The Legacy of Descartes Philosophy: Rational Doubt and Modern Thought

Muhammad Iqbal (1877–1938), one of the 20th century's most influential Muslim thinkers, theorized a radically new understanding of Islamic selfhood. For Iqbal, the self (khudi) was marked by an individuality that made it distinct and inherently equipped to overcome colonial incursions. Iqbal put this down to Ibn ‘Arabi's (1165–1240) “Neo-Platonist doctrine of sheep” of wahdat-al-wujud. This article examines the ways in which Iqbal's ideas of the self derive from a specifically modern, Western notion of the self that has its history in Rene Descartes' cogito ergo sum — a modern selfhood entailing independence and uniqueness, and which became the standard in Europe after the 18th century. It is a self whose worth is measured by what it produces, and by its relationship to the world as a creator. When Iqbal writes that “man becomes unique by becoming more and more like the most unique individual [God],”1 this paper investigates how Iqbal's approach to the Muslim self is thought through Western categories — beginning with the self, but extending to the pan-Islamic nation (the ummah), and nationalism — and how such an imagining delimits his very (re)construction of Islam, thereby further imbricating “Islam” within Eurocentric power-knowledge. The article reflects on the importance of examining perhaps the foundational theoretical assumption of the modern Muslim experience — Muslim selfhood — and how such an examination is essential for the process of decolonial thinking to begin.

According to Charles Taylor (1989), the opposition between humanity’s self-determining capacities and nature’s deterministic laws characterizes modernity from the outset. An early and seminal formulation of this opposition can be found in Rene Descartes’ differentiation of res cogitans (thinking substance) from res extensia (extended substance). Having thus divided the world into ‘immaterial thoughts’ and ‘unthinking matter’ Descartes is concerned to account for how the former can obtain ‘objective’ knowledge of the latter. However, while Descartes’ cogito ergo sum provides the template for subsequent attempts to achieve self-certain knowledge, he is unable to bridge the gap between ‘thought’ and ‘being’ except by recourse to a benign divinity (Descartes 1968, p. 158).

This research conducts an in-depth exploration of Rene Descartes famous statement "Cogito ergo sum", with a focus on aspects of rationalism and certainty in the construction of knowledge. The research question underlying this study is to what extent cogito ergo sum is the basis for understanding the relationship between rationalism and certainty, and how this concept shapes the paradigm of human knowledge this research to uncover the hidden philosophical meaning in the statement cogito ergo sum, identify its conceptual implications, and explore its impact on human understanding of knowledge. The research method used is a literature review with philosophical analysis, and text analysis to explore the philosophical meaning of Cogito ergo sum as well as related studies in philosophy and knowledge as well as presenting new insights into the relationship between rationalism and certainty in the view of Rene Descartes. The results of this research reveal the complexity of Rene Descartes' thinking regarding rationalism and certainty, highlighting that cogito ergo sum is an important foundation in our understanding of knowledge. and has a significant impact on shaping the paradigm of human knowledge, placing reason as the main instrument in achieving absolute truth.

Descartes’ passions of the soul—seeds of psychiatry?

