[{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/cogito-ergo-sum-wikipedia\/#BlogPosting","mainEntityOfPage":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/cogito-ergo-sum-wikipedia\/","headline":"Cogito, ergo sum – Wikipedia","name":"Cogito, ergo sum – Wikipedia","description":"before-content-x4 Philosophical statement made by Ren\u00e9 Descartes after-content-x4 The Latin cogito, ergo sum, usually translated into English as “I think,","datePublished":"2019-08-27","dateModified":"2019-08-27","author":{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/author\/lordneo\/#Person","name":"lordneo","url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/author\/lordneo\/","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd810e53c1408c38cc766bc14e7ce26a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd810e53c1408c38cc766bc14e7ce26a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","height":96,"width":96}},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Enzyklop\u00e4die","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/wiki4\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/download.jpg","url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/wiki4\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/download.jpg","width":600,"height":60}},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/wiki4\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/download.jpg","url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/wiki4\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/download.jpg","width":100,"height":100},"url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/cogito-ergo-sum-wikipedia\/","wordCount":16380,"articleBody":"     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});before-content-x4Philosophical statement made by Ren\u00e9 Descartes       (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4The Latin cogito, ergo sum, usually translated into English as “I think, therefore I am“,[a] is the “first principle” of Ren\u00e9 Descartes’s philosophy. He originally published it in French as je pense, donc je suis in his 1637 Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed.[1] It later appeared in Latin in his Principles of Philosophy, and a similar phrase also featured prominently in his Meditations on First Philosophy.  The dictum is also sometimes referred to as the cogito.[2]  As Descartes explained in a margin note, “we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt.” In the posthumously published The Search for Truth by Natural Light, he expressed this insight as dubito, ergo sum, vel, quod idem est, cogito, ergo sum (“I doubt, therefore I am \u2014 or what is the same \u2014 I think, therefore I am”).[3][4]Antoine L\u00e9onard Thomas, in a 1765 essay in honor of Descartes presented it as dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (“I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am”).[b]Descartes’s statement became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it purported to provide a certain foundation for knowledge in the face of radical doubt. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception, or mistake, Descartes asserted that the very act of doubting one’s own existence served\u2014at minimum\u2014as proof of the reality of one’s own mind; there must be a thinking entity\u2014in this case the self\u2014for there to be a thought.One critique of the dictum, first suggested by Pierre Gassendi, is that it presupposes that there is an “I” which must be doing the thinking. According to this line of criticism, the most that Descartes was entitled to say was that “thinking is occurring”, not that “I am thinking”.[5]       (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4Table of ContentsIn Descartes’s writings[edit]Discourse on the Method[edit]Meditations on First Philosophy[edit]Principles of Philosophy[edit]The Search for Truth by Natural Light[edit]Other forms[edit]Translation[edit]“I am thinking” vs. “I think”[edit]“I exist” vs. “I am”[edit]Punctuation[edit]Interpretation[edit]Predecessors[edit]Critique[edit]Use of “I”[edit]Kierkegaard[edit]Williams[edit]Heidegger[edit]John Macmurray[edit]See also[edit]References[edit]Further reading[edit]External links[edit]In Descartes’s writings[edit]Descartes first wrote the phrase in French in his 1637 Discourse on the Method. He referred to it in Latin without explicitly stating the familiar form of the phrase in his 1641 Meditations on First Philosophy. The earliest written record of the phrase in Latin is in his 1644 Principles of Philosophy, where, in a margin note (see below), he provides a clear explanation of his intent: “[W]e cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt”. Fuller forms of the phrase are attributable to other authors.Discourse on the Method[edit]The phrase first appeared (in French) in Descartes’s 1637 Discourse on the Method in the first paragraph of its fourth part:       (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4Ainsi, \u00e0 cause que nos sens nous trompent quelquefois, je