"Cogito, ergo sum", was so certain) — René Descartes

I lazily referenced this quote during my debate with my dad regarding the nature of the mind. We realize this quote is important in recognizing a couple ways to prove a proposition is a fact. The first method to determine whether a statement is valid is to use the "general form of sophisticated arguments from ignorance":

let O = "Ordinary Proposition"

let SH = "Skeptical Hypothesis"

1. I know O—by such and such means—if I know ¬SH by independent means.
2. I do not know ¬SH by independent means.
3. So, I do not know O.

In other words, we claim an O is a fact if we have proved any and all form of SH is false. Returning back to Descarte's quote, we recognize a second type of statement: cogito—an indubitable or self-evident truth.

"Cogito, ergo sum" translates in to "I think, therefore I am". What makes this statement a truth is that within doubting the validity of the statement, we are are logically invalid. Simply, you must be, in order to think. Whether you agree or not is another matter. This leads into the second method to determine whether a statement is valid. A statement is a truth, if in any form of doubting its very validity, we find that it is true.

The two methods serve different purposes in philosophy. We use the former method is generally used to (dis) prove a statement or theorem. We use the latter to establish a self-evident truth, much like an axion in mathematics.

———

If you like the aesthetic of this post, feel free to read the markdown syntax used to create it. Enjoy!

["Cogito, ergo sum"](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm#:~:text=therefore I am (-,COGITO ERGO SUM,-), was so certain) — René Descartes

I lazily referenced this quote during my debate with my dad regarding the nature of the mind. We realize this quote is important in recognizing a couple ways to prove a *proposition* is a *fact*. The **first method** to determine whether a statement is valid is to use the "general form of sophisticated arguments from ignorance":

let **O** = "Ordinary Proposition"

let **SH** = "Skeptical Hypothesis"

1. I know **O**—by such and such means—if I know ¬**SH** by independent means.
2. I do not know ¬**SH** by independent means.
3. So, I do not know **O**.

In other words, we claim an **O** is a *fact* if we have proved any and all form of **SH** is false. Returning back to Descarte's quote, we recognize a second type of statement: [*cogito*](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cogito)—an [indubitable](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indubitable) or self-evident *truth*.

"Cogito, ergo sum" translates in to "I think, therefore I am". What makes this statement a *truth* is that within doubting the *validity* of the statement, we are are logically *invalid*. Simply, you must be, in order to think. Whether you agree or not is another matter. This leads into the **second method** to determine whether a statement is valid. A statement is a truth, if in any form of doubting its very *validity*, we find that it is true.

The two methods serve different purposes in philosophy. We use the former method is generally used to (dis) prove a statement or theorem. We use the latter to establish a self-evident truth, much like an axion in mathematics.