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.
From my reading, it's something closer to: If I lie (especially to myself), I erode my integrity of self. If I erode my integrity of self, can I trust anything that my (self) posits?
Essentially, our internal integrity is tied to our external integrity.
This seems, on the nose, more easily defensible than the proof you'd mentioned above. Specifically, the writer isn't making a claim that my internal state of mental integrity could ever mean that giraffes don't exist (using your reference here), but instead that through an erosion of my integrity, I could come to believe they don't exist, in error.
That being said, I think there IS still room here for disagreement. Specifically, when the writer makes the claim: "I reason that, if thought grounds being, as Descartes proposes, then corrupting thought corrupts being." I believe that if you wanted to focus on this claim the writer makes specifically, there could be some especially valuable discourse.
Really great points! I've always thought that lying or pretending was a fear response; being afraid of the potential outcome, or to make others comfortable. You make a excellent case for there being an even greater negative consequence to misrepresenting yourself - knowing you are a fraud. Yikes!
My understanding of "The Cogito" is that Descartes is saying you cannot doubt the very fact that you are thinking, because even doubting that fact would itself be a thought. Therefore, there must be a “you” doing the thinking. In this sense, I agree with some of the other comments that I don’t quite follow your reasoning all the way to non‑existence. I’m not sure that doubting the truth or integrity of your thoughts is the same as doubting the very fact that you are thinking. However, I still think there is a really interesting idea here.
I agree that for someone with some level of self‑awareness and a degree of morality that steers them away from the kind of lying you described, this lack of integrity could cause a sort of fracture within themselves. This might result in a kind of “non‑existence” in the sense that the person loses a strong definition of who they are. They know they believe in certain morals, but they also know they do not act according to those morals. If a person is self‑aware enough to reflect on this, I can see how it could be jarring to their sense of identity.
Along these lines, I also wonder about someone who genuinely does not care that they lie. Someone who lacks integrity in this way might not care or even realize that they tell such lies. For a person like this, I think you could say there is a kind of “non‑existence” in the sense that the person they think they are does not really exist. Their internal definition of themselves does not match the person who actually interacts with the world.
I would love to hear your (or anyone’s) thoughts on these slightly alternative ways that acting without integrity can lead to a loss of existence.
The best is to ask that person directly if they lied and ask politely if they are willing to provide evidence and explain. You never know the other perspective and the full story until you read news from multiple medias - fake news and propaganda are real- the problem is, are you this gullible to buy one side’s lies only, but failed to see the others? Even if truth exists, are you not willing to confront it in order to find out?
The best “Cogito” is being able to tell a consequence must stem from a very wrongful act, and this article has explained this point all.
Would anyone be able to go lengths in existing on earth with that big of a gap between who they think they are and who is actually interacting? Or has technology made that actually possible?
"The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others."
I believe the instance in which this is most pernicious is in how we choose to spend our time -- and for many of us, that is dominated by our jobs. Similar to the act of lying, the act of doing that which you do not feel best represents you only serves to wither your integrity, for it is parallel to lying as an act against your integrity. The conundrum of today's society is that integrity is so far repressed compared to the benefits of these jobs that you so scorn.
Also i feel like the environment too or what we can easily reach for that’s closest within our vicinity, which is our phones and social media. It’s a few thumb taps away from making careless even innocuous little grazes to our integrity. We brush it off as “everyone’s doing it”, “it’s just social media, that’s not my real life”, but years down the road, those grazes could cut down a mountain.
For some reason this reminds me of the biblical concept of the parousia. You must believe something yet it has not yet occured. The now and not yet. Paradoxical thinking intended as a framing shift from what we see and what we want.
I don't think that's necessarily what the author is referring to here, but I do think your comment is related in an interesting tangential way. Fun stuff.
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.
Thanks for the reply! Very detailed response.
I wanted to maybe add my own thoughts here.
From my reading, it's something closer to: If I lie (especially to myself), I erode my integrity of self. If I erode my integrity of self, can I trust anything that my (self) posits?
Essentially, our internal integrity is tied to our external integrity.
This seems, on the nose, more easily defensible than the proof you'd mentioned above. Specifically, the writer isn't making a claim that my internal state of mental integrity could ever mean that giraffes don't exist (using your reference here), but instead that through an erosion of my integrity, I could come to believe they don't exist, in error.
That being said, I think there IS still room here for disagreement. Specifically, when the writer makes the claim: "I reason that, if thought grounds being, as Descartes proposes, then corrupting thought corrupts being." I believe that if you wanted to focus on this claim the writer makes specifically, there could be some especially valuable discourse.
Really great points! I've always thought that lying or pretending was a fear response; being afraid of the potential outcome, or to make others comfortable. You make a excellent case for there being an even greater negative consequence to misrepresenting yourself - knowing you are a fraud. Yikes!
Keep it up. Loved it.
amazing read, please write more on similar topics, looking forward to read
My understanding of "The Cogito" is that Descartes is saying you cannot doubt the very fact that you are thinking, because even doubting that fact would itself be a thought. Therefore, there must be a “you” doing the thinking. In this sense, I agree with some of the other comments that I don’t quite follow your reasoning all the way to non‑existence. I’m not sure that doubting the truth or integrity of your thoughts is the same as doubting the very fact that you are thinking. However, I still think there is a really interesting idea here.
I agree that for someone with some level of self‑awareness and a degree of morality that steers them away from the kind of lying you described, this lack of integrity could cause a sort of fracture within themselves. This might result in a kind of “non‑existence” in the sense that the person loses a strong definition of who they are. They know they believe in certain morals, but they also know they do not act according to those morals. If a person is self‑aware enough to reflect on this, I can see how it could be jarring to their sense of identity.
Along these lines, I also wonder about someone who genuinely does not care that they lie. Someone who lacks integrity in this way might not care or even realize that they tell such lies. For a person like this, I think you could say there is a kind of “non‑existence” in the sense that the person they think they are does not really exist. Their internal definition of themselves does not match the person who actually interacts with the world.
I would love to hear your (or anyone’s) thoughts on these slightly alternative ways that acting without integrity can lead to a loss of existence.
The best is to ask that person directly if they lied and ask politely if they are willing to provide evidence and explain. You never know the other perspective and the full story until you read news from multiple medias - fake news and propaganda are real- the problem is, are you this gullible to buy one side’s lies only, but failed to see the others? Even if truth exists, are you not willing to confront it in order to find out?
The best “Cogito” is being able to tell a consequence must stem from a very wrongful act, and this article has explained this point all.
Would anyone be able to go lengths in existing on earth with that big of a gap between who they think they are and who is actually interacting? Or has technology made that actually possible?
"The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others."
I believe the instance in which this is most pernicious is in how we choose to spend our time -- and for many of us, that is dominated by our jobs. Similar to the act of lying, the act of doing that which you do not feel best represents you only serves to wither your integrity, for it is parallel to lying as an act against your integrity. The conundrum of today's society is that integrity is so far repressed compared to the benefits of these jobs that you so scorn.
Also i feel like the environment too or what we can easily reach for that’s closest within our vicinity, which is our phones and social media. It’s a few thumb taps away from making careless even innocuous little grazes to our integrity. We brush it off as “everyone’s doing it”, “it’s just social media, that’s not my real life”, but years down the road, those grazes could cut down a mountain.
This is bad philosophy bro
For some reason this reminds me of the biblical concept of the parousia. You must believe something yet it has not yet occured. The now and not yet. Paradoxical thinking intended as a framing shift from what we see and what we want.
I don't think that's necessarily what the author is referring to here, but I do think your comment is related in an interesting tangential way. Fun stuff.