voulus supposer qu’il n’y avait aucune chose qui f\u00fbt telle qu’ils nous la font imaginer; Et parce qu’il y a des hommes qui se m\u00e9prennent en raisonnant, m\u00eame touchant les plus simples mati\u00e8res de G\u00e9om\u00e9trie, et y font des Paralogismes, jugeant que j’\u00e9tais sujet \u00e0 faillir autant qu’aucun autre, je rejetai comme fausses toutes les raisons que j’avais prises auparavant pour D\u00e9monstrations; Et enfin, consid\u00e9rant que toutes les m\u00eames pens\u00e9es que nous avons \u00e9tant \u00e9veill\u00e9s nous peuvent aussi venir quand nous dormons, sans qu’il y en ait aucune raison pour lors qui soit vraie, je me r\u00e9solus de feindre que toutes les choses qui m’\u00e9taient jamais entr\u00e9es en l’esprit n’\u00e9taient non plus vraies que les illusions de mes songes. Mais aussit\u00f4t apr\u00e8s je pris garde que, pendant que je voulais ainsi penser que tout \u00e9tait faux, il fallait n\u00e9cessairement que moi qui le pensais fusse quelque chose; Et remarquant que cette v\u00e9rit\u00e9, je pense, donc je suis,[c] \u00e9tait si ferme et si assur\u00e9e, que toutes les plus extravagantes suppositions des Sceptiques n’\u00e9taient pas capables de l’\u00e9branler, je jugeai que je pouvais la recevoir sans scrupule pour le premier principe de la Philosophie que je cherchais.[d][e]Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; And because some men err in reasoning, and fall into Paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of Geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for Demonstrations; And finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be something; And as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am,[c] was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the Sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search.[f][g]Meditations on First Philosophy[edit]In 1641, Descartes published (in Latin) Meditations on first philosophy in which he referred to the proposition, though not explicitly as “cogito, ergo sum” in Meditation II:[12]hoc pronuntiatum: Ego sum, Ego existo,[h] quoties a me profertur, vel mente concipitur, necessario esse verum.this proposition: I am, I exist,[h] whenever it is uttered by me, or conceived by the mind, necessarily is true.[i][j]Principles of Philosophy[edit]In 1644, Descartes published (in Latin) his Principles of Philosophy where the phrase “ego cogito, ergo sum” appears in Part 1, article 7:Sic autem rejicientes illa omnia, de quibus aliquo modo possumus dubitare, ac etiam, falsa esse fingentes, facil\u00e8 quidem, supponimus nullum esse Deum, nullum coelum, nulla corpora; nosque etiam ipsos, non habere manus, nec pedes, nec denique ullum corpus, non autem ide\u00f2 nos qui talia cogitamus nihil esse: repugnat enim ut putemus id quod cogitat eo ipso tempore quo cogitat non existere. Ac proinde haec cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum,[c] est omnium prima & certissima, quae cuilibet ordine philosophanti occurrat.[k]While we thus reject all of which we can entertain the smallest doubt, and even imagine that it is false, we easily indeed suppose that there is neither God, nor sky, nor bodies, and that we ourselves even have neither hands nor feet, nor, finally, a body; but we cannot in the same way suppose that we are not while we doubt of the truth of these things; for there is a repugnance in conceiving that what thinks does not exist at the very time when it thinks. Accordingly, the knowledge,[l]I think, therefore I am,[c] is the first and most certain that occurs to one who philosophizes orderly.[m]Descartes’s margin note for the above paragraph is:Non posse \u00e0 nobis dubitari, quin existamus dum dubitamus; atque hoc esse primum, quod ordine philosophando cognoscimus.That we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt, and that this is the first knowledge we acquire when we philosophize in order.[m]The Search for Truth by Natural Light[edit]Descartes, in a lesser-known posthumously published work dated as written ca. 1647[15] and titled La Recherche de la V\u00e9rit\u00e9 par La Lumiere Naturale (The Search for Truth by Natural Light),[3][n] provides his only known phrasing of the cogito as cogito, ergo sum and admits that his insight is also expressible as dubito, ergo sum:[4]… [S]entio, oportere, ut quid dubitatio, quid cogitatio, quid exsistentia sit ant\u00e8 sciamus, qu\u00e0m de veritate hujus ratiocinii: dubito, ergo sum, vel, quod idem est, cogito, ergo sum[c]\u00a0: plane simus persuasi.\u2026 [I feel that] it is necessary to know what doubt is, and what thought is, [what existence is], before we can be fully persuaded of this reasoning \u2014 I doubt, therefore I am \u2014 or what is the same \u2014 I think, therefore I am.[o]Other forms[edit]The proposition is sometimes given as dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum. This form was penned by the French literary critic, Antoine L\u00e9onard Thomas,[p] in an award-winning 1765 essay in praise of Descartes, where it appeared as “Puisque je doute, je pense; puisque je pense, j’existe” (‘Since I doubt, I think; since I think, I exist’). With rearrangement and compaction, the passage translates to “I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am,” or in Latin, “dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum.”