THE MIND AS THE SUPREME CREATOR: my analysis on the “cogito ergo sum” of R.Descartes

In 1637, Descartes published the Discours de la Methode wherein the phrase “cogito ergo sum” appeared on the 4th chapter for the first time. Then, the same phrase emerged for the second time in 1644 on the 1st chapter of the Principia Philosophiae which gives emphasis on the mind and reason employing his famous “Wax Argument”.

Based on careful observation on the life and teaching of Descartes, some apparent indications would show that he is trying to drive a philosophy which is more radical than any of his precedence – that I supposed was, THE MIND AS THE SUPREME CREATOR.

Of course, Descartes never mentioned this line of statement, needless to say that he was in a place with a culture of religious arrogance armed with authority to hack any person who might threaten the institution. Explicitly, to avoid any possible suspicion from the mighty church, Descartes designed a device to cover him from the dangerous heretical accusation. Instead of giving more substance to his concept of the “cogito” as the first cause, he deviated from further explanation but rather interjected his flimsy arguments on the proof of God’s existence. As we all knew, all intellectuals and philosophers during those times always have had a piece for “God’s existence” in all of their works as an advance shield for the frivolous inquiry of the Church.

It could be inferred from Descartes’ works that the mind as the cradle of thinking is the core of identification. Meaning, the identification of the self and of all things shall always commence in the mind. To Descartes, the thinking and reason are the determinants of certainties when the senses are not capable of perceiving due to deceptions.

The translation “I think, therefore I am” has also been transliterated as “I think, therefore I exist”. By virtue of prudent examination and analysis, the phrase “I exist” is an outcome of consciousness from the phrase “I think”. The thinking, therefore, is the identifying element of existence. It is to say that without the thinking there can be no other remedy of determining the existence. Since existence is the only substance by which the being becomes a component of reality, and since existence is hinged on the thinking and the thinking is anchored on the mind, we may draw a safe conclusion that the mind is the supreme creator. It coud have been a blasphemous syllogism had Rene Descartes made it explicit for this arrangement would include any god as a creation of the mind through the thinking.

Despite of a careful concealment, however, some of the institutions might have been aware of the intentions of Descartes and the directions of his philosophies; this could be supported by the fact that in 1643 the University of Utrecht condemned the Cartesian Philosophy, and another instance after Descartes’ death the Pope placed his works on the Index of Prohibited Books in 1663

THE TRUTH?

Just to be honest, the subject about “truth” has been a headache of philosophers until this time. It was the bases of all persecutions, inquisitions, excommunications and other form of maltreatment which exist in another form until today. This “truth” was considered as one of the most difficult area of philosophical research and thesis writing for students, may they be from the undergraduate to the graduate up to the post-graduate studies. Although there is already a sort of formula crafted by some thinkers of the past pertaining with truth, still their guidelines doesn’t provide the answer to the question such as the one asked “who has the truth?”.

Only the arrogant mind could afford to pretend that he knew the thing called “truth”. It is not something which could be associated with a concrete object, but some philosophers opined (although their opinions were diversified) that it is something produced by one’s mental conformity, such as the belief of a god or any other diefied characters.

Other philosophers offered classifications on the possible measurement of truths, they were:
1. Correspondence Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth where there is confirmation of the existence of the object which corresponds with the statement. Ex. All stones are solid matters.
2. Corehence Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth which will necessarily follow from the correct reasoning even the object has not been proven existent. Ex. 10 + 10 = 20
3. Pragmatic Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth which is confirmed by the results. Ex. Biogesic tablet is a true cure for headaches because it works.
4. Conventional Theory of Truth- it refers to the truth which is solely based on the common agreement of humanity or of any group of individuals. Ex. The supremacy of a dollar currency; the Law; the value of gold costs a lot than a bronze; etc.

Now, which truth do our persuasions were aimed into?

God is true (that is #4)
All crows are black – and this is true (that is #1)
Anesthesia can deceive the senses to feel pain – this is true according to results (this is #3)
When Felix is a cat and a cat has a tail, it follows that Felix has a tail – this is true according to correct thinking (this is #2)

Skeptics (another classification of thinkers) maintained that there is no truth because it is only a matter of perception.

In law (where I professionally belong), truth is something which is a result of appreciation from the authority (like the judge); versions of truths will be presented by the defense and prosecution. The spectators had also their own appreciation of truth and also the jury (in another territory). The truth of the MTC judge maybe overturned by the RTC judge on appeal, then it could be revived or rejected by the Court of Appeals Justices on review on the same TRUTH and maybe totally abrogated by the Magistrates of the Supreme Court when in their appreciation that particular truth is no truth at all.

By this virtue, I think this is the reason why Jesus Christ did not answer Pilate’s question “What is truth?”