Cogitations: A Study of the Cogito in Relation to the Philosophy of Logic and Language and a Study of Them in Relation to the Cogito
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Oxford University Press (1986)
The cogito ergo sum of Descartes is one of the best-known--and simplest--of all philosophical formulations, but ever since it was first propounded it has defied any formal accounting of its validity. How is it that so simple and important an argument has caused such difficulty and such philosophical controversy? In this pioneering work, Jerrold Katz argues that the problem with the cogito lies where it is least suspected--in a deficiency in the theory of language and logic that Cartesian scholars have brought to the study of the cogito. Katz contends that the laws of traditional logic have distorted Descartes's reasoning so that it no longer fits either Descartes's own account of the cogito in his writings or the role he assigns it in his project. Katz proposes that the cogito can be understood as an example of "analytic entailment," a concept in the philosophy of language whereby a statement can be a formally valid inference without depending on a law of logic. Developing and defending his thesis, he shows us that by grappling with an historical philosophical problem it is possible to make an original contribution to the advance of contemporary philosopy.
|Keywords||Analysis (Philosophy Language and logic|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Buy the book||$3.33 used (90% off) $34.02 new (51% off) $69.00 direct from Amazon Amazon page|
|Call number||B808.5.K37 1986|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Dennis Earl (2009). Analyticity and the Analysis Relation. Acta Analytica 24 (2):139-148.
Dan Sperber (2011). Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):57.
Similar books and articles
Weimin Mo (2007). Cogito : From Descartes to Sartre. [REVIEW] Frontiers of Philosophy in China 2 (2):247-264.
Peter Slezak (2010). Doubts About Indubitability. Philosophical Forum 41 (4):389-412.
Husain Sarkar (2003). Descartes' Cogito: Saved From the Great Shipwreck. Cambridge University Press.
Peter Slezak (2010). Doubts About Descartes' Indubitability: The Cogito as Intuition and Inference. Philosophical Forum 41 (4):389-412.
Paul Ricoeur (1996). The Crisis of the Cogito. Synthese 106 (1):57 - 66.
Gareth B. Matthews (1987). Descartes's "Cogito" and Katz's "Cogitations". Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 68 (3/4):197.
Bernard Roy (2003). Cogitations : In Language We Trust: J. J. Katz's Anatomy of the Cartesian Cogito. Philosophical Forum 34 (3-4):439–450.
Rainer Trapp (1988). » Credo* Me* Cogitare Ergo Scio* Me* Esse1/2 « — Descartes' »Cogito Ergo Sum« Reinterpreted. Erkenntnis 28 (2):253 - 267.
David Woodruff Smith (1993). The Cogito Circa Ad 2000. Inquiry 36 (3):225 – 254.
William J. Rapaport (1976). On Cogito Propositions. Philosophical Studies 29 (1):63-68.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?