Philosophers

Descartes's argument: ''I think, therefore, I exist'' is an ontological argument? If Descartes said that It is, if he did (?), where (book) he says it? Thank you very much.

Comments

No, Descartes never called it an ontological argument. He wouldn't even have known what such a claim was supposed to mean, because the expression simply didn't exist in his time. The term 'ontological argument' was introduced (or at least popularised) by Immanuel Kant, more than a century after Descartes died.

But would Kant, at least, have called it an ontological argument? No, because Kant -- and effectively everyone else who's used the term since him -- opted to use that term to denote a certain class of arguments for the existence of God, specifically, and Descartes (by his own admission!) was not God.

So let's just put the terminology to one side: it's never a good idea to allow oneself to get hung up on jargon, when what we should really be looking at is the argument itself. Perhaps a better question to ask is this: does Descartes' "I think, therefore I exist" at least have a structure analogous to that which we find in those arguments for the existence of God that philosophers since Kant have taken to calling ontological. No, it doesn't. The defining characteristic of the so-called ontological arguments is that they seek to establish an existential conclusion (namely, that God exists) solely by reflecting on concepts (namely, the concept of infinite perfection). And Descartes' Cogito argument certainly does seek to establish an existential conclusion (namely, that I exist). But it doesn't purport to be doing this solely through reflection on concepts (e.g., the concept of thought). Descartes also needs an intuition, a conscious awareness of the fact that he is thinking.

And so the answer to your slightly puzzling question is no, I can't see any basis whatsoever for calling it an ontological argument, whether from Descartes' writings or from anything else. But then, equally, I can't see what philosophically interesting consequences would hang on that purely terminological issue anyway. Philosophy's about arguments, not about the taxonomy thereof.

Read another response by Jasper Reid

Read another response about Philosophers