by Guy Shaked

Keywords: Cogito Ergo Sum, Jacques Derrida, René Descartes, Rene' Descartes, Dialogue, I think therefore I am, Bertrand Russell, Shaked, There are thoughts

Ben Azzai: Oh! Dear friend, I'm so sorry for not hearing you calling my name. I seem lately not to be myself. I have all these troubling thoughts in my head and they just let me have no peace and quiet. It seems my health, is affected by them as well, as I neglect to eat and drink and rarely sleep because of these thoughts.

Ben Zoma: Don't I know that feeling! I've found the best thing to do in such a situation is to discuss one's troubles with another human being. Even if solutions are not found, at least some kind of relief it seems to me is the result of this. Let us go to this barn here, which seems empty as the sheep are probably out on pasture. Perhaps you should lye here on this bed of hay while I sit on this stool beside you and listen to what's on your mind. Please do not mind me writing notes in a kind of "rishum nafshi" (psychography) as I listen as I've found out it helps me think more clearly.

Ben Azzai: Yes. It does seem I need to lye down. You know what is the funny thing? That the greatest problem to trouble my mind is not something I understand but rather what I do not know. You see. I've made an attempt to see what it is that I know in certainty. In order to arrive to that I've started most vigorously to reject al these things that I can not know for certain. Since I can not trust the senses that are many times wrong, I reject sensory impressions. Than, even the thinking process conclusions I rejected as it also might be incorrect (for example when I reject former thought I considered to be correct at their time). Finally I came up with the following conclusion: Thinking is unreliable, therefor all that is certain is that "I think therefore I am". [1] [this is exactly what the French philosopher Descartes claimed]

Ben Zoma: Perhaps you should as the Romans would: "Cogito ergo sum", because such a conclusion would be perhaps more appealing to the hated Romans as if nothing is true for certain - morality is not certain either and they can happily continue their cruelty.
As to what's troubling your soul, you might be surprised, but your conclusion which seems most logical in a first glance, might prove to be more problematic in a second.
First, the fact that there are thoughts does not mean necessarily that you exist, because the assumption of your existence is a product of your thinking process and not its source like your thoughts are. So that a better way to rephrase your saying would be: Thinking is unreliable, therefor all that is certain is that thoughts exist [2] [Ben Zoma suggests a most similar correction to Bertrand Russell's "there are thoughts"]
Secondly, the remaining statement is most problematic because the fact that this statement is the last one to remain after you applied critical thinking to everything else does not suggest it is more true or likely than all others. Because it could be that everything is doubtful and despite the fact this is the last to remain in your thought process it might be also totally wrong despite that it is less likely to be so, being the last falsity to remain standing.
Yet its even more problematic: because if your statement that that the content of thoughts might not be totally reliable is to be considered. It follows that the existence of thoughts that is a product of those thoughts can not be assumed to be correct as it can not be proven since the instrument needed to prove them is perhaps faulty. Thus perhaps the term "existence" might be an impossibility that the thoughts are unable to grasp correctly because of their faultiness.
I am aware that this concept is most problematic as the idea that every result or product as a creator or initiator is so basic to our thought process. As we constantly look for reasons for things - reasons which is not certain that they exist.
So perhaps it would be easier if we try another similar statement:
"Everything is text. All texts are un-decidable" [This statement as separate two statements was later repeated by Jacques Derrida, and perhaps can be viewed as the fundamental rule of his theory of Deconstruction. For he had stated that everything is text [3], and the second part is a conclusion from his article "Plato's pharmacy" [4] which shows how one of Plato's most is actually un-decidable because of the two conflicting possibilities to interpret the word 'parmakon']

