I start
with a joke:
René
Descartes is in a tavern. He is drunk. The bartender cautions: “Monsieur, I
think that you have had enough.” Descartes slurs back “I think not” and
vanishes.
I hope that
you understood and that you laughed, but now I become serious, for the
reasoning implied is fallacious: Descartes’s famous statement “I think so I
exist” may be true, but it does not imply that I don’t exist if I don’t think. And
it is not so that if I exist this implies that I think. For would it be so then
that I don’t exist when I am sleeping? And how about a tree? But okay, as for
the latter you can object that a tree hasn’t an “I” (which is something to
discuss about in another blog).
In
philosophy we call this fallacy post hoc
ergo propter hoc, literally “after this so because of this”. In this case
the fallacy is the reasoning that I exist because
I think. However, thinking is only an aspect of human existence, but the cause
of my existence must be found elsewhere.
I don’t
know whether Descartes would have laughed about the joke, but actually he
worried about the question whether he would exist, if he didn’t think. Although
the “I think so I exist” doesn’t imply
that I exist because I think,
nevertheless it is quite well possible
that I don’t exist if I don’t think. Descartes worded his worry this way in the
“Second Meditation” of his Meditations on
First Philosophy:
“I am; I
exist – this is certain. But for how long? For as long as I am thinking; for
perhaps it could also come to pass that if I were to cease all thinking I would
then utterly cease to exist. At this time I admit nothing that is not
necessarily true.”
On purpose
I have quoted Descartes from Sorenson’s A
Cabinet of Philosophical Curiosities where he gives an explanation of this passage.
For immediately after it Sorenson continues:
“Compare
Descartes’s principle connecting thinking and human existence with another
Cartesian principle connecting being extended in three dimensions with physical
existence: Necessarily if a body exists, it is extended in space. If a physical
thing ceases to be extended, then it ceases to exist. Similarly, if a mind
exists, it thinks. And if the mind ceases to think, then it ceases to exist.”
So, after
all must we conclude that if we don’t think then we don’t exist, albeit on
other grounds than the false post hoc
ergo propter hoc reasoning? Not so, for here we have the fallacy of false
analogy. Above I raised the question whether one still exists if one sleeps
(and so doesn’t think). The answer is, of course, “yes”. Why? Because thinking
is not a property that a mind simply has and manifests itself but it is a
disposition: a property an object has even if this property is not active at a
certain moment. This makes thinking different from the property “being
extended”, which points to the way an object appears (in this case by having
the three dimensions width, height and depth). If the disposition “thinking” isn’t
active, it still doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist as a disposition. A glass
remains brittle, even if it will never fall from the table on the floor and
break, although it is always possible that this will happen. But if we can’t
pour water in it, because it is not extended, it is not a glass. It is similarly
with thinking. Even if a mind doesn’t think, the property “thinking” is still
there and the mind can start to think when it needs to, for example when one
wakes up in the morning. When a man is absent-minded, it doesn’t imply that s/he
hasn’t a brain.
Sources
- Roy
Sorensen, A Cabinet of Philosophical
Curiosities. A Collection of Puzzles, Oddities, Riddles and Dilemmas.
London: Profile Books, 2017. The quotes are from pp. 42-43.
- There are several versions of the joke on the
Internet. You can find it also in Sorensen’s book on p. 42.
No comments:
Post a Comment