- Religion and Philosophy»
- New Religions & Cults
Criticism of Descartes
I think, therefore I am. The cognitive activity of human reflects the value of human. Through the syllogism of the 3-dimensional worlds, with the combination and association of different perspectives and aspects of ideas of preposition, the syllogism based on thinking gives the sense of existence.
Firstly, it should point out that the cognitive activity of human as thinking should restrain itself in the ideas of syllogism. There is no other thinking method in the world. If A deduces B, B deduces C; ergo, A deduces C. Human used this process in order to process the interest calculation instead of selections of choices blindly. For example, the choice of going or not going to school. The pros and cons of both choices should be deeming precisely with comparison. The decision was made out of both perspectives. In the field of mathematics, especially Descartes, the syllogism reflects in the Cartesian coordinate system.
This is the process of the cognitive activity of human. For this condition, in personal opinion, the cognitive activity of human has no difference than normal beast or wild animals because the greatest interests generate the best rate of survival.
Syllogism is the key of cognitive activity. If we ask a human, if animals exist in the forest, Sherwood Forest was the forest, then did Sherwood Forest contain the animals? Through the easy deduction of human cognition, the answer is yes. But, the questions toward the uncivilized people (we assume he could talk) may just be I don't know because I've never been in Sherwood Forest.
Well, the deduction of the symbolic artifice is the answer. Let's list another example for it. The human as new born has no fear to mouse; ergo, it's possibly to deduce that the animals has no such fear to animals originally. If a rabbit was hurting by a wolf before, then it should fear that particular that wolf for the rest of its life . But, apparently, that rabbit will run away once it saw any kind of wolves or various sorts of beasts with sharp teeth and huge body than its.
From the example above, we could say that's the natural instinct of animals for the best rate of survival. The large, wild and ferocious animals such as wolf might hurt rabbit; therefore, it's reasonable for it to run away from them. But, the original fear of the large, wild and ferocious animals was came from the bite from that particular wolf. What could it possibly deduce from that? It's the activity of syllogism in other perspective. Because the animals with sharp teeth chewed me once, the animals with sharp teeth will and might hurt me another times. Therefore, I need to run away. By using the preconditioned experiences from early experiences or conditions, through the process of the cognitive activity of syllogism, it allowed us to make prediction for future in order to reflect the conducts for next movement.
It's the same process of cognitive activity of human. Through the syllogism, human used the preconditioned conditions to make further predictions about the future. The symbolic totem is the only difference between those.
Therefore, the cognitive activity with syllogism isn't the only special case of human themselves. The cognitive activity of animals was only about the best rate of survival for the species while the cognitive activity of human could allows human to make prediction about anything that they perceive in reality. Therefore, it produces the preposition of "I think, therefore I am".
the second condition of proposition
"I am" is the second condition of proposition. Descartes stated that only the cognitive activity could bring "I am" as the sense of existence of human themselves.
For now, "I am" should define as the self-consciousness about the reality. Because of that, "I think" should bring with the self-consciousness about the reality to oneself through the sense of cognitive activity alone. In other words, if the cognitive activity of syllogism exists in the sense of wild animals. They should have the self-consciousness with free-will and free decisions about one's conduct as well.
In the person opinions of human alone, we are the only species with self-consciousness about the reality, free-will and free decisions about the selections of choices. If not, the definitions of syllogism as cognitive activity of human bringing the "I am" as the sense of existence will be wrong in general.
The proposition in the first case is the syllogism brings up the greatest interests for oneself in the case of human and animals. That's called the choices and free-decision. But, it's not free from the definition. If the tough decision through the syllogism was made through the desires of greatest in reality as objective decision, then the answer must exist before the cognitive activity. In other words, either in the case of animals or human, the decision through the greatest interests (best rate of survival) was already determined before the cognitive decisions. Therefore, the answer could stand before human and animals because it's objective. The only answer for the process of cognitive activity of human and animals was made by others instead of human themselves, and we just found the answer after all.
The second case was the answer of "I am". This "I" should stay as the position of all living things while human has the unique definition of the "I" in here. The "I" in the case of wild animals should be the "I" as the biological predetermined organism whose decisions on the sense of physiological response to the physical environment because the self-reflection of previous choices, decisions and experiences determined the "I" while the behaviors of the animals from syllogism is the result of greatest of best survival.
Let's assumed there is a rabbit. The rabbit ran away from the wolf because the rabbit was harmed by a different wolf before. For the best rate of survival, the rabbit must run away. After it escaped from the wolf, the rabbit won't stop at one position and reflect the questions: why should I run? Is there another route to run quickly? Could I make a agreement with the wolf about killing me? Those self-reflections of previous experiences and decisions were based on the syllogism of human. The wild animals, the rabbit in this case, won't reflect about the choices that it made before because the rabbit will just die if it thinks one or more second instead of fleeing.
Ergo, based on the argument above, the "I" in the proposition "I think therefore I am" should be restrain in the case of self-reflections of syllogism of human in the short vision of the problem.
But, the "I" is the wrong of the proposition itself. If "I" stated as the self-reflection of the previous experiences and decision. The decision made through the cognitive activity of syllogism; ergo, the product (outcome) of the decision should fit the greatest interests for best rate of survival. For example, by using this proposal, I earn 50000 dollars, and other 2 proposal won't produce greatest interests. Therefore, the decision through the syllogism could produce the greatest interests, then why should one spend further cognitive activity about the whatever decision that one just made? This is one perspective. On the other hand, the interest calculation through the syllogism used the external materials instead of something like personal favor to make the choices. On this case, "I" as the product and collections of the previous personal experiences have no such meaning called existence in "I think therefore I am".
Ergo, the "I" in this proposition should stated as the self-examination of sentimental subjective point of views. In other words, the pure syllogism of the interest calculations will be the shadows of self-existence because the experiences and sentimental response toward the worldly objects will only distract the value of syllogism of greatest interests-generating.
I think, therefore I am
Therefore, "I think therefore I am" should be an incomplete statement as the proposition of the syllogism. Through that, "I think" stated that there is no point of self-examination of reflections through the existence of human as sentiments. "I am" should be extended more than the self-consciousness while the cognitive activity of the ideology will only vanish the "I" because "I" as the subjective point of views toward the reality of the world will only distract the decision of syllogism through the greatest interest (best rate of survival).
In relative modern philosophy's perspective to look at the problem of "I think therefore I am", without syllogism as the cognitive activity of mindset, the only remained "think" as ideology could only be the artistic existence as human. It shows an uncertainty of the choices-making. The artistic existence should only be the subjective point of views of self-reflection and self-existence. For example, there is choice A and choice B. One of those could generate greatest interests in the objective calculation of the interests. But, there is an unknown one which could better reflect the value of self through the personal experience and reflection without the computing the interests behind the choice. Without calculating the interests behind the choices, the choice between A and B reflect the value of personality and humanity instead of the material interest counting.
But, without the ideology of self-reflection and thinking through the "I think therefore I am", the oneself could only be controlled by feeling and the sentiments from the rewards and punishments of the previous-experiences. The morality and humanity will be equally declined through the artistic feeling of past experience as well.
But, there should be one more answer between the ideology of thinking of the greatest interesting calculating and artistic decision with sentiments. One could fit more with humanity in the society throughout the self-reflections.