Here’s roughly what I take to be the argument of this article:
1. When we lie to others, we will come to doubt our own beliefs.
2. If we doubt our own beliefs, we will also doubt that we exist.
3. If we doubt that we exist, then we cease to exist.
4. Therefore, if we lie to others, then we will cease to exist.
I’m not convinced for a few reasons.
First, Premise 1 seems shaky to me. It seems like humans are often able to easily compartmentalize their lies. They either quickly forget that they told a lie or are able to rationalize it away. And further, if I lie to someone else, it doesn’t follow that I expect to lie to myself. People are generally capable of distinguishing who it is that they’ve lied to. Eg poker would be a much less fun game if we were unable to keep track of who believed what.
Premise 2 also seems implausible. Even if I *sometimes* doubt my beliefs, it doesn’t follow that I’ll doubt all my beliefs or the specific belief that I exist. It might not even occur to a person to question whether or not they exist at all. Eg a person might live a life as a spy in a foreign country, lying constantly about their identity, yet it might not occur to them at all to contemplate Descartes’ argument.
Premise 3 also seems incorrect to me. This is because my beliefs in general don’t determine what exists. If I doubt that giraffes exist, it doesn’t follow that giraffes in fact don’t exist. And if I doubt that I myself exist, it doesn’t follow that I stop existing. And indeed there are cases of Cotard’s syndrome, where a person explicitly believes they themselves don’t exist. Or another way of phrasing it: there exist people who doubt their own existence.
Here’s roughly what I take to be the argument of this article:
1. When we lie to others, we will come to doubt our own beliefs.
2. If we doubt our own beliefs, we will also doubt that we exist.
3. If we doubt that we exist, then we cease to exist.
4. Therefore, if we lie to others, then we will cease to exist.
I’m not convinced for a few reasons.
First, Premise 1 seems shaky to me. It seems like humans are often able to easily compartmentalize their lies. They either quickly forget that they told a lie or are able to rationalize it away. And further, if I lie to someone else, it doesn’t follow that I expect to lie to myself. People are generally capable of distinguishing who it is that they’ve lied to. Eg poker would be a much less fun game if we were unable to keep track of who believed what.
Premise 2 also seems implausible. Even if I *sometimes* doubt my beliefs, it doesn’t follow that I’ll doubt all my beliefs or the specific belief that I exist. It might not even occur to a person to question whether or not they exist at all. Eg a person might live a life as a spy in a foreign country, lying constantly about their identity, yet it might not occur to them at all to contemplate Descartes’ argument.
Premise 3 also seems incorrect to me. This is because my beliefs in general don’t determine what exists. If I doubt that giraffes exist, it doesn’t follow that giraffes in fact don’t exist. And if I doubt that I myself exist, it doesn’t follow that I stop existing. And indeed there are cases of Cotard’s syndrome, where a person explicitly believes they themselves don’t exist. Or another way of phrasing it: there exist people who doubt their own existence.