If you think back clearly, we have not started from “If cogito”.
We just made an inference from the Cogito. Hence nothing was denied.
OK. Perhaps you should edit the Wikipedia article and explain why it’s not a fallacy in “the real world”. . .
Let me explain please.
Cogito (the original claim)
If cogito then ergo zum (inference1)
If not cogito then not ergo zum (inference2)
Not cogito (assertion from a world case)
Not ergo zum (conclusion)
So cogito stays intact. We just made a series of inferences based on the cogito. Hence there was no denial on the cogito. 
As I said, denying antecedent issue was discussed many times before, but I found it is not a clear cut issue, and I find it absolutely necessary to deny and reject any premises if not valid, incorrect, unclear or not making sense before proceeding in any arguments.
But thank you for your pointing out on the issue. It was a great opportunity to revisit the old unclear issues, and clarify again. 
Yes, I recall Descartes recommended skepticism sensu eminenti, which I suppose some refer to as Cartesian doubt.
Also correct that Buddha’s anatta doctrine is about inherent existence, which builds on interdependence (chariot analogy illuminates).
The logic has to be clarified too. If thinking implies being/existence, we could consider whether if if not thinking then nonexistence. There are different types of logic e.g. paraconsistent logic and dialetheism; also logical nihilism. What about irrationalism? For example, if your dad is laughing then he’s probably happy, but if your dad is not laughing then could he be happy? 
There’s also memes.
I think this is exactly right. And thank you for making it so I don’t need to respond to the OP.
2 Likes
We have the dyads (I think, I exist) and (Interdependence, Anatta).
As arguments they are,
- I think \implies I exist (Descartes)
- Interdependence \implies Anatta (Buddha)
Excellent. Descartes “I think therefore I am” is better understood in terms of the existence of shared language and logic. We can fix the approach of Descartes by considering that the forum or space of reasons is “given” — to the degree that an explication of this “given” is determinable in a (normatively) rational way.
There are no magic wands in philosophy, which you can wave around and disappear problems. The self = soul = atman as far as this thread on the claims of Descartes and Siddhartha are concerned.
Not all memes are created equal; something being a meme/meme-plex says nothing about that meme/meme-plex. For example Gangnam style was a meme but that it was a meme means nothing apart from its replicative potential (viral nature).
The context, historical period, intent, and background of the thinkers, the culture they’re from, and what they are addressing, are all very different.
In my experience (and it was the subject of a Master’s Thesis in Buddhist Studies), the Buddhist anatta (no self) is often misunderstood. When asked outtright ‘does the self exist’? the Buddha declined to answer, later explaining that both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ are misleading responses to the question. To answer ‘yes’ (there is a self) is to side with the ‘eternalists’, those who hold that there is a permanent self which will persist unchanged forever. Those who answer ‘no’ are nihilists (and besides, the questioner will wonder ‘what happened to the self he thought he had’.)
Anatta is used adjectively, as a descriptor: all dharmas (dhammas) are ‘devoid of self’. (‘Dharmas’ in this context are the momentary elements of experience/existence). But that has to be interpreted in the broader context of Buddhist principles. That is the subject of mindfulness meditation (‘sati’) wherein the meditator is encouraged to achieve insight into the ephemeral nature of all moments of experience arising and falling due to causes and conditions.
Descartes was situated in an entirely different milieu and was addressing a different set of questions. His aim was to reach an indubitable foundation for certain knowledge by putting aside all received opinion and even the ‘testimony of the senses’. But he was very much a product of European intellectual culture, worlds apart from the contemplative and renunciate philosophy of early Buddhism. However legitimate comparisons can be made between the Cartesian ‘cogito’ and the ātman of Hindu philosophy. There is a Hindu school called Samkhya dualism which has many parallels with Descartes’ dualism, which has been subject of some commentary over the years. (Here’s one reference.)
2 Likes
@Wayfarer that’s a well-contextualized exposition of the different positions held by Descartes and Siddhartha.
I was wondering about the difference between the 2 thinkers. Descartes has a Christian background. He was attempting to ground the philosophical enterprise. Buddha lived 2k years prior and was on a different track. Anatman = No soul/self (dhammas lacking an inherent existence). What would happen if I included Pakudah Kaccayana (eternalism) and Ajita Kesakambali (annihilationism, materialism) in this discussion?
They’re figures from the Buddhist texts who are taken to represent those ‘wrong views’. The longest sutta in the Pali texts is the ‘Brahmajala Sutta’ (‘the Net of Views’) which categorises in exhaustive detail the various forms of ‘eternalism’ and ‘nihilism’ that ‘monks and ascetics’ are prone to fall into. (One of those negative views is ‘fortuitous origins’ — the idea that life begins by chance. A commentator notes that this understanding is regarded as ‘proven by science’ in modern culture.)