[q] This aptly captures Descartes’s intent as expressed in his posthumously published La Recherche de la V\u00e9rit\u00e9 par La Lumiere Naturale as noted above: I doubt, therefore I am \u2014 or what is the same \u2014 I think, therefore I am.A further expansion, dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum\u2014res cogitans (“\u2026\u2014a thinking thing”) extends the cogito with Descartes’s statement in the subsequent Meditation, “Ego sum res cogitans, id est dubitans, affirmans, negans, pauca intelligens, multa ignorans, volens, nolens, imaginans etiam et sentiens\u2026” (“I am a thinking [conscious] thing, that is, a being who doubts, affirms, denies, knows a few objects, and is ignorant of many,– who loves, hates,[r] wills, refuses, who imagines likewise, and perceives”).[s] This has been referred to as “the expanded cogito.”[24][t]Translation[edit]“I am thinking” vs. “I think”[edit]While the Latin translation c\u014dgit\u014d may be translated rather easily as “I think\/ponder\/visualize”, je pense does not indicate whether the verb form corresponds to the English simple present or progressive aspect.[27] Technically speaking, the French lemma pense by itself is actually the result of numerous different conjugations of the verb penser (to think) \u2013 it could mean “I think… (something)”\/”He thinks… (something)”, “I think.”\/”He thinks.”, or even “You (must) think… (something).”,[u] thereby necessitating the use of the wider context, or a pronoun, to understand the meaning. In the case of je pense, a pronoun is already included, je or “I”, but this still leaves the question of whether “I think…” or “I think.” is intended. Therefore, translation needs a larger context to determine aspect.[28]Following John Lyons (1982),[29] Vladimir \u017degarac notes, “The temptation to use the simple present is said to arise from the lack of progressive forms in Latin and French, and from a misinterpretation of the meaning of cogito as habitual or generic” (cf. gnomic aspect).[30] Also following Lyons, Ann Banfield writes, “In order for the statement on which Descartes’s argument depends to represent certain knowledge,\u2026 its tense must be a true present\u2014in English, a progressive,\u2026 not as ‘I think’ but as ‘I am thinking, in conformity with the general translation of the Latin or French present tense in such nongeneric, nonstative contexts.”[31] Or in the words of Simon Blackburn, “Descartes’s premise is not ‘I think’ in the sense of ‘I ski’, which can be true even if you are not at the moment skiing. It is supposed to be parallel to ‘I am skiing’.”[32]The similar translation “I am thinking, therefore I exist” of Descartes’s correspondence in French (“je pense, donc je suis“) appears in The Philosophical Writings of Descartes by Cottingham et al. (1988).[33]:\u200a247\u200aThe earliest known translation as “I am thinking, therefore I am” is from 1872 by Charles Porterfield Krauth.[34][v]Fumitaka Suzuki writes “Taking consideration of Cartesian theory of continuous creation, which theory was developed especially in the Meditations and in the Principles, we would assure that ‘I am thinking, therefore I am\/exist’ is the most appropriate English translation of ‘ego cogito, ergo sum’.”[36]“I exist” vs. “I am”[edit]Alexis Deodato S. Itao notes that cogito, ergo sum is “literally ‘I think, therefore I am’.”[37] Others differ: 1) “[A] precise English translation will read as ‘I am thinking, therefore I exist’.;[38] and 2) “[S]ince Descartes … emphasized that existence is such an important ‘notion,’ a better translation is ‘I am thinking, therefore I exist.'”[39]Punctuation[edit]Descartes wrote this phrase as such only once, in the posthumously published lesser-known work noted above,The Search for Truth by Natural Light.[3] It appeared there mid-sentence, uncapitalized, and with a comma. (Commas were not used in Classical Latin[w] but were a regular feature of scholastic Latin,[41] the Latin Descartes “had learned in a Jesuit college at La Fl\u00e8che.”[42]) Most modern reference works show it with a comma, but it is often presented without a comma in academic work and in popular usage. In Descartes’s Principia Philosophiae, the proposition appears as ego cogito, ergo sum.[43]Interpretation[edit]As put succinctly by Krauth (1872), “That cannot doubt which does not think, and that cannot think which does not exist. I doubt, I think, I exist.”[34]The phrase cogito, ergo sum is not used in Descartes’s Meditations on First Philosophy but the term “the cogito” is used to refer to an argument from it.  