In this work, I present a minimalist approach to first-order logic and show how it implies an irrefutable equation which connects the field of algorithmic information theory (AIT) to our major theories of physics. The construction of the irrefutable equation produces a new theory of physics where the universe is to be interpreted as the result of a universal Turing machine maximizing the entropy during the calculation of its halting probability, $\Omega$. The construction is sufficiently specific to derive General Relativity and the Dirac equation from pure reason. The minimalist approach is, in many ways, similar to the constructivist project in mathematics but taken to the extreme. The approach starts from first-order logic with no axioms and further removes all rules of inference with the exception of the proof by construction. Although this severely cripples first-order logic it nonetheless gives it the following advantage. From an argument originally made by Plato, I argue that any axioms or rules of inference that are removed increases the of the theory. Taken to the extreme, once all axioms and all rules of inference are removed, the theory becomes entirely irrefutable and specifically in the case of this approach, as the first-order logic system is minimal, the epistemological irrefutability of its theorems is maximal. Using this approach, I construct a universal language defined by a small list of first-order sentences. Each of the sentences claims the existence of an object of language which is provable by construction, the only rule of inference allowed by the minimalist system. As a result of being a theorem of a minimal system, the existence of the constructed universal language is therefore maximally irrefutable. This minimalist method loosely resembles Rene Descartes' derivation of the 'cogito ergo sum', an irrefutable statement, obtained by progressively removing any and all uncertain statements and cataloguing what remains. Like Descartes' method, the minimalist method also produces a statement that cannot be denied. But, unlike Descartes, as the proof is written in the language of first order logic, the irrefutable statement obtained is an actual equation. The equation applies to the group of all statements that cannot be refuted by the application of Descartes' universal doubt method. Part I is the minimalist derivation of the irrefutable equation. The equation obtained is formulated as a Gibbs ensemble and relates the algorithmic notions of provable-sentences to that of entropy. Part III is the derivation of the physical laws. I recover, from the irrefutable equation, the exact mathematical formulation of the major theories of physics; including statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics (QM), special and general relativity (GR) and the holographic principle. These equations are derived entirely from pure reason with no appeal to physical observations. All physical laws obtained are shown to be emergent from an irreducible informational entropy that is associated with the existence of irrefutable statements guaranteed by the minimalist method. Naturally, deriving both the Dirac equation and general relativity from the same theory is highly suggestive that the irrefutable equation should be promoted to a tentative Theory of Everything (ToE)-candidate. This result motivates the ToE claim made in this paper.

In this work, I present a minimalist approach to first-order logic and show how it implies an irrefutable equation which connects the field of algorithmic information theory (AIT) to our major theories of physics. The construction of the irrefutable equation produces a new theory of physics where the universe is to be interpreted as the result of a universal Turing machine maximizing the entropy during the calculation of its halting probability, Omega. The construction is sufficiently specific to derive General Relativity and the Dirac equation from pure reason. The minimalist approach is, in many ways, similar to the constructivist project in mathematics but taken to the extreme. The approach starts from first-order logic with no axioms and further removes all rules of inference with the exception of the proof by construction. Although this severely cripples first-order logic it nonetheless gives it the following advantage: From an argument originally made by Plato, I argue that any axioms or rules of inference that are removed increases the of the theory. Taken to the extreme, once all axioms and all rules of inference are removed, the theory becomes entirely irrefutable and specifically in the case of this approach, as the first-order logic system is minimal, the epistemological irrefutability of its theorems is maximal. Using this approach, I construct a universal language defined by a small list of first-order sentences. Each of the sentences claims the existence of an object of language which is provable by construction, the only rule of inference allowed by the minimalist system. As a result of being a theorem of a minimal system, the existence of the constructed universal language is therefore maximally irrefutable. This minimalist method loosely resembles Rene Descartes' derivation of the 'cogito ergo sum', an irrefutable statement, obtained by progressively removing any and all uncertain statements and cataloguing what remains. Like Descartes' method, the minimalist method also produces a statement that cannot be denied. But, unlike Descartes, as the proof is written in the language of first order logic, the irrefutable statement obtained is an actual equation. The equation applies to the group of all statements that cannot be refuted by the application of Descartes' universal doubt method. Part I is the minimalist derivation of the irrefutable equation. The equation obtained is formulated as a Gibbs ensemble and relates the algorithmic notions of provable-sentences to that of entropy. Part II is the derivation of the physical laws. I recover, from the irrefutable equation, the exact mathematical formulation of the major theories of physics; including statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics (QM), special and general relativity (GR) and the holographic principle. These equations are derived entirely from pure reason with no appeal to physical observations. All physical laws obtained are shown to be emergent from the entropy associated with the group of statements irrefutably proven to exist by the minimalist method. Naturally, deriving both the Dirac equation and general relativity from the same theory is highly suggestive that the irrefutable equation should be promoted to a tentative Theory of Everything (ToE)-candidate. This result motivates the liberal use of the ToE label throughout the paper.

Frosch, Dominick L Elwyn, Glyn Comment Editorial United States J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Jan;26(1):2-4.

