I do not think, therefore I am

I

Introduction: Situating the Critique of Western Modernity

In an era defined by rapid technological acceleration and deepening socio-political divides, a critical examination of the foundational philosophical tenets of Western modernity is not merely an academic exercise but a strategic necessity. It is within this context that Boaventura de Sousa Santos, an Emeritus Professor of Sociology, offers a potent and timely intervention. In his work, "I do not think, therefore I am," Santos presents a compelling critique that inverts Descartes' famous dictum to diagnose a profound contemporary crisis. The text's central thesis posits that the core principles of Western modernity, derived from Cartesian philosophy, are not only historically and culturally situated as Eurocentric but have degenerated into a pathological contemporary state. This state is marked by the dominance of neoliberal individualism, a "great disarmament" of cognitive and critical faculties, and the ultimate abdication of human thought to the mechanical certainties of artificial intelligence. This review will trace Santos's argument, beginning with his deconstruction of the Cartesian pillars that form the foundation of his critique.

II

The Cartesian Foundation of Western Modernity

Santos strategically begins his analysis by deconstructing the philosophical ideas of René Descartes. This is not a purely historical undertaking; rather, Santos frames Cartesian philosophy as the active and pervasive "common sense" that continues to underpin the self-perception of Western modernity. He argues that the famous phrase "cogito, ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am") became iconic because it encapsulated three core ideas that have since become the pillars of both modern European philosophy and Western societal logic. Santos identifies this as the bedrock of modern rationalism. It establishes a fundamental distrust of the senses, which are seen as sources of illusion and deception, and elevates a disembodied reason as the sole arbiter of truth. This pillar establishes a clear hierarchy of knowledge, privileging abstract thought over embodied experience. This concept, according to Santos's interpretation, asserts the unique and incommensurable status of human beings. It creates a stark dualism between the thinking human subject (res cogitans) and an inert, non-thinking natural world (res extensa). In this view, nature exists but does not know it exists; only the autonomous, rational human individual possesses this self-aware consciousness. Santos presents Cartesian doubt not as a form of open-ended skepticism but as a precise methodological tool. Its purpose is to discard unreliable sensory inputs and opinions, the "shifting sands", in order to arrive at absolute certainties, which Descartes termed "clear and distinct ideas." Santos powerfully illustrates this with Descartes' own analogy of an architect who must dig away all loose soil to find the "solid rock" on which to build a foundation. Having established this Cartesian framework as the ideological architecture of Western modernity, Santos proceeds to introduce his counter-framework to systematically dismantle it.

III

The Counter-Narrative: A Critique from the Epistemologies of the South

As his primary critical lens, Santos deploys the "epistemologies of the South," a conceptual framework he has formulated to challenge the purported universality of Western thought. The goal is to "provincialize" Descartes, to situate his ideas within their specific historical, cultural, and political context, thereby revealing their limitations. This approach systematically deconstructs each of the three Cartesian pillars, offering alternative ways of knowing and being that have been marginalized by Eurocentric modernity.

(a) Challenging the Primacy of Reason

Santos argues that Eurocentric rationalism, in its narrow focus on abstract reason, is insufficient for understanding—let alone combating—systems of domination like capitalism, colonialism, and patriarchy. The decision to fight for justice, he contends, is as much an act of will and emotion as it is of reason. As an alternative, he proposes concepts like Orlando Fals Borda's sentirpensar (feeling-thinking) and his own idea of "warm reason." These frameworks do not call for irrationalism but for a broader rationality that transcends Descartes' dualism by integrating reason with emotions, affections, and feelings—a philosophical move echoing Spinoza's concept of nature naturing (natura naturans).

(b) Re-evaluating Individual Autonomy

The text critiques the concept of individual autonomy as a form of Eurocentric exceptionalism that degenerated into the possessive individualism necessary for the rise of bourgeois capitalism and its emphasis on private property. Santos contrasts this with diverse philosophical traditions that conceive of the human not as a solitary, atomized unit but as a "being-with." This alternative view posits that human existence is constituted through cooperation with other human and non-human beings. It is not a call to dissolve the individual into a faceless mass, but a recognition that the power to create new realities and fight domination is fundamentally a collective project, where individual contributions gain their force only in aggregation.

(c) Deconstructing Methodical Doubt

Finally, Santos deconstructs the Cartesian search for "clear and distinct ideas" as a manifestation of Eurocentric monoculturalism. Returning to the "architect analogy," he argues that this method, in its search for "solid rock," discards the "shifting sands" without considering that they may be "full of gold nuggets." Other cultures, he notes, have developed valid ways of knowing and living that build on different foundations, houses on sand, in trees, or floating on water. He asserts that there are no absolute "clear and distinct ideas," only ongoing processes of clarification. The proposed alternative is an intercultural "conversation among humanity" aimed at identifying liberating "ecologies" of knowledge that can challenge injustice and exclusion from a diversity of perspectives. This systematic deconstruction of Cartesian thought, replacing abstract reason with 'warm reason' and solitary autonomy with collective being, is not merely academic; Santos argues it is essential for diagnosing how their degradation has produced the pathologies of the contemporary neoliberal order.