In the Meditations, Descartes phrases the conclusion of the argument as “that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind” (Meditation II). George Henry Lewes says Descartes “has told us that [his objective] was to find a starting point from which to reason\u2014to find an irreversible certainty. And where did he find this? In his own consciousness. Doubt as I may, I cannot doubt of my own existence, because my very doubts reveal to me a something which doubts. You may call this an assumption, if you will; I point out the fact as one above and beyond all logic; which logic can neither prove nor disprove; but which must always remain an irreversible certainty, and as such a fitting basis of philosophy.”[44]At the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt\u2014his argument from the existence of a deceiving god\u2014Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any have survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence, he finds that it is impossible to doubt that he exists.  Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon), one’s belief in their own existence would be secure, for there is no way one could be deceived unless one existed in order to be deceived.But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies.  Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me.  In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something.  So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16\u201317)[x]There are three important notes to keep in mind here. First, he claims only the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point of view \u2014 he has not proved the existence of other minds at this point. This is something that has to be thought through by each of us for ourselves, as we follow the course of the meditations. Second, he does not say that his existence is necessary; he says that if he thinks, then necessarily he exists (see the instantiation principle). Third, this proposition “I am, I exist” is held true not based on a deduction (as mentioned above) or on empirical induction but on the clarity and self-evidence of the proposition. Descartes does not use this first certainty, the cogito, as a foundation upon which to build further knowledge; rather, it is the firm ground upon which he can stand as he works to discover further truths.[46]  As he puts it:Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable. (AT VII 24; CSM II 16)[x]According to many Descartes specialists, including \u00c9tienne Gilson, the goal of Descartes in establishing this first truth is to demonstrate the capacity of his criterion \u2014 the immediate clarity and distinctiveness of self-evident propositions \u2014 to establish true and justified propositions despite having adopted a method of generalized doubt. As a consequence of this demonstration, Descartes considers science and mathematics to be justified to the extent that their proposals are established on a similarly immediate clarity, distinctiveness, and self-evidence that presents itself to the mind. The originality of Descartes’s thinking, therefore, is not so much in expressing the cogito\u2014a feat accomplished by other predecessors, as we shall see\u2014but on using the cogito as demonstrating the most fundamental epistemological principle, that science and mathematics are justified by relying on clarity, distinctiveness, and self-evidence.Baruch Spinoza in “Principia philosophiae cartesianae” at its Prolegomenon identified “cogito ergo sum” the “ego sum cogitans” (I am a thinking being) as the thinking substance with his ontological interpretation.Predecessors[edit]Although the idea expressed in cogito, ergo sum is widely attributed to Descartes, he was not the first to mention it. Plato spoke about the “knowledge of knowledge” (Greek: \u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, n\u00f3esis no\u00e9seos) and Aristotle explains the idea in full length:But if life itself is good and pleasant\u2026and if one who sees is conscious that he sees, one who hears that he hears, one who walks that he walks and similarly for all the other human activities there is a faculty that is conscious of their exercise, so that whenever we perceive, we are conscious that we perceive, and whenever we think, we are conscious that we think, and to be conscious that we are perceiving or thinking is to be conscious that we exist… (Nicomachean Ethics, 1170a 25 ff.)The Cartesian statement was interpreted to be an Aristotelian syllogism where the premise that all thinkers are also beings is not made explicit.[47]In the late sixth or early fifth century BC, Parmenides is quoted as saying “For to be aware and to be are the same”. (Fragment B3)In the early fifth century AD, Augustine of Hippo in De Civitate Dei (book XI, 26) affirmed his certain knowledge of his own existence, and added: “So far as these truths are concerned, I do not at all fear the arguments of the Academics when they say, What if you are mistaken? For if I am mistaken, I exist.”[48][y] This formulation (si fallor, sum) is sometimes called the Augustinian cogito.