Rene Descartes said, I am, I exist, that is certain. But how often?

Just when I
think; for it might possibly be the case if I ceased entirely to think, that I
should likewise cease altogether to exist. What is the relationship of existence
to thinking in this statement? (1 point) Explain this relationship in a simple and
concise way.

Rene Descartes' statement speculates on the idea that existence itself might be
entirely dependent on ones' ability to think, not being able to think means that
one does not exist. This is not because thinking is causing existence.For
Descartes, thinking relates to existence because thinking itself is existence They
are synonymous: If you stopped thinking, it just means you stop existing. This can
only be argued after the cogito has been established. One has to argue that one
exists because he thinks first before one can argue that existence is entirely
dependent on thinking.

There are flaws to Descartes's reasoning. Using Descartes' reasoning , it seems to

imply that during that dreamless sleep one does not exist. We do not "think" in a
dreamless sleep. When we wake up, we retain our memories and identities. It seems
to say that the mind can continue to exist even when there is no thoughts or dreams
(because we can remember who we are before we slept). While one may argue that
Descartes stated "ceased entirely to think causes ceasing altogether to exist" and
not just a temporary sleep as a counterargument to the dreamless sleep problem, it
doesn't fully resolve it because Descartes also claims in Meditations VI that
"there is nothing further to the mind than thought, nothing further to the body
than extension".

This means that the mind for Descartes does not exist because there is no thought,
and consequently, there is no "I" in the process. However, when we wake up, we are
sure that we are the same person, which implies that the mind must have some form
of continuity even in times when one does not think, a contradiction of his earlier
statement.

In the words of Maurice Merleau-Ponty, To understand is to experience the harmony

between what we aim at and what is given, between the intention and the
performance.
Explain briefly and concisely how this understanding happens in the level of the
mind
(2 points) and in the level of the body (2 points)

For Descartes, understanding means that the mind's ideas of the world correlate
with what is the actuality of the world. For phenomenologists, understanding is the
projection of one's natural attitude in the world, which means a normal or everyday
oneness of "being-in-the-world". It is an understanding based on face-value,
looking at things as on how things seem to us as it is "lived".

This understanding occurs in two levels: understanding of the mind and

understanding of the body. For the phenomenologist, unlike the rationalists (mind
imposes on reality) or the empiricists (reality imposes on the mind), understanding
is always the interaction of the two. When I look at a cow for instance, the
object(cow) invites me to look at it, and my mind in its natural attitude perceives
it. Understanding is made when the intentional field "harmonizes" with the
object.One may get "astonished" when one's natural attitude doesn't harmonize, and
only then must one adjust the intentional field. As stated before, there is an
interaction between the mind and the object. This contrasts with the Cartesian
model, which sees the mind as mere processing machines observing the body.

For the phenomenologist, understanding of the body occurs because the body acts as
the anchor of the world. This means that it is the body that keeps one in the
world. It is "knowledge of the legs". Our bodies are not mere objects, we are with
our bodies at all times. For instance, when we walk to school, we do not need to
calculate how to walk or the force of our legs, it is automatic, it is
incorporated. It cannot be an understanding of the mind because one cannot detach
himself as a mere observer, he has to become a part of the activity.

Critics of social media platforms, such as Facebook, have pointed out the rise of
the inauthentic self as an effect of the existence and dominance of these
platforms. Based on what you have learned, how would Descartes (4 points) and
Merleau-Ponty (4 points) each respond to the claim that the self you project in
your Facebook (or other social media) account is not your real self? (Tip: Begin
with an explanation of how each would describe the real self)

Merleau-Ponty and Descartes have quite different perspectives on the idea of the
authentic self.

For Descartes, the authentic self is the thinking self, the "subjective" self.
Descartes in his "cogito ergo sum" claims that the real self is the "I", who
thinks. Descartes does not completely distrust the senses, but he is skeptical of
their capacities in acquiring knowledge and truth. For Descartes, the real self is
the thinking thing.The senses are oftentimes fooled into believing certain things,
but the reality of the "I", the fact that I perceive whether or not what I percieve
is accurate, cannot be doubted. This is related to the idea of the authentic self
because for Descartes, the real, authentic self is not the one that is percieved by
the senses (like as I am perceived by the senses of other people), but in my own
subjectivity as a thinking, feeling, conscious thing.

In Descartes' work, he talks about the melting wax. He states that when the wax
melted, it changed its form. However, we still know that it is the same wax because
it is the fact that we think about it is that gives it an identity. Likewise its
identity is not merely determined by its objective existence, but by the fact that
there is a thinking thing that can think about the wax that gives it an identity
(not the perception or senses which may be inaccurate, but the act of percieving or
thinking is real). Thus for Descartes, one's FB or Twitter is not representative of
one's authentic self, as it is merely appearances and these appearances are
deceptive. One's real self is one's subjective, thinking self.

Merleau-Ponty has a different view from Descartes. For him, the question of the
authentic self lies on whether there is such a thing as a natural or artificial
self. For Merleau-Ponty, there is no such thing as as a purely natural or
aritificial self. In line with his "mind-body-world" paradigm, there is no part of
a person which is purely natural (biological) or purely artificial (cultural). No
part of a person is not influenced by the world, and the world as well is
influenced by the person. The real self therefore, is not just a "thing which
thinks", it is the person right now, at this instant in time and space. The real
"you" is the person that is all and always affected and affects the world. His
"mind-body-world" field reflects the idea that it is hard to distinguish between
where the mind ends, that the body begins, and where the body ends, that the world
begins. For Merleau-Ponty, one's FB or twitter image is oneself, because it is that
person in that time and in that place that is experiencing the world, and the fact
that there is a blur in the distinction of what is natural and artificial
complicates the concept of the real "me".