IV

The Contemporary Crisis: Neoliberalism and the Denial of Thought

Santos powerfully links his historical philosophical critique to the contemporary landscape, arguing that the foundational ideas of Descartes have degenerated into a trivialized form that fuels a neoliberal "age of non-learning." This era is characterized not by a counter-hegemonic expansion of what it means to think, but by a pervasive denial and trivialization of thought itself. He characterizes neoliberalism as a comprehensive "existential philosophy." Its core tenets include framing society as being in a state of permanent crisis, which normalizes individual suffering. Crucially, it replaces the concept of social responsibility with individual guilt, meaning that systemic problems are reframed as personal failings. This ideology cultivates a "denial-trivialization" of thought, which manifests in two critical ways, viz., Feeling Over Knowledge: By eliminating the idea of credible collective causes, neoliberalism transforms individuals into "subjectivities without shelter." Social suffering is experienced only as individual pain, fostering a "negative solidarity" where comfort comes from not being alone in one's misery. In this context, where common sense is knowledge taken for granted, conformity is not passive; it becomes "a militant act against loneliness." As Santos asks, "Why think if it has already been thought, and Subjectivity Enslaved by False Autonomy: The neoliberal insistence on individual autonomy is presented as a "new slavery." While individuals are told they are autonomous, they are functionally fragments of an anonymous crowd, precarious and without social safety nets. Santos uses the stark example of food delivery "collaborators" to illustrate this paradox: they are labeled autonomous, yet if they do not deliver food, they and their families starve. The need to be autonomous in a society dominated by wage labor becomes a modern form of bondage, not liberation. These trends, which systematically dismantle the capacity for critical thought, culminate in the ultimate abdication of human reason to artificial intelligence.

V

The Apex of the Crisis: Artificial Intelligence and the Mechanical Collapse of Doubt

Santos frames the rise of Artificial Intelligence not merely as a technological development but as a profound philosophical event, the logical and catastrophic conclusion of the trends he has outlined. He posits that AI marks the apex of the crisis, representing the "self-extinction" of the pragmatic rationality that has defined Western modernity. At the heart of this argument is the concept of the "mechanical collapse of doubt." The slow, reflective temporality required for critical thinking is incompatible with the "fast temporality" demanded by contemporary society. Our culture, which prizes instantaneous results and "intellectual and emotional fast food," has paved the way for AI to eliminate doubt itself. This leads, Santos argues, to the transition from Homo sapiens (the human who makes) to homo artificialis, a human who "is made" by technology rather than one who makes it. The primary consequences of this "vast outsourcing of doubt and learning" are systemic and severe; the emergence of a "new ignorance, in Nicolaus Cusa's terms," as the very concept and experience of doubt risk disappearing. A gradual slide from critical unlearning into a state of "non-learning" about anything not related to intelligent machines. The atrophy of unmediated inter-human skills, leading to a state where "orality will be the pathology of talking to oneself." The relegation of doubt to the unconscious, causing "inner demons of uncertainty and fragility," a condition experienced with particular intensity by the young. This cognitive collapse produces a psychologically fragile populace, manifesting directly in the erosion of societal resilience and the emergence of new forms of public docility.

VI

The "Great Disarmament": Societal Docility in the Face of Lies and Tyranny

This section assesses the direct societal consequences of the "age of non-learning." Santos argues that in a world where deep thinking is dispensed with, the populace is disarmed, giving rise to "new forms of docility" that leave society vulnerable to manipulation and aggression. "Fake news" and propaganda thrive, Santos asserts, in a climate where sentiment prevails over knowledge and the comfort of belief outweighs the discomfort of seeking truth. He provides three potent examples of how this dynamic functions; Propaganda in Portugal: Despite low crime rates, political propaganda successfully instigates fear of insecurity. This distracts citizens from what they truly lack—adequate public health, education, and social security systems; The Russia-Ukraine War: A narrative framing Russia as a "terrible threat" is advanced to serve external geopolitical interests, obscuring the complex history of the conflict and the fact that a resolution was allegedly blocked by "the US and its British lackeys; The Nature of Labor: Citizens fail to recognize that their leisure time—watching television or using computers—has been transformed into productive labor for Big Tech companies, as algorithms relentlessly convert all life into data and profit. The abdication of thought leads to a society that is disarmed against aggression. Individuals who feel like victims can be transformed into aggressors, creating a mass of "micro-dictators" who manipulate their followers "in the autoerotic solitude of their bedrooms." Santos offers a grim, Hobbesian conclusion: a "punitive/repressive impatience" permeates all social domains as the slow time of deliberation gives way to the fast time of punitivism. This creates a society where "man is a wolf to man," and political tyranny finds a fertile breeding ground. This state of profound societal disarmament sets the stage for Santos's final call for a response that transcends mere intellectual opposition.

VII

Conclusion: From Resistance to "Re-existence"

This review has traced Boaventura de Sousa Santos's sweeping critique, which follows a powerful logical arc from the philosophical foundations of Western modernity to a stark diagnosis of our contemporary crisis. He argues that we have entered an "age of non-learning" where thought has been industrialized, commodified, and made freely available, rendering genuine human thinking obsolete. In this world, non-thinking makes it possible to accept "suffering as fate," to live "in servitude, thinking oneself autonomous," and to "consume or compulsively desire to consume." In his final proposition, Santos makes a crucial distinction between "resistance" and what he terms "re-existence." In a society of non-learning, merely thinking differently is an insufficient form of resistance, as the "current of the crowd is always more powerful than the current of solitude." To effectively combat a system that "gives intelligence to machines in order to take it away from human beings," a deeper transformation is required. It is not enough to resist; one must "re-exist." This calls for cultivating a new way of being and feeling, one that is collective, embodied, and rooted in an integrated rationality that embraces the full spectrum of human experience. Ultimately, Santos's critique is both a coherent and deeply persuasive analysis of Western modernity. It challenges us to look beyond surface-level politics and technological determinism to see the centuries-old philosophical currents that have brought us to this precarious moment, urging us toward a profound re-evaluation of what it means to think, to feel, and to be human.