[49] In 1640, Descartes wrote to thank Andreas Colvius (a friend of Descartes’s mentor, Isaac Beeckman) for drawing his attention to Augustine:I am obliged to you for drawing my attention to the passage of St Augustine relevant to my I am thinking, therefore I exist. I went today to the library of this town to read it, and I do indeed find that he does use it to prove the certainty of our existence. He goes on to show that there is a certain likeness of the Trinity in us, in that we exist, we know that we exist, and we love the existence and the knowledge we have. I, on the other hand, use the argument to show that this I which is thinking is an immaterial substance with no bodily element. These are two very different things. In itself it is such a simple and natural thing to infer that one exists from the fact that one is doubting that it could have occurred to any writer. But I am very glad to find myself in agreement with St Augustine, if only to hush the little minds who have tried to find fault with the principle.[33]:\u200a159\u200aAnother predecessor was Avicenna’s “Floating Man” thought experiment on human self-awareness and self-consciousness.[50]The 8th century Hindu philosopher Adi Shankara wrote, in a similar fashion, that no one thinks ‘I am not’, arguing that one’s existence cannot be doubted, as there must be someone there to doubt.[51] The central idea of cogito, ergo sum is also the topic of Mandukya Upanishad.Spanish philosopher G\u00f3mez Pereira in his 1554 work De Inmortalitate Animae, wrote “nosco me aliquid noscere, & quidquid noscit, est, ergo ego sum” (‘I know that I know something, anyone who knows is, therefore I am’).[52][53]Critique[edit]Use of “I”[edit]In Descartes, The Project of Pure Enquiry, Bernard Williams provides a history and full evaluation of this issue.[54] The first to raise the “I” problem was Pierre Gassendi, who in his Disquisitio Metaphysica,[55] as noted by Saul Fisher “points out that recognition that one has a set of thoughts does not imply that one is a particular thinker or another. \u2026[T]he only claim that is indubitable here is the agent-independent claim that there is cognitive activity present.”[56]The objection, as presented by Georg Lichtenberg, is that rather than supposing an entity that is thinking, Descartes should have said: “thinking is occurring.” That is, whatever the force of the cogito, Descartes draws too much from it; the existence of a thinking thing, the reference of the “I,” is more than the cogito can justify. Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the phrase in that it presupposes that there is an “I”, that there is such an activity as “thinking”, and that “I” know what “thinking” is. He suggested a more appropriate phrase would be “it thinks” wherein the “it” could be an impersonal subject as in the sentence “It is raining.”[5]Kierkegaard[edit]The Danish philosopher S\u00f8ren Kierkegaard calls the phrase a tautology in his Concluding Unscientific Postscript.[57]:\u200a38\u201342\u200a He argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of “I”, and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard’s argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise “I think” into the premises “‘x’ thinks” and “I am that ‘x'”, where “x” is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the “I” from the thinking thing.[58]Here, the cogito has already assumed the “I”‘s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely “developing the content of a concept”, namely that the “I”, which already exists, thinks.[57]:\u200a40\u200a As Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or presupposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.[59]Williams[edit]Bernard Williams claims that what we are dealing with when we talk of thought, or when we say “I am thinking,” is something conceivable from a third-person perspective\u2014namely objective “thought-events” in the former case, and an objective thinker in the latter. He argues, first, that it is impossible to make sense of “there is thinking” without relativizing it to something. However, this something cannot be Cartesian egos, because it is impossible to differentiate objectively between things just on the basis of the pure content of consciousness. The obvious problem is that, through introspection, or our experience of consciousness, we have no way of moving to conclude the existence of any third-personal fact, to conceive of which would require something above and beyond just the purely subjective contents of the mind.[54]Heidegger[edit]As a critic of Cartesian subjectivity, Heidegger sought to ground human subjectivity in death as that certainty which individualizes and authenticates our being. As he wrote in 1925 in History of the Concept of Time:[60]This certainty, that “I myself am in that I will die,” is the basic certainty of Dasein itself. It is a genuine statement of Dasein, while cogito sum is only the semblance of such a statement. If such pointed formulations mean anything at all, then the appropriate statement pertaining to Dasein in its being would have to be sum moribundus [I am in dying], moribundus not as someone gravely ill or wounded, but insofar as I am, I am moribundus. The MORIBUNDUS first gives the SUM its sense.John Macmurray[edit]The Scottish philosopher John Macmurray rejects the cogito outright in order to place action at the center of a philosophical system he entitles the Form of the Personal. “We must reject this, both as standpoint and as method. If this be philosophy, then philosophy is a bubble floating in an atmosphere of unreality.”