Existence

We as humans, do not ever really question our existence in this world. We do not question certain things like our senses, or the reality that we live in because it never occurs to us that we should consider if it is real or not. We live in a way where we know that they are true. But how are we sure that that they are not true? In Descartes’ book, A Discourse on the Method, he argues in one of the sections that we do not know if anyone else exists, we just know that ourselves exist. People can not just assume that other people exist just because they themselves exist. You can not know for sure, people never know if they are right about anything. The world has so many complex things that humans can not even think of. 

Descartes ignores all of his senses, because sometimes they can be deceiving. He pretends that everything he has ever seen or thought about is just false. He doubts everything, so he comes to the conclusion that he does exist. For him to doubt something causes him to think about it. Descartes argues that our ability to think proves we individually exist. He states, “I am thinking therefore I exist, which makes me sure that I am telling the truth, except that I can see very clearly that, in order to think, one has to exist” (Descartes 29). If it is true that you exist then you have to think, so then you know you exist. Therefore you reason out that other things exist. Descartes states, “from the very fact that I thought of doubting the truth of other things, it followed incontrovertibly and certainly that I myself existed, whereas, if I had merely ceased thinking, I would have no reason to believe that I existed” (29). What makes this quote valid is because we have to think to discover the truth. 

Humans have a rational soul. Descarte says, “constituting him of no other matter than that which I had already described, and without placing in him the beginning a rational soul, or anything else which could function as a vegetative or sensitive soul” (Descartes 38). Having a rational soul means we have the ability to reason stuff out and understand certain things. This is a gift from God. No other thing in the world has the ability to have such a powerful mind where they can rationalize and understand everything. In order for people to figure everything out and find the truth, they have to go through a multistep process. To figure out if something is true, you have to go through a process of your own. It is our own kind of process to discover the truth. 

Descartes argues that animals can not speak so they do not have intelligence. He states, “not even mad men, that they are incapable of stringing together different words, and composing them into utterances, through which they let their thoughts be known; and, conversely, there is no other animal, no matter how perfect and well endowed by birth it may be, that can do anything similar.” (Descartes 47). Humans can communicate from language, but animals can not. Animals communicate to each other from the different sounds that they make. They do not have to think about anything because they do things based off of pure instinct. They do not think, they just react. How are they able to know that they exists if they do not have thoughts? They do not know that they exist, they just know what is around them. Animals do not think about existence or do not really know about their reality, they just live their life with the instincts they have. 

I believe that Descartes reasoning is flawed. His whole idea of “animals do not think”, is a flawed argument. It is based on his own feelings toward the subject and not on scientific facts. The only main thing is animals can’t speak. However, they can communicate. Humans can do both, and I think that is where Descartes gets his argument. I believe that animals do think. They do not reason but they think about things. For example, police dogs take commands in a language other than english. That way, a criminal can not shout a command to prevent a law enforcement canine from fulfilling its responsibility to subdue a criminal in the act of committing a crime. Descarte may use this example as a way to say this dog was trained to do that. Although that may be true, the canine has to think about what that command means and what response is required. Descartes does not give animals enough credit. Animals can also act off of instinct, which they do a lot of the time. However, if you think about it, humans act off of instinct as well. For instance, a track and field racer stays at the starting block until the starting pistol is fired. In this case, is the athlete acting off of instinct, training, or logic? It stands to reason that this athlete has to rely on all three of those principles to successfully start this race without an unfair advantage. Descartes makes some good arguments in his book, but I do not agree with them. He gives many detailed thoughts and arguments on the human mind and how no other thing on earth compares to it.