Ben Azzai: But I do not understand how this is connected to my statement

Ben Zoma: One minute, dear friend. Just let me finish writing this statement down. Then, I will explain.
Structurally and logically these two statements are basically the same. They share the same fundamental structure of claim:
They are both composed of a part claiming uncertainty and another claiming some certainty and one referring to the other in a cyclical fashion (check if true or one part only to another and not vise-versa). Both have the same problem also - i. e. that one part of them can not exist simultaneously with the other.
For example: If thinking is unreliable then also the statement "thoughts exist" is most unreliable coming from an unreliable source. Also if everything is un-decidable. Than also that statement (as text) is also un-decidable and not necessarily true. In fact trying to examine these two statements by logic leads to them being false, because:
If everything is un-decidable is assumed to be true. Than this statement is not un-decidable and hence it must be false. If it is assumed to be false - than it is false. And the same can be applied to the statement "thinking is unreliable", resulting in the conclusion that it must be false if examined by logic.
Since these "truth" claims can not be proven, they can not be accepted and the result of this is that nothing can be said at all that is absolute truth - not even the negation of all truth ability to exist.
Furthermore, regarding your original statements when you assume thoughts you assume they exist or some of them exist or none of them exists which you negate - thus you end up proving what you originally take for truth - very problematic procedure indeed.

Ben Azzai: What a remarkable feat of logic you just accomplished now Ben Zoma. Yet the result of our conclusion I can not accept as I am a religious man and just have to belief in truth' existence. It is most depressing to believe that the inability to claim anything true is the result of all deep thinking?

Ben Zoma: Do not hasten so much my friend. For there is more that can be said. For example we can try and analyze these two truth claims. Such an examination would show us that in order to make these not necessarily minimal claims of truth we need at least four minimal components:
1. one pair of opposites:
2. the possibility of difference along the axis between those opposites suggesting another pair of opposites
3. time

So that as you see the theory of the Greek Pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus is at the base of these requirements, requiring one pair of his opposites to be the minimal requirement for any claim.

Ben Azzai: What you said strikes me as weird. Can you elaborate?

Ben Zoma: Yes, my friend. For example, the smallest unit of meaning has to contain the elements I just noted. Let us examine "An apple is a fruit" there are two pairs of opposites: fruits and non-fruits. There can be difference among the axis (more than one fruit or one fruit and at least one non fruit) and there must be something causing that difference (more apple-like for example if something is more similar to an apple or less apple-like). And there is time because the statement is true for only a point in time, for example if in the future people will analyze the genus of "apple-ness" and will find it to be non fruit than at that time the statement will change its meaning and be false. So its possibility to be also false in this case suggests the existence of time.

Ben Azzai: Eh?!

Ben Zoma: I see well your point! Yet, your one syllable expression of wonder also fits the rule. It suggest both wonder and the possibility of non-wonder - a difference situation in which you could be in between the two (more wonder might be professed in stronger disorientation so that also disorientation must exist). And time exists which would allow the change of situation from wonder to non-wonder.

-----------------------------------------------

[1] Charles Adam & Paul Tannery, eds, Oeuvres de Descartes. Paris: J. Vrin, 1904: 7:25, 8a:7

[2] Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1945: 567

[3] Dinitia Smith, "Philosopher Gamely In Defense Of His Ideas", in Arts & Ideas/Cultural Desk, NYTimes, May 30, 1998

[4] Jacques Derrida, "Plato's Pharmacy", in Dissemination, Barbara Johnson tr., London: Athlone Press 1981. Also, Plato in the Allegory of the cave states absolute knowledge of truth is impossible as he describes those dragged from the cave to the upper world, after getting accustomed to the light of the sun (symbolizing true knowledge) will only be able to: "Last of all he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is." This means that as we know he could not look directly for a long time at the sun (true knowledge) only know of its true place, which is much less than being able to look directly at true knowledge.

Dear visitor, please take a short moment to sign my guest book!

My Biography

----------------------------------------------------------------

© 2004 Emails are gladly received: shakedtg@hotmail.com

Jacques Derrida's interpretation of Plato's Phaedrus (Plato's Pharmacy)

Derrida's Interpretation of Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice

The art of rhetoric

The Philosopher Leader of Leo Strauss

Four that Entered the Pardes

Other articles by G. Shaked: ART BIBLICAL STUDIES BIOLOGY CINEMA LITERATURE MUSIC PHILOSOPHY PHYSICS (ACOUSTICS)