[61] The reliance on thought creates an irreconcilable dualism between thought and action in which the unity of experience is lost, thus dissolving the integrity of our selves, and destroying any connection with reality. In order to formulate a more adequate cogito, Macmurray proposes the substitution of “I do” for “I think,”  ultimately leading to a belief in God as an agent to whom all persons stand in relation.See also[edit]^  Some sources offer “I am thinking, therefore I am” as a better translation. (See \u00a7 Translation.)^ This expression is often mistakenly attributed to Descartes. (See Other forms.)^ a b c d e Cogito variant highlighted to facilitate comparison; the phrase was italicized in the original.^ Capitalization as in original; spelling updated from Middle French to Modern French.^ See original Discours manuscript here.^ This translation, by Veitch in 1850,[6] is modified here as follows: Veitch’s “I think, hence I am” is changed to the form by which it is currently best known in English, “I think, therefore I am”, which appeared in the Haldane and Ross 1911 translation,[7]:\u200a100\u200a and as an isolated attributed phrase previously, e.g., in Sullivan (1794);[8] in the preceding line, Veitch’s “I, who thus thought, should be somewhat” is given here as “\u2026 should be something” for clarity (in accord with other translations, e.g., that of Cress[9]); and capitalization was reverted to conform to Descartes’s original in French.^ The 1637 Discours was translated to Latin in the 1644 Specimina Philosophiae[10] but this is not referenced here because of issues raised regarding translation quality.[11]^ a b Cogito variant highlighted to facilitate comparison; capitalization as in original.^ This combines, for clarity and to retain phrase ordering, the Cress[9] and Haldane[7]:\u200a150\u200a translations.^ Jaako Hintikka comments that ego sum, ego existo is the simplest example of an “existentially self-verifying” sentence, i.e., one whose negation verifies itself “when \u2026 expressly uttered or otherwise professed”; and that ego sum is an alternative to cogito, ergo sum to express “the existential inconsistency of the sentence ‘I don’t exist’ and the existential self-verifiability of ‘I exist'”.[4]^ See original Principia manuscript here.^ A 1647 French translation,[13] published with Descartes’s enthusiastic approval, substituted ‘conclusion’ for ‘knowledge’.[14]^ a b  Translation from  The Principles of Philosophy at Project Gutenberg.^ Titled Inquisitio Veritatis per Lumen Naturale in a 1683 compendium of posthumously published works.[16]^ Translation by Hallam,[17] with additions for completeness.^ Thomas was known in his time for his great eloquence especially for \u00e9loges in praise of past luminaries.[18]^ The 1765 work, \u00c9loge de Ren\u00e9 Descartes,[19] by Antoine L\u00e9onard Thomas, was awarded the 1765 Le Prix De L’acad\u00e9mie Fran\u00e7aise and republished in the 1826 compilation of Descartes’s work, Oeuvres de Descartes[20] by Victor Cousin. The French text is available in more accessible format at Project Gutenberg. The compilation by Cousin is credited with a revival of interest in Descartes.[21][22]^ the French adds “loves, hates”; hence Veitch’s inclusion despite its absence from the Latin here. see Cottingham, J. (ed), 1986, “Meditations on First Philosophy, with selections from Objections and Replies”, p.24fn1.^  This translation by Veitch[23] is the first English translation from Descartes as “I am a thinking thing”.^ Martin Schoock, in the 1642\u201343 controversy between Descartes and Gisbertus Voetius, fiercely attacked Descartes and his philosophy in an essay.[25]He wrote cogito, ergo sum, res cogitans and cogito, inquiro, dubito ergo sum as well as cogito, ergo sum (multiple times) in his 1652 De Scepticismo.[26]^ The tense of je pense is marked indicatif pr\u00e9sent by e.g., conjugation.com; c\u014dgit\u014d is indicative active present per e.g., Wiktionary.^ Krauth is not explicitly acknowledged as author of this article, but is so identified the following year by Garretson.[35]^ See Latin Punctuation in the Classical Age.[40]^ a b AT refers to Adams and Tannery;[3] CSM II to Cottingham, Stoothoff, and Murdoch;[45] CSMK III to Cottingham, Stoothoff, Murdoch, and Kenny[33]^ Augustine makes a similar argument in the Enchiridion, ch. 7, sec. 20.References[edit]^ Burns, William E. (2001). The Scientific Revolution: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. p.\u00a084. ISBN\u00a0978-0-87436-875-8.^ “COGITO | Meaning & Definition for UK English | Lexico.com”. Lexico Dictionaries | English. Archived from the original on March 8, 2021. Retrieved 2022-07-11.