Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Search  
 
Author Item Excerpt Meta data

 
Books on Amazon
Frank I 79
I/Descartes/Anscombe: pro: the conception of "I" cannot be a "self" and it must guarantee that the speaker is necessarily present.
This shows how powerful the approach of Descartes is.
The conception is the "thinking of thoughts".

I/Anscombe: Error immunity:
1. The speaker must exist,
2. The referent must exist,
3. The referent exists as the one who is meant.

I/Body/AnscomeVsDescartes: E.g. I am tied up in a large water tank and cannot move. I think, "I will not let this happen to me again."
Thus it becomes clear that a body cannot be a referent of "I", but a Cartesian res cogitans.
Problem: the Cartesian ego fulfills the criteria of the guaranteed reference,...
---
Fra I 80
...but does not solve the problem of Locke: who guarantees that the referential object is in different "I" thoughts the same?
AnscombeVsDescartes: he cannot even be sure that "I" does not refer to several thinkers at the same time!
I/Skepticism/Anscombe: Solution: "I" refers to nothing! So it is error immune.
This follows from the failure of logic in determining the meaning and the failure of Descartes' in determining the referent.
Question: Why did not someone come up with this solution earlier? Because of the "grammatical illusion of a subject". The questions about meaning and referent of the "I" are meaningless, however!

Fra I
M. Frank (Hrsg.)
Analytische Theorien des Selbstbewusstseins Frankfurt 1994


> Counter arguments against Anscombe
> Counter arguments in relation to Skepticism



> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX Datei
 
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-05-22