Descartes attempts to prove the existence of God starting without senses. It may seem that Descartes makes no assumptions, let along errors. However, Descartes makes one fatal assumption.

Descartes says "I think therefore I am." If he was being lied about his existences, that proves that someone has to be lying to him, which proves he exists.

However, Descartes assumes that logic and reason, the tools his mind uses to make sense of the "I think therefore I am" argument, is the correct way to go about things. He assumes our thoughts, when they appear to be correct, are correct thoughts. How do we know that we exist? Because we think? How do we know for sure those two ideas correlate? Because it makes sense TO US? Its an assumption to think that logic and reason are correct.

How do we know that we exist? Because we think? How do we know for sure those two ideas correlate? Because it makes sense TO US? Its an assumption to think that logic and reason are correct.

How do we know that we exist? Because we think? How do we know for sure those two ideas correlate? Because it makes sense TO US? Its an assumption to think that logic and reason are correct.

Yes indeed! And what is this "I"? And where did this language come from? Hegel fixed all that, eventually. Wittgenstein found the square root of Hegel. There is no "self" or "I," for these are objects/concepts. We have to deduce what is behind the creation of objects(qua objects: essence), from within our immersion in these objects (both physical and mental objects...)

However, Descartes assumes that logic and reason, the tools his mind uses to make sense of the "I think therefore I am" argument, is the correct way to go about things. He assumes our thoughts, when they appear to be correct, are correct thoughts. How do we know that we exist? Because we think? How do we know for sure those two ideas correlate? Because it makes sense TO US? Its an assumption to think that logic and reason are correct.

Can an unexistent being think? Off course not.

Descartes attempts to prove the existence of God starting without senses. It may seem that Descartes makes no assumptions, let along errors. However, Descartes makes one fatal assumption.

Descartes says "I think therefore I am." If he was being lied about his existences, that proves that someone has to be lying to him, which proves he exists.

However, Descartes assumes that logic and reason, the tools his mind uses to make sense of the "I think therefore I am" argument, is the correct way to go about things. He assumes our thoughts, when they appear to be correct, are correct thoughts. How do we know that we exist? Because we think? How do we know for sure those two ideas correlate? Because it makes sense TO US? Its an assumption to think that logic and reason are correct.

Descartes states in meditations "I am a thinking thing" rather than "I think therefore I am." The phrase "I think, therefore I am" is commonly misquoted from Descartes later text Principles of Philosophy, his composite philosophical/scientific thesis (1644) combing Discourse on Method(1637), Meditations (1641), etc. That latter text called Principles references Descartes work in summation and with particular emphasis on the scientific methodologies derived from Discourse, meaning that Descartes further refined his philosophy in his later work.

But simply, "I am a thinking thing" and "I think, therefore I am" may sound identical, but have different implications. Descartes as far as the Cogito is concerned has just established that he is who he is because of his ability to rationalize that he is. He establishes that "I am a thinking thing."

I disagree, logic and reason are correct. Its only an assumption then you are deciding about the outside world, were nothing is certain. But then deciding about matters of your own mind and existance, all information avaible to make a conclusion out from are certain.

Can an unexistent being think? Off course not.

Perhaps we have not found an example or situation where our most advanced arguments, logic and reason are completely useless and wrong? Just because it makes sense to us, does not mean it makes sense. To say that would be an assumption. Just because something is convention does not mean its right.

As far as Meditations goes, the existence of God is brought into the inquiry in Mediation 3 when, after following the argument for universal doubt (Med. 1) and the case that both he and his thoughts exist (med. 2), Descartes needs to prove that other things exist, namely God. And God is brought into the inquiry as the most logical thing which could possibly exist (besides him and his thoughts) because the notion contains that which Descartes can know most clearly and distinctlymeditations "I am a thinking thing" rather than "I think therefore I am." The phrase "I think, therefore I am" is commonly misquoted from Descartes later text Principles of Philosophy, his composite philosophical/scientific thesis (1644) combing Discourse on Method(1637), Meditations (1641), etc. That latter text called Principles references Descartes work in summation and with particular emphasis on the scientific methodologies derived from Discourse, meaning that Descartes further refined his philosophy in his later work.

But simply, "I am a thinking thing" and "I think, therefore I am" may sound identical, but have different implications. Descartes as far as the Cogito is concerned has just established that he is who he is because of his ability to rationalize that he is. He establishes that "I am a thinking thing."