^ a b c d Adam, Charles; Tannery, Paul, eds. (1901), “La Recherche de la V\u00e9rit\u00e9 par La Lumiere Naturale”, Oeuvres de Descartes, vol.\u00a0X, p.\u00a0535.^ a b c Hintikka, Jaakko (1962). “Cogito, Ergo Sum: Inference or Performance?”. The Philosophical Review. 71 (1): 3\u201332. doi:10.2307\/2183678. ISSN\u00a00031-8108. JSTOR\u00a02183678.^ a b Monte, Jonas (2015). “Sum, Ergo Cogito: Nietzsche Re-orders Decartes” (PDF). aporia.byu.edu. BYU. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 June 2022. Retrieved 17 September 2016.^ Veitch, John (1850). Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and Seeking Truth in the Sciences, by Descartes. Edinburgh: Sutherland and Knox. pp.\u00a074\u20135.^ a b Descartes, Ren\u00e9 (1911). The Philosophical Works of Descartes, rendered into English. Translated by Elizabeth S. Haldane and G.R.T. Ross. Cambridge University Press.^ Richard Joseph Sullivan (1794). A View of Nature, in Letters to a Traveller among the Alps, with Reflections on Atheistical Philosophy now exemplified in France. London: printed for T. Becket. p.\u00a0129.^ a b Descartes, Ren\u00e9 (1986). Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Translated by Donald A. Cress. p.\u00a065. ISBN\u00a0978-1-60384-551-9.^ Descartes, Ren\u00e9 (1644). Specimina philosophiae. Ludovicus Elzevirius. p.\u00a030.^ Vermeulen, Corinna Lucia (2006). “Ren\u00e9 Descartes, Specimina philosophiae. Introduction and Critical Edition”. Quaestiones Infinitae (Dissertation, Utrecht University). 53. hdl:1874\/23451.^ Descartes, Ren\u00e9 (1642). Meditationes de prima philosophia: in quibus Dei existentia, & animae humanae \u00e0 corpore distinctio, demonstrantur (in Latin). Apud Danielem Elsevirium. p.\u00a0298.^ Descartes (1647). Principes de la philosophie. Translated by Picot, Abb\u00e9 Claude. Paris. ISBN\u00a09782711622313.^ Miller, Valentine Roger; Miller, Reese P. (1983). Descartes, Ren\u00e9. Principles of Philosophy. Translated, with explanatory notes. pp.\u00a0xi, 5. ISBN\u00a0978-90-277-1754-2.^ Gouhier, Henri (1924), La pens\u00e9e religieuse de Descartes, p.\u00a0319^ Descartes, Ren\u00e9 (1683), Regulae ad Directionem Ingenii ut et Inquisitio Veritatis per Lumen Naturale, p.\u00a086^ Hallam, Henry (1843), Introduction to the Literature of Europe in the 15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries, vol.\u00a0II (2nd\u00a0ed.), p.\u00a0451^ Stephens, Henry Morse (1892). Mirabeau. Vergniaud. Gensonn\u00e9. Guadet. Louvet. Cambon (in French). Clarendon Press. p.\u00a09.^ Thomas, Antoine L\u00e9onard (1765). \u00c9loge de Ren\u00e9 Descartes. E. van Harrevelt. pp.\u00a023\u201324.^ Cousin, Victor (1824). Oeuvres de Descartes.^ The Edinburgh Review for July, 1890 \u2026 October, 1890. Leonard Scott Publication Co. 1890. p.\u00a0469.^ Bohemia, Princess Elisabeth of; Descartes, Ren\u00e9 (2007-11-01). The Correspondence between Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia and Ren\u00e9 Descartes. University of Chicago Press. ISBN\u00a0978-0-226-20444-4.^ Veitch, John (1880). The Method, Meditations and Selections from the Principles of Ren\u00e9 Descartes (7th\u00a0ed.). Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons. p.\u00a0115.^ Kline, George L. (1967). “Randall’s Interpretation of the Philosophies of Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz”.  In John Peter Anton (ed.). Naturalism and Historical Understanding. SUNY Press. p.\u00a085.^ Schoockius, Martinus (1643), Admiranda Methodus Novae Philosophiae Renati Des Cartes^ Schoockius, Martinus (1652), De Scepticismo, p.\u00a087^ Pope, Rob (2013). Textual Intervention: Critical and Creative Strategies for Literary Studies. Routledge. p.\u00a035. ISBN\u00a0978-1-135-08328-1.^ Dunlap, J. R. (2006). An Answer Key to A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin: A Supplement to the Text by John F. Collins. CUA Press. p.\u00a018. ISBN\u00a0978-0-8132-1469-6.^ Lyons, J. (1982). “Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum?”.  In Jarvella, Rovert J.; Klein, Wolfgang (eds.). Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics. pp.\u00a0101\u2013224.^ \u017degarac, Vladimir (1991). Tense, aspect and relevance (PDF) (PhD thesis). University of London. pp.\u00a084, 85. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-10-18.^ Banfield, A. (1998). “The Name of the Subject: The “il”?”. Yale French Studies (93): 133\u2013174. doi:10.2307\/3040735. JSTOR\u00a03040735.^ Simon Blackburn (1999). Think: A compelling introduction to philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN\u00a0978-0-19-976984-1. “am thinking, therefore”.^ a b c The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Vol.\u00a0III. Translated by Cottingham, J.; Stoothoff, R.; Kenny, A.; Murdoch, D. Cambridge University Press. 1991. ISBN\u00a0978-0-521-42350-2.^ a b Krauth, Charles Porterfield (1872). “Notes in Class \u2014 Descartes”. The Penn Monthly. University Press Company. 3: 11.^ James Edmund Garretson (1873). Thinkers and Thinking. J.B. Lippincott & Company. p.