Rene Descartes Philosophical Statement - Essay Example

? Rene Descartes’ popularized the philosophical ment, Cogito ergo sum. This means, I think therefore I am. This ment signifies Descartes’ perspective about the concept of self and consciousness. Being one of the foundations of the Western philosophy, it is believed to be the basis for understanding knowledge. Descartes believes in the concept about the self and consciousness. He believes that if one is able to think about his existence, then it justifies that he is existing. How else can we think if we do not exist? How else can we question ourselves if we do not exist? One’s ability to think about himself is proof enough that he exists, that there is a consciousness because he is conscious enough to think about his own consciousness or existence. His statement is self-evident, meaning it explains itself already. It does not need abstract thoughts, deduction or presumption. There is no need to infer whether there it is justifiable or not because the reason and explanation is already within the statement. It is a justification by its own. One of the pressing questions about Descartes’ view of self and consciousness is the cause for its existence. How does one exist? How was the consciousness born? Who created it or what made it real for us? Descartes believes that there is an external force that caused the existence of the self and the consciousness. Something like a physical world or an entity. One of the critics of Descartes, Immanuel Kant, does not believe that there is an external force behind the existence of the self and consciousness. What he believes is that the consciousness is both the subject and the object. This means that the consciousness is both the reason and the effect. Kant disagrees with Descartes’ notion of an external force because he believes there is no need for an external force to create consciousness. It is inherent with us, meaning it is the reason itself of its own existence. In his coherence theory, Kant explains that the relationship of the consciousness with an object is a necessary connection. This connection links the different aspects of one’s self and consciousness. This is entirely different with Descartes since he believes that there is no difference between self and self-consciousness. With Kant, they are different as there are links that connects them to each other. This connection does not mean they can be interchanged as what Descartes teaches. For Descartes, the object of consciousness is everything that takes place within the mind. These are the thought processes we have. These are the concepts that we understand. These are the information encoded and decoded in our minds. If Descartes believes that the self and consciousness is the same, Kant believes that the subject and object of consciousness is the same. The consciousness is the subject, at the same time, it is also the object. How can this happen? They are united and one. An object outside of the consciousness becomes the subject as they make the necessary connection to enable to consciousness to function properly. This is the same as his understanding that the consciousness is both the reason the effect. Consciousness of oneself signifies that you are conscious as you can’t be not conscious when you are being conscious of yourself. This is entirely different from Descartes’ cause and effect perspective wherein the consciousness exists because man is thinking. Descartes’ view of the self and consciousness, with one’s experience as being one’s own, is rejected by Kant. When you have an experience, you are claiming that experience to be your own not another person’s. How can it be another person’s experience when you were the one who experienced it, right? And so consciousness and self-consciousness, for Descartes does not have a difference. There is no difference because of his notion that the self is also the consciousness. And with this, I believe more on Kant’s view of the self and consciousness. There is no need to think to be able to prove that there is a consciousness. Before even thinking about it, you already have a consciousness. A senseless, irrational concept. That is what Jacques Hobbes believed free will to be. Hobbes defined free will as being free or having no restrictions on whatever you wish to do. It means you can do whatever you want to and nothing will prevent you from doing it. If you are able to do, say, be in a sitting position all day because that is your choice and no one was able to make you budge out of that chair, then you have free will or you are free. That is Hobbes’ concept of free will. And this is exactly the reason Hobbes declared free will to be irrational and absurd. We are not free and we will never be free. Our freedom is not just dictated by being free to do whatever we want to. Because we’re humans and we are part of the society, we are always influenced by different things. Because of this, our freedom or free will has been limited. We are limited by different factors, such as our race, our economic status, social stratification, natural needs, impulses, unconscious needs, our desires, and many others. Humans do not have a free will because of these limits. With this, it can be presumed that free will refers only to the ability to do something according to the choices we make. It is not the act of choosing as it is colored by the above-mentioned influences. As much as we try to control these influences, just the mere act of trying to stop the influence, say our morals or social values, is in itself an influential factor. This just means that free will really is non-existent. These influences are natural and relevant in the act of choosing but they are mechanical in nature. They are determined and defined. This means that they are already established influences and their purpose in the act of choosing is clear. To explain further, the influences or factors in the act of choosing have specific results. Whatever the choices are, as we choose, the factors are set into motion, meaning whether we choose left or right, the factors remain the same. The will, then, is the last process involved in the decision making process which pushes us to act according with our choices. Since the factors are determined and remain the same in whatever choices that are presented to us, they become the determining factor whether we like a certain option or not. Our decision is usually based on how we take the situation, whether we feel pleasure or aversion towards it. The will, then, is the degree of likeness or loathing that we have towards a certain option. This makes us move towards an action depending on whether we like what is presented or not. If we like something, then we do it. If we don’t like it then we do the opposite. Reading through Hobbes’ concept of free will, I then begin to realize that I do agree with Hobbes in the point that the concept of free will is senseless. How can we have free will when all of our decisions are manipulated, whether consciously or unconsciously, by other people and by several other factors, such as social values and our own unknown desires? We are only free in acting upon our choices. Even if we make a choice, for example, to eat an apple or to eat an orange, it doesn’t mean that we like to eat the apple, we will eat the apple. We may just leave the table. That is our freedom. To eat either fruit or not to eat at all. We control our actions. That is only the freedom that we can and may have. Read More