Re: CHAT Cartesian parataxis (was: ANNOUNCE: First longer sentence in S7)

On Wednesday, April 7, 2004, at 10:38 PM, Christophe Grandsire wrote:

> En réponse à Chris Bates :
>
>> Does I think therefore I am imply cause and effect?
>
> Maybe, maybe not (we're not talking about logic here). My point is that
> Descartes never meant an implication and fought against this
> interpretation all his life.
Yes, I also said that 'cogito, sum' doesn't imply implication. So I guess
we're agreed on this point.

[snip]
> En réponse à Ray Brown :
>
>
>> Well, no it doesn't. It was AFAIK, as Mark says, merely meant as a
>> starting point. Also "cogito ergo sum" and "cogito, sum" are not the
>> same.
>>  The former has explicit implication, the latter is an example of
>> parataxis - found in Latin from the earliest period onwards, i.e. it's
>> been around for some 3000 years so I guess Descartes knew what he was
>> doing even if some others don't. (Sorry for introducing  linguistic
>> notion
>> into this thread  ;)
>
> Actually, you're wrong here.
It's not clear from your response what is wrong.

You seem to agree that "cogito ergo sum" and "cogito sum" are not the same
& that misunderstanding has arisen because of the incorrect version of D's
words. So I assume that's not wrong.

"cogito sum" is parataxis & parataxis has been attested in Latin for 3000
years.

So I assume what I have wrong is my statement that Descartes knew what he
was doing in using parataxis.

> And you make a mistake Descartes fought against for very long. I read his
> letters of replies to the criticisms he received, some taking the same
> point you take, and he always emphasises that this is misunderstanding
> his point.
So he maybe should've used a different construction or different wording.

>> 'cogito, sum' does _not_ mean "'I think' = 'I exist'" which, of course,
>> would also necessarily mean "'I exist' = 'I think'".
>
> And that's *exactly* what Descartes meant! But you mustn't read it as "I
> *exist* = I *think*" but as "*I* exist = *I* think".
Nah - the 1st person, i.e. I, is expressed in Latin only by the morphemes
-o and -m. What is emphasized is "thinking" and "being". If the
juxtaposition of the two verbs is meant to denote equivalence then it
should mean  my thinking = my being _and_ my being = my thinking.

> In several of his letters, Descartes explains that the statement goes two
> ways: "I can't doubt that I doubt, so I think. For *my* thinking to be
> possible, I must necessarily exist. I think, I exist. So if I exist, what
> is *my* nature? Well, I doubted the possibility that I have a body as
> unfounded, so my nature is not that of a material being. What is it then?
>  Simple. Since I can't doubt that I think, I exist as a thinking being,
> and that's the definition of *my* nature. I exist, I think.
> Note how I emphasised the *my*. This is what the cogito is about: ego, "I"
> , me. Nothing else.
Then with respect to Descartes, the Latin really ought to have 'ego'
explicit.
>
>>   The latter is absurd
>> and there is no basis for attributing it to Descartes;
>
> There is, just read his letters. I read them. I know what I'm talking
> about. He repeated it quite enough.
Yes, but what he repeated is different from what I said. According to you,
  what he repeated was all this stuff about _I_.

[snip]
>> I have never come across any example of parataxis where it has ever been
>> suggested that the relation between the two clauses is one of equality or
>> identity. So IMO it is perverse to apply that relation in this case.
>
> Well, you're wrong here. It *is* what Descartes meant.
[snip]
>> Yep. I agree. Descartes' formulation neither says that thinking and being
>> are the same thing
>
> Indeed, if you talk about "thinking" and "existing", you are right.
Thank you - that's precisely my point about the identity of 'cogito' and
'sum' being absurd. 'cogit-' and 'su- are not identical.

> Descartes never said they were the same thing. What he said is that "*my*
>  thinking" and "*my* existing" are the same thing. You need to include
> the agent there for his statement to make sense as he meant it.
And an 'ego' in Latin   :)

[snip]
> Frankly, Descartes was not a great writer, and his Latin was not better
> than his French.
I think you're right.

But when all's said and done, I can see how your clarification of what
Descartes really mean (which I appreciate) really differs from my
conclusion:
"Gosh, I'm thinking! Well, if I'm thinking then I must have an existence".
 =========================================================================
==




Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com    (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk   (work)
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760

Reply