Rationalization Science happened since Rene Descartes with a skeptical attitude-metodisnya doubting everything, except him who is hesitant (cogito ergo sum). This attitude continued in Auf Klarung, an era which is an attempt to reach a rational man about himself and nature. The purpose of this paper is to describe the position and systematic philosophy of science in the rationalization of science. Relates to a process of rationalization of knowledge derived from sensory experience, both of which have been declared a scientific or unscientific, using logic, everything that has been known empirically as well as on the basis of faith more easily accepted by common sense. Philosophy has the ability to add one's faith in religion, but "if either apply it" will make people doubt his belief in the teachings of the sacred. What according to religious teachings enough to be felt, the philosophies need to be considered, so the feeling for religion is an act of rational and logical.

The total geometrical theory of field is recreated. DOI: 10.3103/S0027132211050093 “Cogito ergo sum.” Rene Descartes It is hard to establish now who first noticed that Newton’s first law can be interpreted as Kepler’s second law for any observer positioned out of the line along which a body moves freely and who tried to restrict himself with axiomatization of spatial properties of natural geodesics in the basic axiomatics of the classical and celestial mechanics in order to keep off the usage of Euclidean metrics. However, there is no doubt that each new generation continues constructions of new variants of the theory of gravitation based again and again on the mathematical apparatus of (Euclidean, Hilbert, etc.) metric spaces, paying no attention on the “golden rule of mechanics” and the “level arm rule”, and demonstrating the persistence deserving a better cause. In this paper we present other (and, in our opinion, weighty) arguments in favor of the moderation in all activities, in particular, it is worth replacing compasses by a set square in solution of construction problems at a certain stage of teaching plane geometry. Let the structure of an abstract projective plane be given on the set M , i.e. (see [1]), a subset L is chosen in the set 2 of all subsets of the set M and it is accepted to call the elements l of this subset straight lines satisfying the following properties (axioms): (P0) each line contains not less than three points; (P1) exactly one line l ∈ L passes trough any two points X,Y ∈ M ; (P2) any two lines l1, l2 ∈ L cross exactly at one point. For any straight line l ∈ L we assume Ml def = M \ l, Ll def = L \ {l} and, as always, call Ml with the system of lines Ll the affine map of the projective plane M , and call l the infinitely distant line. The lines l1, l2 ∈ Ll of the affine plane Ml are parallel if the point of their crossing lies on the infinitely distant line l. Proposition 1. Let the points A,B,C of the affine plane Ml do not lie on the same line. Then any three points A′, B′, C′ can be rolled in a finite number of steps (preserving the “area of ΔA′B′C′” in the intuitive sense)1 so that the result of this rolling of the points A′, B′ coincides with A and B, respectively, and the point C′ appears on the same line with the points B and C. Obviously, in the ordinary model of the affine plane studied in the school course of the planimetry, the following assertions are valid for the rolling process considered here. (RO) (Axiom of incompressibility). If the points A,B,C of the affine plane Ml do not lie on the same line and the point D lies on the same line with B and C, but not coincides with C, then the points A,B,D cannot be rolled to the points A,B,C, respectively. (R1) (Axiom of weak additivity). If the triples of points S,A,A′ and S,B,B′ lie on different lines in the affine plane Ml and the lines passing through A,B and A′, B′ are parallel, then the points S,A′, B can be rolled to the points S,A,B′, respectively. 1At the rolling step we “move” any point from the ordered triple parallel to the line passing through the remaining two points.

Rationalization Science happened since Rene Descartes with a skeptical attitude-metodisnya doubting everything, except him who is hesitant (cogito ergo sum). This attitude continued in Auf Klarung, an era which is an attempt to reach a rational man about himself and nature. The purpose of this paper is to describe the position and systematic philosophy of science in the rationalization of science. Relates to a process of rationalization of knowledge derived from sensory experience, both of which have been declared a scientific or unscientific, using logic, everything that has been known empirically as well as on the basis of faith more easily accepted by common sense. Philosophy has the ability to add one's faith in religion, but "if either apply it" will make people doubt his belief in the teachings of the sacred. What according to religious teachings enough to be felt, the philosophies need to be considered, so the feeling for religion is an act of rational and logical.