\u00a0182. descartes he affirmed thinking.^ Suzuki, Fumitaka (2012). “The Cogito Proposition of Descartes and Characteristics of His Ego Theory”. Aporia.byu.edu. Bulletin of Aichi Univ. of Education. Archived from the original on 10 May 2018. Retrieved 6 May 2018.^ Itao, Alexis Deodato S. (2010). “Paul Ricoeurs hermeneutics of symbols: A critical dialectic of suspicion and faith” (PDF). Kritike. 4 (2): 1\u201317. doi:10.25138\/4.2.a.1. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2012-03-24.^ del Pozo Ba\u00f1os, Marcos (2015). My Mind, My Self, My Identity: A Task-Independent Neural Signature for Biometric Identification (PhD). Universidad De Las Palmas De Gran Canaria.^ Carpenter, John Michael (2012). Remedying Some Defects in the History of Analyticity (PhD). Florida State University.^ “Latin Punctuation in the Classical Age | Otha E. Wingo, E. Otha Wingo | download”. u1lib.org. p.\u00a016. Archived from the original on 2021-12-25. Retrieved 2021-12-25.^ Saenger, Paul (1997). Space Between Words: The Origins of Silent Reading. Stanford University Press. p.\u00a020. ISBN\u00a0978-0-8047-4016-6.^ Clarke, Desmond M. (2015). “Descartes’ Biography as a Guide to His Meditations“.  In Allen Speight (ed.). Narrative, Philosophy and Life. Springer. p.\u00a0177. ISBN\u00a0978-94-017-9348-3.^ Descartes, Ren\u00e9 (1644). Principia Philosophiae. apud Ludovicum Elzevirium. pp.\u00a030, 31. “Ego Cogito ergo sum”.^ Lewes, George Henry (1867). The History of Philosophy from Thales to Comte: Modern philosophy. Longmans, Green, and Company. See [Descartes’s] replies to the third and fifth series of Objections affixed to his Mediations.^ The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Vol.\u00a0II. Translated by Cottingham, J.; Stoothoff, R.; Kenny, A.; Murdoch, D. Cambridge University Press. 1984. ISBN\u00a0978-0-521-28808-8.^ Self, Reason, and Freedom: A New Light on Descartes’ Metaphysics Andrea Christofidou; chapter 2^ “Definition of Syllogism”. 3 October 2015. Archived from the original on 6 May 2021. Retrieved 6 May 2021.^ Augustine: The City of God Against the Pagans. Translated by R. W. Dyson. Cambridge University Press. 1998. p.\u00a0484.^ Matthews, Gareth (2019-05-15). “3. The Augustinian Cogito”. Thought’s Ego in Augustine and Descartes. Cornell University Press. pp.\u00a029\u201338. doi:10.7591\/9781501737152-005. ISBN\u00a0978-1-5017-3715-2. S2CID\u00a0242208218.^ Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, and Oliver Leaman. 1996. History of Islamic Philosophy. Routledge. p. 315. ISBN\u00a00-415-13159-6.^ Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli. 1948. Indian Philosophy II. George Allen & Unwin Ltd. p. 476.^ Pereira, G\u00f3mez. [1554] 1749. Antoniana Margarita: “De Immortalitate Animae”. p. 277.^ L\u00f3pez, Modesto Santos. 1986. “G\u00f3mez Pereira, m\u00e9dico y fil\u00f3sofo medinense.” In Historia de Medina del Campo y su Tierra, volumen I: Nacimiento y expansi\u00f3n, edited by E. L. Sanz.^ a b Williams, Bernard Arthur Owen (1978). Descartes: The Project of Pure Enquiry. Penguin Books. ISBN\u00a0978-0-14-013840-5.^ Gassendi, Pierre (1644). Disquisito metaphysica, seu dubitationes et instantiae adversus Renati Cartesii metaphysicam et responsa (in Latin). Vrin.^ Fisher, Saul. [2005] 2013. “Pierre Gassendi” (revised ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 17 June 2020.^ a b Kierkegaard, S\u00f8ren. [1844] 1985. Philosophical Fragments, translated by P. Hong.^ Sch\u00f6nbaumsfeld, Genia. A Confusion of the Spheres. Oxford, 2007. p. 168-170.^ Archie, Lee C. 2006. “S\u00f8ren Kierkegaard, ‘God’s Existence Cannot Be Proved’.” In Philosophy of Religion. Lander Philosophy.^ Heidegger, Martin; Kisiel, Theodore (1985). History of the Concept of Time: Prolegomena. Indiana University Press. p.\u00a0317. ISBN\u00a0978-0-253-32730-7. JSTOR\u00a0j.ctt16gzbw5.^ Macmurray, John. 1991. The Self as Agent. Humanity Books. p. 78.Further reading[edit]Abraham, W. E. 1974. “Disentangling the Cogito.” Mind 83:329.Baird, Forrest E., and Walter Kaufmann. 2008. From Plato to Derrida. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN\u00a0978-0-13-158591-1.Boufoy-Bastick, Z. 2005. “Introducing ‘Applicable Knowledge’ as a Challenge to the Attainment of Absolute Knowledge.” Sophia Journal of Philosophy 8:39\u201352.Christofidou, A. 2013. Self, Reason, and Freedom: A New Light on Descartes’ Metaphysics. Routledge.Hatfield, G. 2003. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Descartes and the Meditations. Routledge. ISBN\u00a00-415-11192-7.Kierkegaard, S\u00f8ren. [1844] 1985. Philosophical Fragments. Princeton. ISBN\u00a0978-0-691-02036-5.\u2014 [1846] 1985. Concluding Unscientific Postscript. Princeton. ISBN\u00a0978-0-691-02081-5.External links[edit]     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4"},{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/#breadcrumbitem","name":"Enzyklop\u00e4die"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/cogito-ergo-sum-wikipedia\/#breadcrumbitem","name":"Cogito, ergo sum – Wikipedia"}}]}]