Pop Philosophy(3)

Cogito Ergo Sum vs. Universal Doubt: The Great Existential Debate

"Do I exist?"

This question has been debated for hundreds of years, and philosophers still disagree. It all started way back with Rene Decartes (the cartesian coordinate guy)

Being a man of science and reason, he was devoted to the search for truth/knowledge. He concluded that the very first step of his quest was to find a solid starting point. Something that was unquestionably true. To do this, he used process of elimination: Eliminate everything that could even possibly be false, and what you have left must be the truth.

He first threw out sensory knowledge. Our senses play tricks on us all the time. Ever seen a mirage? An optical illusion? Amputees complain about "phantom limbs" itching or burning.
We can doubt our senses, so therefore, we must throw them out.

He then threw out reasoning with the famous "great demon" story. He figured that although all us humans can agree that 1+1=2 we can never know for sure. Why? Suppose there was a great demon who (being evil) decided to trick the humans into thinking that 1+1=2. 1+1 could equal some unknown quantity, while we humans buy into the demons illusionary "2"
We can doubt our reason, so therefore, we must throw it out.

So he throws out the senses, then reason, what else does he have left? According to Decartes, just one thing: "Cogito Ergo Sum" or "I think, therefore, I am" Descartes could doubt that he existed, but he could not doubt that something was doing the doubting.

Here was the rock solid starting point Descartes was searching for. From this simple point, he went on to "prove" that not only did he exist, but also humanity, the world, and even God.


And this worked for a time, but then along came David Hume, one of the most famous skeptics.

He COULD doubt that Descartes' something was doing the doubting. What Hume came up with is called the Bundle theory. Hume notes that when you think about yourself, all you get are feelings and perceptions and thoughts, but never anything concrete. As far as we can tell, our "self" is just a bundle of feelings and thoughts. And who can say for sure whether or not those feelings and thoughts are "truth."

(Side Note: Hume also offered an excellent criticism of the "intelligent design" theory of God and human origin...IN THE 1700's!

Fuck off Kansas School Board!!!!! Hume PWNS JOO!!!

Sorry. Got a little off track.)

Anyway, who is right? Can we prove our existence? Personally, I'm going to have to side with Hume. I believe I exist, but I have never seen a satisfactory proof. I have issues with Descartes' theory as well. Suppose man(A) is dreaming. He dreams of man(B). This man(B) doubts his existence in man(A)'s dream. Is there something to do the doubting that would make man(B) real? My answer is no.

I can doubt.