Technically, it is correct to say "doubts exist," nothing more. the "I doubt" is slipped in under the door and is not realized. /// You "forgot" to explain why. Ten yard penalty. >>>>Actually, others with better brains have done so better than I can, but since we all just hitch hike on others thoughts usually, I will give it a stab.
At the very least, you'll be able distill it down to something that can be read in one sitting. :-) Most "original sources" are rather lengthy.
Descartes was arguing for the existence of the self, the person, the "I", if you will. He started by doubting EVERYTHING. All he is left with is doubts, yet the doubts presuppose his existence, therefore, he must be.
I'm with you so far.
The guys who "think for a living" (or at least WRITE about thinking for a living) have pointed out that it does not necessarily follow that there is an *I* doing the doubting. To use a very modern example, the "doubts" could be generated by a "matrix" something like the recent movie, or by some entity which generates thoughts the way the liver secretes bile.
It's been over two decades since I sat down at length and waded through Decartes et al, but if I recall correctly his "cogito" point wasn't focused on trying to demonstrate an "I" as an independent entity, necessarily, nor to draw an specific conclusions about its properties, *other* than its raw existence. Even in the "Matrix" scenario, there is still a doubter, even if it is a "ghost in the machine" (literally), and that doubter, indeed, does exist (albeit in a diffuse form).
It seems to me to be pointless hairsplitting to object that "it does not necessarily follow that there is an *I* doing the doubting", since the doubter (whatever it may be) is doubting its own ponderings, and thus has a notion of "self", which it labels as "I" (because that's what that word *means*). I don't see how that implies anything unsupportable or is any less precise than for example, "Decartes thinks therefore Decartes exists", or "the producer of these thoughts thinks therefore the producer exists", or any other alternate forms.
That's *not* to say that "therefore I am" implies anything more specific (as in, "therefore I exist as a human mind", or "therefore I exist as an independent entity", and so on).
In a nutshell, if one allows "pondering takes place", then it seems inescapable that "a source of the pondering must exist", and "the source labels itself 'I' when pondering its operations".
Even in the "Matrix" scenario.
Descartes DID point out that certain philosophical positions are UNAVOIDABLE BECAUSE WE ARE UNABLE TO TO PRESUPPOSE DIFFERENTLY. For example, I really should have said that "he just slipped the 'I doubt' in under the door and we don't realize it" but the very use of pronouns in the statement presupposes our existence and move us into Descartes oven, even if not into his realm of logic. We are unable to speak, argue, post on a computer bulletin board, or irritate each other without PRESUPPOSING our own existence. This is different from demonstrating our existence as a rational and necessary CERTAINTY, as our non-existence remains a theoretical possibility. However, thinkers (and the halfwits like me who read them) over the years have given Descartes a pass simply because it is embarrassing as hell to argue that I cannot be sure, YOU cannot be sure, HE cannot be sure, of personhood, and have to use all those personal pronouns in doing it.
That's another level of analysis, but one which I think is apart from the core "nutshell" of "cogito ergo sum".
Another way of saying this is to quote a joke (I think it is from Anthony Flew, but I can't remember right now) about the guy at a party proclaiming that he can know NOTHING with certainty, not even his own existence. If you want to stop his foolery, just slide up to him and whisper "your fly is open." If he is so uncertain of everything, why does he check himself EVERY TIME?
This reminds me of a monolog from an old (1980) movie ("Foxes"). Jodie Foster's character (a teen, that's how old the movie is) says, "one time this guy was going on about how pain is just an illusion. I spilled my hot tea on his leg. After he got done hopping around, he said that I was a stupid b**ch, but that he foregave me. But he stopped talking about pain being an illusion."
I like to bat around philosophy as much as the next guy, but when the mental meanderings seem to be getting too far divorced from what happens when the rubber meets the road, sometimes some hot tea on the leg seems called for. :-)
In this case, for example, to any philosopher pontificating that even if pondering exists, an "I" does not necessarily follow, I will ask, "...who says so?"
We are unable to think or act in a way that does NOT presuppose our existence, so Descartes is "sorta" right.
Does not "presuppose our existence" in what sense?
I must warn you, though, that this position moves you closer to the bible bangers. They claim that the reason that I must ACT as though I were made in the image of God, even though I may selectively deny it in theory. Descartes position is certainly consonant with this in the area of ontology (the cornerstone for the real issue of the thread, which is epistemology), and axiology (values, or ethics).
I don't see how this would follow from the foregoing.
If the above is not always clear, I apologize. I am limited in my knowledge of philosophy and philosophical history, being degreed in Chemistry only.
That's okay, I'm over twenty years rusty myself, although at the time I did come one credit away from a Minor in Philosophy on my diploma, which would have looked sort of funny with my engineering-related major degree.
However, there are quite a number of critiques of Descartes one can google that say pretty much the same thing.
True, but in philosophy there are practically an unlimited number of critiques arguing *any* side of a particular point, so the existence of one school of thought doesn't by itself prove much. It's like the saying about lawyers: It's a poor lawyer who can't convincingly argue either side of a case.
The stuff about presuppositionalism is best laid out by a guy named Cornelius Van Til, although you can find others who say essentially the same stuff.
I'll check it out if I get the time, which at the moment doesn't look promising. Heck, I probably shouldn't have even taken the time to compose this reply (it's time I should have allotted to sleeping). But as the saying goes, I'll have plenty of time to sleep when I'm dead.
In the interests of time, I will pick up on your other issues in your post later.
Fair enough.