ASSIGNMENT 2

PT10303 SYSTEM AND THEORY OF PSYCHOLOGY

SEMESTER 2, SESSION 2019/2020

TITLE:
QUESTION 28(HURAIKAN KONSEP INI, CORGITO ERGO SUM,
CREDO UT INTELLIGIAM, INTELLIGO UT CREDAM)

PRESENTATION:
THURSDAY, 9.04.2018, 10:40-11:00

STUDENT:
CHEW YONG PENG BP19110055
LEE YI TING BP19110204
LOO HUI KOON BP19110250
MAK JIA WEI BP19110163
RISHANTHI A/P GNANASEGARAN BP19110391

LECTURER:
MOHD SOBRI BIN ISMAIL
INTRODUCTION

Philosophy, it is from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, was probably coined by

Pythagoras and literally means ‘love of wisdom’ or ‘friend of wisdom’.

Figure 1: The meaning of Philosophy, Philosophia.

It is the rational, abstract and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental

dimension of human existence and experience. Philosophical inquiry is a central element in
the intellectual history of many civilizations (n.d., 2020). In brand sense, philosophy is an
activity people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves,
the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other. The people
who study philosophy are perpetually engaged in asking and arguing for their answers to life
most basic question.

In the philosophy, there are divided into major areas of study, there are metaphysics,
epistemology, axiology and logic. These major studies themselves have sub and can become
very specialized as one progresses through the field of study. First, the study of metaphysic
is the study of the nature of reality of what exist in the world, what it is like and how it is
ordered. It is moslty study about the general features of reality, such as existence, time, the
relationship between mind and body, objects and their properties and more. For example,
they will ask some question like it there a god and what is truth. For the epistemology, it is
the study of knowledge. It concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge, such as the
relationship between truth, belief, perception and theories of justifications. It is more to what
we can know about the world and how we can know it. They often ask about do we know
anything and how do we know what we know. The third one, axiology, it contain ethics,
aesthetics and social philosophy. it is concern about what we ought to do and what it would
be best to do. They will ask about what is good and what is right. The will struggling between
what is good ang right arise in the issues. The last one is the logic, it is a important aspect of
the study. It is talk about the arguments or reasons given for people to answer these question s.
It is also the study of the principles of correct reasoning.

Philosophy is such a huge subject that it is difficult to know how to break it down into
manageable and logical sections. The term ‘Cogito ergo sum’, ‘Credo ut intelligam’ and
‘Intelligo ut credam’ are also the philosophical terms. The ‘Cogito ergo sum’ is meant I think
before I am. Beside that, for the ‘Credo ut intelligam’ is meant I believe in order that I may
understand. While for the ‘Intelligo ut credam’ is meant I understand in order to believe. These
there philosophical terms are in Latin world that said by philosopher.

CONTENTS

Cogito, ergo sum

Throughout the first half of the 17th century, the French philosopher René Descartes used
methodological scepticism to raise knowledge of the presence of self in the act of thought
described by the inducing theorem cogito, ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am"). "Cogito, ergo
sum” is the popular philosophic phrase of René Descartes, a translation of the original French
words of Descartes, "Je pense, donc je suis," which exists in his book Discourse on Methods
(1637).

Figure 2: French philosopher René Descartes

 Figure 3: Book of Discourse on the Methods

Descartes understood "certainty" as the primary characteristic of effective knowledge. In order

to find the unquestionable, self-evident truth expressed in this statement, he undertook a
series of thought experiments (regarding methodological doubts). There have been numerous
philosophical debates about the interpretation of this phrase. The ph rase expresses an
ideological atmosphere of scepticism, indicating the scepticism of early modern philosophy.
Although the ideas expressed in the "cogito ergo sum" are widely attributed to Descartes,
many predecessors offered similar arguments, notably Augustine of Hippo in his Treatise on
Citizenship (Book XI, p. 26), which also foresaw a modern refutation of the concept. (In
Chapter 7 of the Principles of Philosophy: "Ac proinde haec cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum,
est omnium prima et certissima etc."). Since Descartes, this phrase has become popular
outside the realm of philosophy.

