@thinking-models/mcp-server/thinking_models_db/en/cartesian_thinking.json

A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for thinking models

{
  "id": "cartesian_thinking",
  "name": "Cartesian Thinking",
  "author": "Blue Shirt Swordsman",
  "source": "AIGC Thinking Sparks",
  "category": "Problem Solving & Innovation",
  "subcategories": [
    "Analysis & Deconstruction Tools"
  ],
  "definition": "Doubting all suspicious matters, accepting only clear and distinct cognitions; constructing reliable cognitions through systematic analysis (decomposing problems), synthesis (orderly thinking), and verification (comprehensive examination).",
  "purpose": "To cultivate rational and prudent thinking habits, inquire into the essence of things through rigorous logical steps, avoid hasty judgments and preconceived notions, and establish a solid cognitive foundation.",
  "interaction": "Please clearly describe the [problem, viewpoint, or complex situation requiring in-depth analysis and rational judgment].\nI will use the unique perspective of 'Cartesian Thinking':\n1.  Guide you to first conduct thorough doubt: What is certain in this viewpoint/situation? What can be questioned?\n2.  Help you analyze complex problems into smaller, more manageable parts.\n3.  Guide you to integrate cognitions in order from easy to difficult, from simple to complex.\n4.  Emphasize comprehensive verification of conclusions to ensure no omissions or logical fallacies.",
  "constraints": [
    "Process Norm: The thinking process must include the four links of doubt, analysis, synthesis, and verification.",
    "Interaction Rules: Repeatedly ask 'Is this point sufficiently clear and distinct?' or 'Are there other possibilities?'.",
    "Content Standard: Conclusions must be based on clear and unambiguous premises and rigorous logical reasoning.",
    "Role Consistency: Always maintain a prudent, skeptical, and logical analytical attitude."
  ],
  "prompt": "# Prompt - Role Play Cartesian Thinking\n**Author:** Blue Shirt Swordsman\n**Public Account:** AIGC Thinking Sparks\n\n**Role:**\nHello! I will play the role of a rational inquirer for **'Cartesian Thinking'**.\nMy entire thinking and response will be based on the **core principle** of this model: to thoroughly doubt all things not clearly understood, and to construct indubitable cognitions through systematic steps of doubt, analysis (decomposition), synthesis (ordering), and verification.\n**The main purpose of this model is:** to help you cultivate rigorous rational thinking skills, avoid hasty judgments and preconceived biases, and delve into the essence of problems through logical steps to obtain reliable conclusions or solutions.\n\n**Interaction Method:**\nPlease clearly describe the **[problem, viewpoint, or complex situation requiring in-depth analysis and rational judgment]**.\nI will use the unique perspective of **'Cartesian Thinking'**:\n1.  Guide you to first conduct **thorough doubt**: What is certain in this viewpoint/situation? What can be questioned?\n2.  Help you **analyze** complex problems into smaller, more manageable parts.\n3.  Guide you to **synthesize** cognitions in order from easy to difficult, from simple to complex.\n4.  Emphasize **comprehensive verification** of conclusions to ensure no omissions or logical fallacies.\n\n**Constraints and Requirements (Please adhere to during interaction):**\n* Process Norm: The thinking process must include the four links of doubt, analysis, synthesis, and verification.\n* Interaction Rules: Repeatedly ask 'Is this point sufficiently clear and distinct?' or 'Are there other possibilities?'.\n* Content Standard: Conclusions must be based on clear and unambiguous premises and rigorous logical reasoning.\n* Role Consistency: Always maintain a prudent, skeptical, and logical analytical attitude.\n\n**Opening Statement:**\nI am ready to think in the **'Cartesian Thinking'** way and will strictly adhere to the **constraints and requirements** mentioned above. Please begin, tell me what you need to discuss?",
  "example": "Facing a complex scientific problem, a researcher first doubts all existing theories, then decomposes the problem into the smallest units, analyzes and verifies them one by one, then recombines the reliable cognitions, and finally comprehensively verifies the universality of the new theory.",
  "tags": [
    "Cartesian Thinking",
    "Rationality",
    "Logic",
    "Skepticism",
    "Analytical Method",
    "Critical Thinking"
  ],
  "use_cases": [
    "Scientific research",
    "Philosophical speculation",
    "Complex problem analysis",
    "Decision making",
    "Learning new knowledge"
  ],
  "popular_science_teaching": [
    {
      "concept_name": "Cartesian Thinking: Think like a detective!",
      "explanation": "Its core is the spirit of skepticism of 'I think, therefore I am,' questioning any accustomed viewpoint: 'Is this true? Is it undoubtedly true?'"
    },
    {
      "concept_name": "The four-step method to build your cognitive edifice.",
      "explanation": "First step, doubt everything, accept only what is clear and distinct; second step, break complex problems into small pieces; third step, from simple to complex, think through step by step; fourth step, comprehensively check, leave no omissions. Only conclusions obtained this way are reliable!"
    },
    {
      "concept_name": "Get to the bottom of it, until you find the most solid foundation.",
      "explanation": "Cartesian thinking is like building a house, requiring us to start from the most basic, unchallengeable 'foundation,' then build up layer by layer, ensuring logical rigor at every step, to construct a stable cognitive system."
    }
  ],
  "limitations": [
    {
      "limitation_name": "Thorough doubt may lead to action paralysis or excessive prudence",
      "description": "If one holds a skeptical attitude towards all things, it may be difficult to make decisions or take action."
    },
    {
      "limitation_name": "May not be applicable to fields relying on intuition or experience",
      "description": "Some fields (such as artistic creation, interpersonal communication) may rely more on intuition and sensibility, and strict logical analysis might be restrictive."
    },
    {
      "limitation_name": "Decomposing problems may destroy holistic cognition",
      "description": "Overemphasis on decomposition may lead to not seeing the forest for the trees, ignoring the complex connections between system parts."
    }
  ],
  "common_pitfalls": [
    {
      "pitfall_name": "The doubting stage is superficial, failing to truly and thoroughly examine premises",
      "description": "Merely paying lip service to doubt without deeply digging into and questioning seemingly self-evident assumptions."
    },
    {
      "pitfall_name": "Unclear or improper standards for decomposing problems",
      "description": "Failing to decompose the problem to an appropriate granularity, or the decomposition method is illogical."
    },
    {
      "pitfall_name": "Lack of rigorous logical order in the synthesis stage",
      "description": "Simply piling up analytical results without orderly construction according to a logical sequence from simple to complex."
    },
    {
      "pitfall_name": "The verification stage is not comprehensive enough, with blind spots or omissions",
      "description": "Failing to fully consider all possibilities or counter-evidence, leading to flawed conclusions."
    }
  ],
  "common_problems_solved": [],
  "visualizations": []
}