2. The Semantics of 'I' - Essay Example

The Semantics of ‘I’ Rene Descartes essentially presented his arguments with joint consideration of the method of doubt and of analysis, Descartes ventured to cut into skepticism by demonstrating that if one were to take a systematized path to the unknown truths he initially doubted, then the process eventually leads to the discovery of truths which no doubts may hold any further. By Meditation II, such consideration weaved through the ‘I’ of the cogito as a general or pure self, the cogito being the foundational criterion in “Cogito ergo sum” (English: I think therefore I am) which implies that one’s consciousness, set of thoughts or thinking or ability to doubt would give proof of his own existence because of the ‘I’ or ego that conceives it (The Meditations).

The argument is a representational development in response to Meditation I and indicates that one’s own existence is certain only within a first-person context, exclusive of any other existences beyond this point. It does not also state the necessity for existence, except the principle that if someone thinks, then he exists necessarily. “I am, I exist”—proposition follows as the third in support of the main argument (Cogito). It would, however, only hold true in effect as it is preferred to be entertained by being deceived and having thoughts whether to accept deception in mind or not.

From here, a stronger basis for truths is then established with absolute certainty. Descartes had sought to conclude that ‘I’ is a thinking thing or something that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, and makes use of sensory perceptions which goes well beyond defining within explicit limitations (Meditations). The evidence shown herewith through his wax example may then draw his recognition in which ‘I’, though could possibly exist without a body, cannot be separate or wholly distinct, as a thinking entity, from the body.

In the case of bundle theory of the self on the other hand, David Hume had rather asserted, in the absence of identity, that objects are a bundle of their properties, which in relation to the mind applies the common logic in the sense that an individual is a product of his thoughts and experiences (Droar). He was, nevertheless, unable to come up with his version of an entity or the ‘I’ that any normal rationale considers as fundamental in collecting or holding the bundles. While Hume, after a period of contemplation, admitted to have employed “looking within” only to find out a series of perceptions, the medium or the idea necessary to perform this task is still missing (Pike).

In another perspective, he attempted to use causation and proposed a mind, capable of remembering that ‘perceptions of one sort have been preceded by perceptions of another sort.’ This brought yet another similar questioning, that which required answer with the same level of adequacy, what this mind is necessitating as how Hume should treat it with a more appropriate, concrete picture (Pike). The rejection of ‘self’ or a transcended ego since there is no such thing as ‘I’ that experiences the bundle with which it ought to be constituted, very much unlike the ‘I’ modeled in Descartes’ assumption, would thus not help getting compelled to the position that we are no more than a ‘bundle of thoughts and experiences.

’ Though Hume and Descartes converge at the principle of mental primacy over physical form, they differ still widely by the substitution of the indefinite ‘bundle’ for the more accurate ‘I’ that was formulated to achieve its truth which struggled with doubts. Even if Descartes failed to cover areas in his propositions where objections raised make the overall argument self-refuting, logic dictates that his Cartesian ego-self is by far more reasonable and convincing in evidence, taking the ‘I’, the very existential identity, into acceptance which makes for a substantial support.

Works CitedPike, Nelson. “VIII. Hume’s Bundle Theory of the Self: A Limited Defense.” JSTOR. 2000-2010. Web. 17 May 2010.“The Meditations.” oregonstate.edu. 2010. Web. 17 May 2010.Droar, Dave. “Assess the view that there is no such thing as identity.” arrod.co.uk. 2003-2006. Web. 17 May 2010.“Meditations on First Philosophy.” Wikipedia. 13 May 2010. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Web. 17 May 2010. “Cogito ergo sum.” Wikipedia. 17 May 2010. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Web. 17 May2010.