In discussing the importance of Cogito Ergo Sum, one would be remiss to ignore the foundational aspects for other philosophers. As the father of rationalism, Descartes has not only laid a claim as the foundation for the rest of his meditations, but future metaphysical claims. He lays the basis of the utmost importance of scientific clarity, and scientific self-evidence. Spinoza and other influential rationalists of the like use Descartes claims as a platform with which to move forward with their own answers to fundamental questions in metaphysics.
Extending past the description of Descartes’ Cogito Ergo Sum and its vast functions, to prove the philosophical validity of the statement the next step is to strike down the criticisms of the argument. …show more content…
Russell’s claim is as follows, “Here the word ‘I’ is really illegitimate; [Descartes] ought to state his ultimate premise in the form ‘there are thoughts’; the word ‘I’ is grammatically convenient, but does not describe a datum.” (Therefore, the cogito argument proves nothing.)”. This Russell critique can be explained by showing the focus of this response to be an attack on the use of the word I as a grammatical bridge point between two ideas, and not philosophically significant. Russell, like Hyperaspistes, believes the use of “I” is unwarranted by Descartes. While Hyperaspistes believes that there is another soul that is thinking, Russell doubts that I is even describing anything of substance. Russell’s stance is that the premise can be rewritten to say, “There are thoughts”, instead of ,“I have thoughts.” Descartes’ response to this can be found in a similar place as the previous response. The nature of “I” is described in much depth as a thinking thing, with an expansive definition of thought. He furthers this notion by stating that the thought cannot be separated from “I” whether deception is involved or not. Therefore the I in Cogito is more than grammatically convenient as Descartes provides careful and diligent details to the nature and relation of and those aforementioned
Extending past the description of Descartes’ Cogito Ergo Sum and its vast functions, to prove the philosophical validity of the statement the next step is to strike down the criticisms of the argument. …show more content…
Russell’s claim is as follows, “Here the word ‘I’ is really illegitimate; [Descartes] ought to state his ultimate premise in the form ‘there are thoughts’; the word ‘I’ is grammatically convenient, but does not describe a datum.” (Therefore, the cogito argument proves nothing.)”. This Russell critique can be explained by showing the focus of this response to be an attack on the use of the word I as a grammatical bridge point between two ideas, and not philosophically significant. Russell, like Hyperaspistes, believes the use of “I” is unwarranted by Descartes. While Hyperaspistes believes that there is another soul that is thinking, Russell doubts that I is even describing anything of substance. Russell’s stance is that the premise can be rewritten to say, “There are thoughts”, instead of ,“I have thoughts.” Descartes’ response to this can be found in a similar place as the previous response. The nature of “I” is described in much depth as a thinking thing, with an expansive definition of thought. He furthers this notion by stating that the thought cannot be separated from “I” whether deception is involved or not. Therefore the I in Cogito is more than grammatically convenient as Descartes provides careful and diligent details to the nature and relation of and those aforementioned