The phrase "the cogito ergo sum" does not appear in Descartes' most important work,
the First Philosophical Treatise, but it does mention (often confusingly) the word "the cogito".
Descartes felt that his use of this phrase in his earlier Discourses was misleading because it
implied that he was appealing to an inference, so he changed it to "I am, I exist" (also often
called "first certainty") to avoid using the word "cogito".

At the early part of his second meditation, after having reached what he considered
the ultimate state of doubt-his argument for the presence of a deceptive God-Descartes
examined his beliefs to see which one of them could withstand doubt. In his belief in his own
existence, he finds it impossible to doubt his own existence. Even if there is a deceptive God
(or rather an evil demon who uses it as a tool to keep himself from slipping back into baseless
beliefs), his belief in his own existence is safe, because unless he exists to be deceived, how
can he be deceived?

Descartes said that:

But I have become convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this world, no sky, no earth,
no mind, no body. Now does that mean I don't exist either? No: If I make myself believe there
is something (or think there is something), then I must be there. But there is a deceiver with
supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In this case,
too, I undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as far as possible, so
long as I think I am something, and he will never make me nothing, because I am nothing.
So, after taking everything into account, I must finally conclude that the proposition "I am, I
exist" is necessarily true as long as it is proposed by me, or conceived in my mind (René
Descartes, 1960).

There are two points to note here. First, he only claims the certainty of his presence
in the first person; at this point, he does not prove the existence of other ideas. This, it follows,
is something that must be pondered by the individual himself in the course of following the
meditation. Second, he does not assert that his existence is necessary; what he says is that
"if he is thinking" then he necessarily exists.

Descartes did not want to use the first certainty, the cogito, as a basis for developing
further knowledge; rather, it was a solid foundation on which he could stand as he strove to
restore his faith. As he said, Archimedes once demanded that there be only one steadfast
point at which the whole earth can be changed; so, too, I can hope for great thing s, if I find
one thing, however insignificant, but certain and unshakable (René Descartes, 1960). One
expression of Descartes' meaning is, "I am aware of my existence."

In a nutshell, "I think therefore I am" can be refined to mean that it is when I use
reason to think that I really gain the value of being. Reason breaks down habits, superstitions,
and so-called "established notions" and allows true thinking to permeate one's life, and then
my existence has real meaning.
Credo ut intelligam

Credo ut intelligam words from Latin, meaning will be I believe in order to understand.
According to Catholic Dictionary, I believe in order to understand, phrase of St. Anselm of
Canterbury (1033-1109), defining one of the functions of faith as giving light to the m ind.
Those who believe acquire a capacity for knowledge, even in earthly terms, that unbelievers
do not possess. It is a formula of Anselm’s implying that the intelligibility of Christian doctrine
can only become evident after believe in it. The idea, especially frustrating to atheists, has
echoes in the doctrine associated with the later work of Wittgenstein, according to which
immersion in a way of life is necessary for understanding its specific structures and guiding
concepts.

Figure 4: St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109)

Anselm’s motto is “faith seeking understanding” is also the same meaning with “I believe in
order to understanding”. That means is faith that enables us to understand, not understanding
that enables us to have faith. Faith for Anselm is more a volitional state than an epistemic
state. For example, “faith seeking understanding” means like “an active love of something
seeking a deeper knowledge of that.”

The fact is that St. Augustine’s motto “I believe in order to understand” applies not
only to religious belief, but to all of our complex beliefs. Indeed, as the great chemist turned
philosopher Michael Polanyi has argued, it applies to our scientific beliefs as well.

Examples that shows the things that will happened, “I believe in order to understand”
like a motivation for us such as I believe in atoms in order to understand Brownian motion. I
believe in Big Bang Theory in order to understand the red-shift of the stars. I also believe in
Just War Theory to make sense of my ethical intuitions and the demands of my conscience. I
believe in, say, 9/11 in order to make sense of myriad pieces of evidence–first-hand accounts,
my own memories, the memorial downtown, our current political realities, and so on. These
was the example that if I believe in order to understand.

