefore I am” is the massive logical gaps and assumptions taken in order to call it a definitive proof. Even if I haven’t proven his argument is objectively false, I’ve at least proven it’s flawed, and inherently circumstantial. But as always, who knows, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m missing some key points in his argument, and if I am, please reach out to me and change my mind.
