Topics Knowledge

Question First, thanks for this great website. I was talking to a friend about Descartes and Cogito and it revived my curiosity in the subject. Most of us would agree that there is an objective world out there. Is there a way to prove it? How can I prove to my self that I am not the only thing that exists? I thought perhaps because there is an order in the things around me, in which I have no will. I can not change the laws that the things around me obey, wether they are objective or part of my imagination. Does this force me to admit then that the things I perceive are objective? I could definitely use some help. I would like to read more in the subject as well so if somebody could give me ideas and refer me to some books, it would be great. Thanks in advance. Alejandro

Accepted:
December 4, 2007

Comments

The fact thatyou're talking about Descartes and the cogito witha friend is an excellent start. It is certainly a main part of theproject of Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophyto prove that one can have knowledge of a world which extends beyondone's awareness of oneself as a thinking thing. I would recommend acareful reading of that work, with particular attention to the thirdMeditation, where Descartes explicitly considers and rejects thesuggestion you've hinted at, namely that the existence of a worldoutside oneself follows from the fact that the world seems to imposeitself on us, often against our will. Descartes rejects this argumentbecause it is possible that such ideas could still be invented by us,and only appear to issue from outside us. This point is made inpreparation for the proof of God's existence in Meditation 3, whereDescartes argues that when one reflects on the content of one's mind,only our possession of the idea of God requires that there besomething outside oneself, namely God, who is the the cause of thatidea. Once Descartes has established the existence of God, (if hisargument is successful) he's on his way to showing that there areother things than God outside him. The culmination of Descartes'argument occurs in Meditation 6, where he argues for the existence ofthe external (physical) world.

As Saul's response makes clear, Descartes' own reasoning seems to rely heavily on his argument for the existence of God. I think that few today would accept that argument, and so although studying Descartes closely would doubtless be interesting it may not give you a satisfactory answer to your questions.

Another form of argumentation that purports to be capable of proving the existence of objects distinct from oneself is transcendental argumentation. This is most closely associated with Immanuel Kant, who developed his famous transcendental argumentation (at least in part) because he was interested in responding to problems with the rationalist philosophical tradition in which Descartes wrote and which was critiqued severely by David Hume.

As interesting as Kant's argumentation is--and as fascinating as is an historical account of Kant's responses to his illustrious predecessors--Kant's own argumentation may not help you to find an answer to your question: although Kant answered your questions directly and powerfully, his argument presupposes metaphysical positions that are hugely controversial and that few today would accept. So, although both Descartes and Hume thought that they had in hand answers to your questions, from a contemporary perspective most folks would find these answers unpersuasive.

Happily, however, Kant has inspired a series of additional transcendental argumentation, many of which are more palatable from a contemporary perspective and some of which may yet provide answers to your questions.

In schematic form, transcendental argumentation looks like this:

FIRST STEP: Start with a phenomena that everyone agrees exists (e.g., experience).

SECOND STEP: Investigate the necessary conditions for that phenomena by asking the “Kantian question” of what makes it possible.

THIRD STEP: Examine the philosophical implications of your analysis of the possibility of the phenomena.

Kant’s major insights included, first, that the necessary conditions studied in step two can have vital implications that can be exploited in step three and, second, that traditional rationalists and empiricists who do not use “Kantian transcendental arguments” are ignorant of these implications and so make many horrid philosophical mistakes.

In Kant’s case, he gave transcendental arguments about the possibility of experience, and from them he believed that he solved both the "crisis" about knowledge that Descartes' Meditations responded to and intensified and the Humean "crisis" about causation that was at the heart of Hume's criticisms of Descartes' positive account of knowledge.

To my reading, at least, contemporary versions of this "Kantian-style transcendental argumentation" are seen in the work of Donald Davidson, who asked how communication was possible (and who developed startling new theories of language, mind, and action when he explored the implications of the correct answer to that question); in the work of Jurgen Habermas, who asked how "communicative action" was possible (and whose answers helped him to develop an influential theory of social critique); in the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, who asked how is language possible; by Wilfrid Sellars, who asked how are concepts possible; in the work of Peter Strawson, who asked how is it possible to know what someone else thinks; in the work of Hilary Putnam and John Searle, who each ask how is it possible for words to refer to things in the world; and in the work of many cognitive scientists, for example Owen Flanagan and Paul Churchland, who ask how is it possible to represent anything in the mind.

So, if I am right "Kantian-style" transcendental argumentation constitute a powerful source of contemporary philosophical insight, and studying Kant's arguments and relevant contemporary ones may therefore provide a rewarding way to engage deeply the issues that your question raises. the

Among the recent transcendental argumentation, I think that Donald Davidson offers the most direct response to the questions you raise. His arguments are difficult, but extremely interesting. Alas, they tend to be distributed throughout many different writings and so there is no single article that I can refer you to. A good starting place may be his "Epistemology Externalized," "Meaning Truth and Evidence," and "Three Varieties of Knowledge" each of which contains interesting material on this theme that Davidson published in the 1990s.