For centuries and up to this very day Rene Descartes has been regarded as the founder of modern Enlightenment philosophy, introducing a radical turn in Western philosophical and scientific thought. With the way prepared by thinkers of the Renaissance, Descartes broke definitively with the scholastic tradition of the Middle Ages since he turned against the doctrines of Aristotle, especially the doctrine about the senses being the one and only source of knowledge. Drawing upon the skeptical tradition of ancient Greek philosophy, which was revitalized in the Renaissance, Descartes in his philosophical writings, most explicitly in his Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), developed a two-part strategy, rejecting at the same time Aristotelian sensualism and skepticism. The key concept in this context is the famous notion of “methodological doubt.” This method has a double structure: first the sensualist theory is undermined by means of skeptical arguments (the so-called “argument of illusion” the “dream argument” and “the argument of an evil demon”), and thereafter skepticism is turned against itself. The result of this operation is the foundation of a radically new metaphysics. The “methodological doubt” involves both a destructive and a constructive part since the whole process terminates in a new doctrine of metaphysical thinking: the famous “cogito ergo sum.” Doubt and skepticism cannot be universal since I cannot possibly doubt my existence: for if I do not exist, I cannot doubt anything whatsoever. This is the point where skepticism contradicts itself and a new paradigm of knowledge emerges. Raised above any kind of doubt, as absolute certainty, self-consciousness or the “cogito” becomes the new standard of knowledge. All knowledge that is to count as genuine must fulfill the conditions of self-consciousness’ self-evidence and complete transparency. In order to secure the absolute validity and objectivity of thought and knowledge, Descartes reintroduces the “argument of the evil demon” or the “deceiving God,” by means of which he leads up to his epistemological version of the proof of God. So the source of knowledge lies within human reason, and God guarantees its ultimate validity. According to Descartes, this whole procedure is a purely rational enterprise that takes place within reason alone. The skeptical route leading to the absolute certaintypreconditions other than those posed by reason itself. By stressing the absence of any kind of precondition, Descartes formulates the very principle of what came to be known as modern Enlightenment rationalism.

Recently, Monti and colleagues reported that they were able to communicate with a patient who was in a vegetative state through simple autobiographical questions requiring “yes” and “no” responses as interpreted with functional MRI.[2] After establishing control data with the help of 16 normal volunteers and 1 patient, the investigators examined 54 patients diagnosed as in the vegetative state or in the minimally conscious state. The patient in question, no. 23, was a 22-year-old male, 60.8 months after sustaining a traumatic brain injury. Although totally unable to perceive his environment or react appropriately to it according to the best neurological evaluation he could receive from his physicians, he was able to provide a seemingly organized mental response to the aforementioned simple questions. These findings, as reported, define the most dramatic demonstration of the very essence of Homo sapiens as postulated by Rene Descartes when he began his quest of doubt ending in his declaration: I think, therefore I am.[1] The patient, as reported, seems to be as Descartes envisioned himself to be when he reduced his being to just that which he could identify as “I.” The revelations of Monti and colleagues lead us to pose the question: How much more than “I” is patient 23? As we move forward in response to the last question, Descartes' simple yet profound philosophical statement provides direction. The research, of course, must be replicated.[3] Then come the challenges: clinical, ethical, and legal. In today's state of medical knowledge, there is nothing more we can do clinically for patient 23. He is who he is, where he is. Ethically, we are led back to the beginning of our near-half-a-century or more debate on life, living, the nature of humanness, the list of questions goes on. The Multi-Society Task Force on Persistent Vegetative State[4] and other groups, or their descendents, must look anew at where these patients rest in society. And of course the law will have to relearn from the debate and perhaps recodify what is learned, and how we do and what we do with it. In the study referenced here, the investigators found similar reactivity in four other patients, or about 10% of those investigated. More importantly, all these patients were classified as in the vegetative state following a traumatic brain injury, as was with a total of 12 of the 54 studied. This means that almost one-half of patients in the vegetative state clinically following a traumatic brain injury may retain reactivity as determined by these methods. These patients, without special clinical needs, will nevertheless inevitably attract much scrutiny in terms of the ethical and legal questions they will generate. Thus, it stands to reason that they should be distinguished from other patients currently classified as in the vegetative state. We need not expend much energy and time in searching through groups of associated words from Latin, English, and French to describe clinically, ethically, or legally, the condition in which patient 23 resides. Rarely have we seen a basic philosophical principle so dramatically and faultlessly reflected in a human condition as is seen here, when the declaration of Descartes is applied to the condition of patient 23. Thus, we propose that the clinical state patient 23 occupies be referred to as the Cartesian stage or state of consciousness, with the patient's findings, MRI data, and all, as the clinical reference for that condition. This will provide a descriptor that goes to the heart of the questions raised by these patients, and is not subject to variations across examiners with regard to clinical findings, as long as organized mental activity can be documented as with patient 23. In addition, this appellation will be a constant reminder of the philosophical underpinnings of the inquiry which will naturally lead to those of ethics and law.

