Philosopher Peter Slezak at the University of New South Wales recently shared with me an interesting scholarly "mystery" story, now happily resolved, and perhaps of interest to some scholars. Professor Slezak writes:
Hintikka’s (1962) analysis has been perhaps the most celebrated account of Descartes' Cogito but in subsequent articles (1996) he sought to modify it in significant ways that l have suggested (Slezak 2010) are incompatible with his original claims. Hintikka came to recognize the importance of the first-person, though saying “I do not see any reason to retract or even to qualify anything in my original paper” (Hintikka 1996, 7). These later remarks cannot be reconciled with his earlier views, though Hintikka now acknowledges “the interpreters who have emphasized the role of introspection and introspective awareness in Descartes have been up to something important” and “Descartes is not for nothing formulating his insight in first-person terms ... As soon as you try to reformulate the cogito in third-person terms, you will see its plausibility disappear” (Hintikka 1996, 13). Well, this insight is flatly in contradiction with his explicit analysis in his famous (1962) paper.
In an article a year before his death, “René pense, donc Cartesius existe.” Hintikka (2013) makes a footnote acknowledgement to the "anonymous" author of an unrecalled earlier article where the first-person logic of the Cogito had been articulated. He invites the author to identify himself to receive the credit.
En pensant à cet article et en l'écrivant, j'ai été encouragé … etc. … Je veux également adresser un remerciement à un inconnu. Je me souviens - malheureusement seulement vaguement - qu'il y a longtemps, un article a été soumis en vue d'une publication dans Synthese dont j'étais alors le directeur de publication. La thèse de cet article consistait dans une analogie entre les arguments de Descartes et de Gödel. Je n'avais alors pas été convaincu, et j'ai refusé l'article, dont je ne me rappelle plus l'auteur. J'espère qu'il ou elle prendra la parole et revendiquera pour son propre compte l'attribution de cette intuition intéressante.
My translation:
"In thinking about this article and writing it, I have been encouraged ... etc. ... I want to equally address an anonymous gratitude. I only recall unfortunately vaguely, that long ago and article was submitted for publication in Synthese of which I was editor. The thesis of this article consisted in an analogy between the arguments of Descartes and Gödel. I hadn't been convinced and I rejected the article of which I don't remember the author. I hope that he or she will speak up and reclaim his/her proper credit for attribution of this interesting intuition."
In his email below mine, Hintikka (April 2014) has confirmed that the article was my own (Slezak 1983) on Descartes' Diagonal Deduction. I wish I had received this acknowledgement many years earlier.
3/16/14
Dear Professor Hintikka,
I just came across the French version of your article 'René pense, donc Cartesius existe' (in 'Cahiers de philosophy de l'université de Caen').
I was struck by your "anonymous acknowledgement" since I strongly suspect that I am the person to whom you refer. Accordingly, I'm pleased to take up your suggestion that I speak up and claim the credit!
In 1982 I published an original analysis of the logic of the cogito, 'Descartes' Diagonal Deduction' and it received a little attention at that time - a reply by Roy Sorensen in BJPS, and it was anthologised in a collection 'Critical Assessments' edited by Moyal.
I have recently published a follow-up (Doubts about Descartes' Indubitability) in which I develop my account - relying particularly on your own independent work with Remes on the method of analysis and synthesis.
Although there is evidently some convergence in our views, you will see that I offer some criticism of your own account of the cogito.
I attach both my papers here for your interest and would be pleased for any reactions you may have.
Best wishes for now,
Peter
4/5/14
Dear Prof. Slezak,
Thank you for your message and for the offprints. You are undoubtedly right: your 1983 paper is obviously the target of my "anonymous acknowledgement". I will make the acknowledgement explicit in the English version of my paper. I do not know yet where it will appear. The standard journals require anonymity which in this case is impossible and destroys the special character of the paper as step in a long development of ideas. Do you have suggestions?
I look forward to studying your papers with greater care later, including your comments on my ideas on the cogito Those ideas have of course changed over the years. The same goes for my ideas about analysis. Here I can refer to my recent paper in the Journal of the History and Philosophy of Logic (2011, I think). You might also be interested in my latest paper on Kant's theory of mathematics.
If you have more papers in Descartes or anything else I could find interesting, please call my attention to them.
Best wishes for your work,
Yours philosophically,
Jaakko Hintikka
Recent Comments