“I think, I am.” Cogito, Sum. I prefer this version of Descartes, the one without the addition of ergo. Adding the “therefore” in English creates space between thought and existence. It is linear. First thought, then existence. One could be forgiven for thinking Descartes is saying something like this: “Only in light of the fact that mind thinks, does existence follow.” Existence becomes a slave of the mind.

But in the original Latin, an implied syllogism exists: dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum.

Who or what is the Cogito? Who or what is actually thinking? The side by side synthesis of both thinking and mind suggests the inference relies on a fundamental intuition. But this is hard to do with any degree of certainty. It is hard to transform thought into a thinking thing, into a thinking self, into my mind. The universe could prove to be a holograph, and the thoughts in our head, the creation of a malevolent computer programmer. Descartes’ devil was indeed clever.

This intuition leads us to the problem of other minds, a fascinating possibility of multiple Cartesian minds, each one with its own separate mode of thought, feeling, sense, language. It leads us to the problem of speaking, of adopting a common, shared language, highly precise and technical, so that we must leave no chance of mis-understanding. This is why clarity and precision are essential for Descartes.

This language of reason has served us well in the sense of technological prowess, economic accumulation, scientific knowledge. Less so, when those powers are used in the service of evil. Holocaust.

Have we reached a moment in time wherein the language of reason has become so specialized, so technical and precise, that we are fracturing into a thousand different selves, reverting to multiple Cartesian minds, creating distinct enclaves of thought with their own particular tribal loyalties? A world with no discernable epicenter, no authority, no grand unifying Cogito to lead us out of the darkness, a Diaspora of truth and thought?