Conversely, I do not believe in a geocentric universe because, given what little I know
of astronomy, I think so believing would make the motions of the heavenly bodies
incomprehensible to me (or, at any rate, less comprehensible than modern cosmologies do).
And, finally, I do not believe in Moral Relativism, Materialism, Pantheism, Neo -Paganism,
Young Earth Creationism, Marxism, laissez-faire Capitalism, Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, unicorns,
faeries, or Nihilism for essentially the same reason: I don’t think these proposals help me to
make sense of the world.

Of course, put this way seems backwards to modern people. We tend to think that in
order to be rational, we have to build our worldview from the ground up, from intellectual and
evidential scratch, proving every inference and confirming every datum so as to eliminate any
and all doubt. Among philosophers this way of thinking about rationality is called Classical
Foundationalism, and since the days of Descartes it has profoundly shaped the intellectual
landscape of the West. Not even the most sophisticated and intellectually rigorous among us
believe what they believe because they have built their worldview from the ground up. By and
large, we inherit a worldview and then adjust it along the way.

Besides that, this brings us to a very important, though admittedly very elementary
point, we usually doubt things because we believe other things. The meaning is like if “I
believe P” and you say that you doubt P, in order for you to raise doubts for me about P you
will have to offer me some points or reasons for doubting P. You must be able to say, “I doubt
P because I believe that x, y and z, and I believe that x, y, and z are incompatible with P.”
Your doubt rests upon your beliefs, namely, your belief in x, y and z, and your belief in the
inconsistency of P with x, y, and z. So, this example show doubt and believe are according to
our belief, if I believe I will understand it and make it became true.

Reasonable doubt needs reasons. Unbelief plain and simple is too simple. Unbelief
about one thing always depends upon firm belief in something else. In short, unbelief nearly
always rests upon faith, whether faith in a clearly articulated, coherent worldview or an
uncritical, tacitly held faith in things like “Progress” or democracy or technology or
the unassailable right to total, unfettered self-definition. We all live by a sort of believe. The
believe may be unspoken or clear, consciously affirmed or subconsciously assumed, coherent
or incoherent. But, it is there and true being.
 In a nutshell, we tend to think that in order to be rational, we have to build our
worldview from the ground up, from intellectual and evidential scratch, proving every
inference and confirming every datum so as to eliminate any and all doubt. But the important
point is you must believe and in to be rational and understand the proven. “I believe in order
to understand” are an active love of something seeking a deeper knowledge of that. You
believe it, you will find a lot of things to make it become true.

Intelligo ut credam

Faith and reason have been seen to be sources of justification for religious belief since
years and years ago (Swindal, n.d.). Intelligo ut credam which means ‘I understand in order
to believe’ which was a phrase of Anselm said to be the formula of Scholasticism and as a
justification of the use of dialectic within the limit of Orthodoxy. This phrase is complementing
each other with credo ut intelligam. Credo ut Intelligam was also a phrase by Anselm which
he gave more importance too. By ignoring it completely, Peter Abelard, a medieval French
Scholastic Philosopher insisted intelligo ut credam as the rationalistic element in Scholasticism.
As a rationalist, he insisted that reason can comprehend the mysteries of faith (Turner, 1903).

This concept of reason over faith also encourages that the knowledge of understanding
enables us to have faith on something. For instance, the point of an atheist will be if he is
shown the way of reason to trust the God, he will have the faith in Him later. People with this
kind of thought will go on with the innermost essence of act and of the philosophical content
(Pryzwara, 2014).

The influence of Aristotle on Saint Thomas Aquinas can be an evidence for this concept.
He emphasized the fact that reason has its independence against faith and that the thirst for
knowledge and science should be taken seriously. Aquinas was an Italian Dominican and
philosopher who believed that the existence of God can be proven in few ways. He was a
philosopher who believed that revelation could guide reason and those reasons clarify faith.
He continues to discuss roles of faith and reason in proving the existence of God.
 Figure 5: Aristotle and Aquinas (DeMarco, 2012)

Moreover, the New Atheists were the early 21-century’s authors promoting atheism.
According to Harris, one of the authors, faith is a sort of permission which religious people
give each other to believe things without evidence or reason (Taylor, n.d.). The other authors
strongly said that their faith which is grounded is merely a wishful thinking. Dennett another
author (also a professional philosopher) gives a question if the people who claim to believe in
God actually do believe God exists because he thinks he concept is more to not believe in God
but ‘believe in belief’ in God.

