On Aug 23, 10:01 am, John Larkin
highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Isn't this just an attempt to create a foundationalist philosophy
based on a single, undeniable truth which you claim and argue to know
to be "fixed and assured". It's like you take Descartes' "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. You see what you brush off as the "given so
far" could be mistaken and therefore it is a lucky guess, the truth
you claim is based upon regularity.

---------------------------------

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