Bringing an End to the Interpretative Dispute on Descartes’s Cogito: the Cogito as Vérité, Cognitio, Propositio, and Conclusio

Philosophy Journal 13 (3):38-48 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to bring an end to the interpretative dispute on Descartes’s cog­ito: is the cogito known by intuition or by inference? There have been several studies based on both analytical and historical approaches to the dispute, and it seems that we have exhausted all interpretations. Nevertheless, I wish to revisit this dispute, as it ap­pears that the previous studies have overlooked Descartes’s use of words and phrases, which is the most significant for understanding his various discourses on the cogito con­sistently. In this paper, I focus on the terms which Descartes uses to indicate the varied status of the cogito, such as ‘haec cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum’, ‘hanc propositionem, ego cogito, ergo sum’, ‘hanc conclusionem: cogito, ergo sum’, and so on; Descartes changes carefully the terms in each of the cogito arguments. By focusing on these terms, I try to interpret Descartes’s explanations consistently.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-10-22

Downloads
429 (#67,003)

6 months
121 (#45,622)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Ayumu Tamura
National Institute of Technology, Ibaraki College

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

17. Will and the Theory of Judgment.David M. Rosenthal - 1986 - In Amélie Oksenberg Rorty (ed.), Essays on Descartes’ Meditations. University of California Press. pp. 405-434.

Add more references