This paper aims to look for the truth side of the financial statements of Rene Descartes (Cogito Ergo Sum). This means that because I think, I exist. The theory put forward by this philosophy has the meaning that because he doubts the truth. This paper tried to link theory with René Descartes see different sides of the view, that the value of the financial statements of the philosophical truth (theories have correspondence, the theory of Coherence, theory pragmatic) and viewed from the side view of the general accounting so that SAP and GAAP and severe expert reveal that the truth of financial reporting depends on the accountability of a (principal). The findings of this paper are in essence the truth of the financial statements lies in humans and their existence.

From Avicenna and Descartes a long debate on the role of mind-body dilemma has left a huge impact on ethics of psychological research. That is especially applicable on researches that include both human and non-human participants, as well as their limitations and constraints that are connected to ethical principles. However, these principles are closely related to the interpretation of mind-body dilemma, which depends on different understandings of connection between soul and senses. The purpose of this paper is to examine the major impact of well-known “mind-body” dualism on ethics in psychological researches, with special emphasis on neuropsychology and neuroscience in general, as well as major constraints related to that dillema. The thought experiment has been recognized as a precursor to Rene Descartes’ famous ‘Cogito ergo sum’, as well as his body-mind dilemma. However, Avicenna's argument is more intended to demonstrate conceptually that Aristotle’s empirical axiom “ there is nothing in the mind which was not first in the senses ” is mistaken, since there is at least one thing in the mind which is not contingent upon experience, and that is self-awareness. The major contribution of this paper is the inclusion of two philosophical debates on mind-body dilemma while considering ethical approaches to neuropsychological research on both human and non-human participants.

The This article engages in a critical re-examination of foundational concepts within the spiritual culture of humanity, emphasizing their axiological implications, epistemological frameworks, and relevance for contemporary and future generations. The universality of these concepts is illustrated through an analysis of the theological discourses of second-century figures such as Origen and Lactantius. Central to this discourse is the notion of the eternal universe, articulated through a cyclical paradigm encompassing ideas such as pre- existence, the cyclical nature of souls and the cosmos, eternal life, and evolution. Origen, recognized as a seminal figure in Christian philosophy, posits a model of an eternal universe governed by divine principles and laws. These principles are manifested in the concepts of soul transmigration, pre-existence, and the cyclical reincarnation of both micro (individual human) and macro (divine or cosmic) entities. The texts of Origen further elucidate that the idea of eternal life and transmigration serves as a pivotal framework for reinterpreting the semantic depth of Scripture. This framework is posited as essential for the evolution of souls, facilitating their return to the divine source, thereby representing a fundamental aspect of theological consciousness. The examination and elucidation of the core concepts of resurrection, as articulated by Origen and Lactantius, facilitated an exploration of the existential modes of significant themes within the Christian framework. This analysis enabled us to delineate a universal meta-territory of their meanings, tracing the continuity of religious thought from ancient Egyptian traditions and classical philosophy through to the theological developments of the 2nd century AD. We observed a flow of analogous significances, which, over time, manifest in varied linguistic expressions, terminological frameworks, and conceptualizations. The interpretations presented enhance the comprehension of the foundational concepts of spiritual culture within the context of Western European civilization. Further reinterpretation offers compelling arguments for transcending conflicts at intercultural, interreligious, and interfaith levels. This approach fosters a framework for intellectual dialogue and the synergy of religious, philosophical, and scientific discourses, ultimately promoting tolerance and a comprehensive worldview. In the long term, this focus aims to facilitate the spiritual cohesion of diverse human communities.