When I originally heard the phrase, “I am thinking, therefore I exist” (15), I heard it as a variation, which was “I think, therefore I am.” I’ve always understood that phrase as an expression of how our mentality can effect our physically presence. Such as “I think positive thoughts, therefore I am positive.” Or vise versa with negative thoughts. However, after reading this in its original context, it doesn’t quite match up to how I originally thought it to be. Descartes meant it to be a statement of truth, referring to the fact that he himself must exist because of his ability to reflect on his own doubt. It is almost an existential reassurance that if anything in this world is true it is that we ourselves exist. Its strange to now know the true contextual meaning of that phrase, although it is still quite an interesting concept.

Descartes also makes some other interesting statements, such as “People with the strongest reasoning and the most skill at ordering their thoughts so as to make them clear and intelligible are always the most persuasive, even if they speak only a provincial dialect and never learned rhetoric,” (3). As soon as I read that statement it brought a few people to mind whom I felt fit that description. People I know who have a natural talent for communication. I never gave much thought as to why they seemed to be so good at communicating, but as Descartes points out, it is their ability to have a command over their own thoughts and expression of them. At many points during this Discourse, Descartes reflects on the qualities of various persons, including the influence of nurture (one’s environment) on humans. He states that, “Someone who has been brought up from infancy among the French or Germans developed something different from what he would have been if he- the same man, with the same mind- had always lived among the Chinese or among cannibals,” (7). The effect of our upbringing on our beliefs and values is a well known idea. In order for him to try to assess the truths he wants to validate, he acknowledges that what he knows is often an effect of where he has lived and been brought up.

However, one of the ideas in Descartes writing seems hard for me to fully accept. It is where Descartes begins to talk about the differences between humans and beasts, as in the difference of reason and soul. A few points that he made seem to discredit a lot of what we now know about certain animals, including the ability to be self aware as well as problem solve on an extraordinary level. Crows are one of those animals. And there are many other animals, such as gorillas, whom are able to communicate through the use of sign language. It may just very well be that we as humans were able to develop our reasoning and culture purely through evolutionary luck, and there may be the possibility that if other animals had our luck that they too could have developed the complex culture and reasoning that we have. However, I do see his reasoning behind the statement even though I think it could require some updating.