>>>>>> H O P E .. T H A T .. H E L P S ..
>> Correct. They just think and think.
>
> Knowing that he thinks is probably theoretical and not necessary.
>
> Cogito, Ergo Sum (The Circle Game) Descartes
>
> THE CIRCLE GAME: "Descartes was a philosophical disaster!" Attacking
> Descate's Cogito from within Descartes's own logical structure rather
> than from a modern context.
>
> Examining Descartes's philosophy from within its own logical
> structure, we see that Descartes is unable to escape the necessity of
> an observer in his attempt to find a foundation for his philosophy. As
> I will show, he grounds his philosophy on the postulates of his
> ability to discern truth from fiction and his own existence. Descartes
> foundationalist philosophy fails, as a result, because neither the
> infallibility and integrity of the observer nor the observer's
> existence are certain.
>
> Descartes attempts to create a foundationalist philosophy based on a
> single, undeniable truth which he knows to be "fixed and assured". He
> takes "I think, therefore I am" "as the first principle of the
> philosophy I was seeking", believing that this is the only truth which
> is necessary to found a philosophy. His logical structure , however,
> relies on a second postulate. He claims that "the capacity to judge
> correctly and to distinguish the true from the false is naturally
> equal in all men". This postulate is more fundamental to his logical
> structure than the cogito because without it, he cannot escape the
> skepticism of his foundationalist structure.
>
> Unpacking the significance of this postulate is somewhat of a
> metaphysical thicket, but the effort is well rewarded. There is no
> question that by thinking "I think, therefore I am", Descartes is
> thinking. Beyond the statement of his existence, however, Descartes
> cannot form any other conclusion unless he has the ability to discern
> the truth of a thought-except the conclusion that he is, there is no
> method to discern a true thought from a thought implanted into his
> head by an other being unless he can make the distinction himself. If
> he is to make any progress in his philosophy, he must rely on this
> second postulate.
>
> Even with this condition, Descartes's philosophy remains unstable. His
> first postulate, the cogito, fails because it depends on the integrity
> of the subject, the ego. Unlike a similar postulate of mathematics,
> such as x+0=x, which does not depend on the integrity of the observer
> in order to be true, Descartes's postulate is singularly tied to the
> subject because the subject, the "I", is an integral part of the
> statement. In the postulate, the "I" must be distinct since the cogito
> makes no claims about the existence of anything outside the mind.
> Descartes admits, however, that the mind is subject to failings caused
> by the body:
>
> "the mind depends so much on the temperament and on the disposition of
> the organs of the body, that if it is possible to find some means of
> rendering men as a whole wiser and more dexterous than they have been
> hitherto, I believe it must be sought in medicine".
>
> Furthermore, the mind cannot be sure of even its own state. Descartes
> admits that "there are no conclusive signs by means of which one can
> distinguish clearly between being awake and being asleep". Most
> significantly, however, Descartes requires the fallibility of his mind
> in order to prove the existence of God. Within his proof, Descartes
> gives as an antecedent to his argument the observation that "my being
> was not completely perfect" when it was created. But the infallible
> ability to discern truth is, by nature of its indisputeability, a form
> of perfection. He appears to be directly contradicting his second
> postulate, the ability to discern truth from fiction. This logical
> breakdown within Descartes's argument hints at a much greater problem,
> however.
>
> Descartes has a problem of authorship. That he exists and that he
> conceives of his existence are synonymous according to the cogito
> postulate. Furthermore, the existence of anything outside of his mind
> depends on his own existence. He is assured of the existence of the
> rest of the Universe by his perception of thinking of it. If the
> observer stops observing himself, he ceases to exist, however. Thus
> the reality of the Universe within Descartes's system depends on his
> ability to conceive of it, which in turn requires that he exist. This
> introduces a rather interesting problem in to his philosophy.
>
> By the time he has completed his proof of the existence of God,
> Descartes concludes that his own existence is dependent of the
> existence of God. Because he creates a foundationalist philosophy,
> Descartes must believe that the laws of the Universe are deriveable
> from the cogito postulate. After attempting to establish the existence
> of God, however, he admits that "I have observed certain laws which
> God has so established in nature and of which he has impressed such
> notions in our souls". According to his postulates, all that is in
> Descartes's mind is the result of the fact that he thinks, yet here he
> seems to be adding yet another subject to the set of actors upon which
> his philosophy rests. The validity of the claims he has already made
> are again questioned by further doubt over the author of existence:
>
> "And who can give me the assurance that this God has not arranged that
> there should be no earth, no heaven, no extended body, no figure, no
> magnitude, or place, and that nevertheless I should have the
> perception of all these things, and the persuasion that they do not
> exist other than as I see them?"
>
> Clearly, Descartes would not want to add dependency on a second
> subject to his philosophy but he nonetheless accepts the notion that
> not all existence can be attributed to his thoughts alone. God, he
> qualifies, must also have authorship:
>
> "if the objective reality of any one of my ideas is such that I know
> clearly that it is not within me, either formally or eminently, and
> that consequently I cannot myself be its cause, it follows necessarily
> from this that I am not alone in the world, but that there is besides
> some other being who exists, and who is the cause of this idea."
>
> It is illogical that such a being, whose existence in the Universe is
> dependent on the thoughts and observations of an observer could also
> be the author of the same observer's thoughts. Surely Descartes
> realized this but he seems to ignore its significance. He declares
> "God is necessarily the author of my existence" and so falls into a
> circular dependency, where his own existence is dependent on a God
> whose existence in the Universe is dependent on Descartes's ability to
> conceive of God and to determine the truth of such a perception.
> Because the observer is thus permanently trapped within Descartes's
> web of logic, the entire foundation of the structure is unsound.
>
> With the foundation of Descartes carefully laid structure crumbling in
> front of close examination, it appears, a philosophical failure. Such
> an evaluation is made strong if it comes from within the logical
> structure that Descartes presents. The job is easy, however, because
> Descartes establishes such a dependent, recursive structure that his
> entire fabrication falls under its own twisted weight.
>
>
http://www.stanford.edu/~bwark/papers/circle_game.html> BOfL-