Newman on the other hand, stresses that for human being, faith is submitted to
approval by reason. Reason approves what we believe as most thing we know are beliefs by
trust in authority. Everything we should belief needs an evidence to have faith on it. But
Newman points out another thing here which is the “evidence of the heart, a kind of strong
conviction derived from prayer and practice of faith, in the intimate relation of a human being
with God” (Kantyka, 2014). Thus, we can know that intelligo ut credam mainly emphasizes
that in order to come to faith, we must proceed with the way of reason.
CONCLUSION

In summation, no matter is Cogito, Ergo Sum(I think, therefore I am), Credo ut

Intelligam(I believe in order to understand), or Intelligo ut Credam(I understand in order to
believe), we cannot say that which one is the real or true concept of idea. It’s all determined
on which one you chose as your thinking concept and practice it in your daily life.

Just like what have been mentioned in the content, "I think therefore I am" can be
refined to mean that it is when I use reason to think that I really gain the value of being.
Then, “I believe in order to understand” are an active love of something seeking a deeper
knowledge of that. You believe it, you will find a lot of things to make it become true. Following
by, “I understand in order to believe” means that reason approves what we believe as most
thing we know are beliefs by trust in authority. Not only that, the thinking concept or
philosophy that you chose will determine the way you see or view the world.

Thus, we cannot critic others if they have different of thinking concept or a philosophy
believe compare with us. Philosophy is a kind like religion, different person will have different
religion and his or her own believe. All we have to do is uphold our own believe and accept
the between the person with same believe and even from others believe at the same time.
REFERENCE

Catholic Dictionary. (n.d.). Credo ut Intelligam. Retrieved from

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32868

Cogito ergo sum. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/cogito_ergo_sum#Introduction

Cottingham, J. (1995). The Cambridge companion to Descartes. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

DeMarco, D. (2012). Aristotle and Aquinas: The Vital Difference. Retrieved from Catholic
Education Resource Centre website: https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-
and-philosophy/philosophy/aristotle-and-aquinas-the-vital-difference.html

Descartes René. (1960). Meditations on first philosophy. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Kantyka, P. (2014). Authority of Reason in the Anglican Tradition. Retrieved from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/41a6/edc54c4c952e3cd0c49cfa3c2224515a86d5.pdf

Newman, L. (2019). Descartes' Epistemology. Retrieved from

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/#CogiErgoSum

Pryzwara, E. (2014). Analogia Entis: Metaphysics. Original Structure and Universal Rhythm.
[Google Books version]. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=Fc9RAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq
=erich+pryzwara+intelligo&source=bl&ots=0vgotRnOLf&sig=ACfU3U1u91EI4dsGXH
9jhdwRpjw9G9QS6g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7j-
Cj4dHqAhUp6XMBHVDoAyIQ6AEwD3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=erich%20pryzwara
%20intelligo&f=false

Ralph McInerny. (n. d.). Saint Anselm of Canterbury. Jacques Maritain Center: A History of
Western Philosophy, Vol. 2. Retrieved from
https://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/hwp210.htm

Rob Pallikan. (2015). 5.2.15->”CREDO UT INTELLIGAM”. Daily Mediatations. Retrieved from

http://rippleeffectdisciplines.com/5-2-15-credo-ut-intelligam/

S. Niskanen. (2011). The Letter Collections of Anselm of Canterbury, Brepols: Turnhout.

Swindal, J. (n.d.). Faith and Reason. In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from
https://www.iep.utm.edu/n-athxxx/#H2

Taylor, J. E. (n.d.). The New Atheists. In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from
https://www.iep.utm.edu/n-athxxx/
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2020). Philosophy. Retrieved May 26, 2020, from
https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2013). Methodic doubt. Retrieved from

https://www.britannica.com/topic/methodic-doubt

Turner, W. (1903). History of Philosophy. Retrieved from

https://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/hop30.htm

What is Philosophy? (n.d.). Retrieved May 26, 2020, from

https://philosophy.fsu.edu/undergraduate-study/why-philosophy/What-is-Philosophy