There’s nothing obviously corresponding to ‘eternalism v nihilism’ in the Western context. Again René Descartes was far removed from the Buddhist world. Although now that I think about it, Husserl, one of Descartes’ successors (in that he regarded Descartes as the founder of phenomenology) had high praise for the Buddhist ‘abhidharma’ (the collection of texts about the psychology and philosophy of dharma) - per wikipedia.
1 Like
Some atheists say that religions (Buddhism included) and naturally philosophy (Cartesian dualism for example) must be viewed within the framework of modern epistemology (largely consisting of advancements in science, like physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and neuroscience, etc.). They would like a 21st century conversation instead of having to travel back in time to the bronze/iron age/medieval age whenever religion/philosophy is brought up.
Per Buddhism, both eternalism and nihilism are wrong views. Sanjaya Belathiputta (skepticism) also taught along the same lines, rejecting both Pakudah Kaccayana’s eternalism and Ajita Kesakambali’s (materialism/annihilationism). Sanjaya was famous for refusing to commit to a view; his school was disparagingly referred to as the eel-wrigglers.
The Christian doctrine professes an eternal soul that has an afterlife.
What is the origin of the claim? Any rational explanation on how it might be true and works?
Descartes’ telos was to uproot skepticism; Siddhartha Gautama’ telos was to address dukkha. I don’t think Gautama would contradict Descartes (even if later Buddhists would). But would Descartes contradict Gautama? As you imply, he might contradict him on the basis of Christianity, but I don’t think he would contradict him on the basis of his cogito.
1 Like
Denying the antecedent is a fallacy. Here is a better example (because it uses a true conditional):
- If I wear sunscreen then I will avoid sunburn {P⟶Q}
- I do not wear sunscreen {~P}
- Therefore, I will not avoid sunburn {∴ ~Q}
We can see that this is fallacious. Even if one is not wearing sunscreen they could still avoid sunburn by wearing a hat, or by wearing long sleeves, or by using an umbrella, or by staying indoors, etc.
Here is an example from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
If she were Brazilian, then she would know that Brazil’s official language is Portuguese. She isn’t Brazilian; she’s from London. So, she surely doesn’t know this about Brazil’s language.
If you inspect the premise then you will notice it is a false / inconsistent statement.
Even if you wore sunscreen or didn’t wear it, you might still get sunburn. The sunscreen was defective etc. So the example is not a sensible for the point.
But let’s get back to Cogito.
I think therefore I exist. (the original cogito)
If I don’t think, then I don’t exist. (premise)
I don’t think. (assertion from presmise)
Therefore I don’t exist (conclusion from the assertion)
Isn’t it a valid argument?
All we are looking for is the conclusion was derived from the logical consequence, which is in the form of “premise->assertion->conclusion”, which is what formal logic is for.
Sure, if they’re physicalist, but I’ve never accepted physicalism. Certainly Buddhism and any other faiths have to acknowledge and come to terms with scientific discovery. There’s literature about the impact of scientific discoveries on Buddhism (1, 2) and science has certainly displaced some elements of traditional Buddhist beliefs. But I don’t see what bearing it could have on the essentials. The Dalal Lama wrote in his book on philosophy of science, Universe in a Single Atom, that
If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.
But he also added that:
The danger…is that human beings may be reduced to nothing more than biological machines, the products of pure change in the random combination of genes, with no purpose other than the biological imperative of reproduction
Sure. Personally, I believe that the popular depiction of ‘the afterlife’ as a sense of the indefinite duration of individual person-hood is just what Buddhism criticism of ‘eternalism’ applies to. But I also don’t know if that is really what is meant by ‘the life eternal’ of Christianity.
Unfortunately I don’t recall a particular verse to that effect but a scholar claims that Christianity imbibed Greek philosophical beliefs such as an eternal, immaterial soul (Plato et al) and the notion of hell (Tartarus) and heaven.
The cogito is more Christian than anything else, affirms Descartes or anyone else who employs the cogito as a soul (I). Bring in Descartes’ dualism (res cogitans and res extensa) and we have a very Christian worldview on who/what one is. It would be interesting to know Descartes’ religious beliefs.
@Wayfarer We could allow scientific reductionism, if at all transcendentals like love, goodness, honor, respect, thought can be shown to be the interplay of physical laws that are mathematical. There’s a hint of this in the Dalai Lama’s statements: If science ever comes into conflict with religion, it wins. That such pronouncements are conditioned (disallowed is wholesale reductionism) does little to strengthen the defenses of nonphysicalism.
As for the self/I, Buddhism says anatta it is but that’s nihilism (re Ajita Kesakambali’s materialism, annihilationism).
I don’t know how you can read practically the opposite of what I mean into what I write.
1 Like
I’m sorry if it crosses you. Nobody’s stopping scientific reductionism in any real sense. Perhaps I wanted to say that.
Is anatta a type of reductionism? Compare this Buddhist doctrine to Ajita Kesakambali, a materialist who declared that the soul doesn’t exist and that death is finito.