As far as the cogito goes, he does not even know that he is even being lied to. In the hypothetical that Descartes carries over from mediation 1, the deceiving demon (because God APB could not be such a being to deceive him) could convince Descartes to doubt himself. Deception entails the fact that something is being deceived, thus I could exist in order to be deceived. But this is not definite, because he cannot know that clearly and distinctly. But in a hypothetical raised by Descartes going on, I could exist (since I imagine, have sense, etc.), I then doubt because things seem to be that which I think. So I could at this point surmise that I have mental states, therefore I am. This is what is referred to as the "first truth," since it entails "a-priori" knowledge (knowledge which is gained before the senses). Thus, Descartes proclaims "res cogitans," or "I am a thinking thing." This in turn reveals the notion of innate ideas, the triggering of an idea latent in the memory for an appropriate occasion (which John Locke subsequently refutes later, spurring the empirical conception).

Logic and reason as far as meditations go relies on the fundamental system Descartes established in Discourse on Methodmeditation 2, rationalization supposes much even when we see wax 1 with properties 1-n becoming deformed next to the fire and becoming wax 2 with properties 1-n.

As to your further questions, I don't want to ruin the proceeding chapters for you because they attempt to answer some of those questions that you pose. "How do we know we exist" is addressed for example in meditations 4 and 5, specifically in regards to the scales of reality, the Cartesian circle, and the existence of god (which places Descartes where he needs to know).

What would you mean by "useless and wrong", I wonder.

I actually finished the book in school, so I know how he answers that question. I was just using that example to demonstrate how it is an assumption that the arguments that make sense to us are right.

Descartes proves that he exists because otherwise he would be being deceived, and for one to be deceived they must exist. This makes total sense to us, but how does one prove that what makes sense to us is what is true? I say that we can't. We can't prove how what we use to prove things is correct.

I have always thought so, but no one has ever put it quite so succinctly.

I suppose that I would wait for someone to give some reason for thinking that what makes sense to us does not. The mere fact that it might not be true that what makes sense to us does make sense, is no good reason for doubting that what makes sense to us makes sense. Anything which is not necessarily true might be false. But that is no reason to think that it is false, or that it is really possible that it is false. Just because a statement might be false is not a good reason for thinking it is not true. Why should I need to prove what there is no good reason to question?

But I observed that, while I was thus resolved to feign that everything was false, I who thought must of necessity be somewhat; and remarking this truth--I think, therefore I am--was so firm and so assured that all the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics were unable to shake it, I judged that I could unhesitatingly accept it as the first principle of the philosophy I was seeking.

Discourse on the Method

Notice he says quite straightforwardly, "I think, therefore I am" There is no misquote.

I don't think that "I am a thinking thing" and "I exist" sound alike in the least. No more than does, "Giraffes are animals" and "Giraffes exist" sound anything alike. Do you?

I actually finished the book in school, so I know how he answers that question. I was just using that example to demonstrate how it is an assumption that the arguments that make sense to us are right.

Descartes proves that he exists because otherwise he would be being deceived, and for one to be deceived they must exist. This makes total sense to us, but how does one prove that what makes sense to us is what is true? I say that we can't. We can't prove how what we use to prove things is correct.

Yes. One is an argument, and the other is the conclusion of that argument. The term, "The Cogito", is occasionally used to refer to both.

Sometimes, the conclusion of an argument is called the argument. "What is Descartes' argument?" "That he exists". And sometimes the entire argument is said to be, "the argument".

By the way, the correct title is, "Discourse on the Method" and not, "The Discourse on Method". The book is about the method. It is not on method. The French is, "Sur La Method" not, "Sur Method". The title is constantly mistranslated. And it makes a real difference.

By the way, we are both wrong. LOL!!! The correct, totally awesome Cartesian title is "Discourse on the Method for Conducting One's Reason Well and for Seeking the Truth in the Sciences." Although I must say I find this all somewhat hilarious for being faulted for contracting the title out of necessity (which is obviously very long) and then have it corrected in yet another shortened way. I suppose we could chalk this up as a double fail.

I am not wrong. I just cited the part of the title where an error in translation is being consistently made. The rest of the title makes no difference to that point. Indeed it reinforces it, since it explains that "the method" is about. It is a discourse on a particular method, not simply on method in general. That is the point. Not on what the method is about. It is a wrong by commission to translate it as a discourse on method. Not by omission.

LOL! Oh I see, just the part of the where the error in the translation as being consistently made rather than the factual title which neither you are I consistently quote. Oddly enough, if you were a stickler for that, you should have said something about my saying Principles rather than the correctly titled Principles of Philosophy. Honestly, it's all pick and choose at this point, so I don't think I have to go any further. Odd how the argument now is not so much over the content of Descartes text but rather how we say the names of his works. LOL!