Re: KuJomu - the writing

Christophe Grandsire wrote:
>En réponse à Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>:
>
> > I shan't claim I'm into philosophy, but the question that strikes me at
> > some
> > point during this kind of discussion is this: Why does something's
> > unreasonableness prove its non-existence?
>
>It doesn't. But at this stage of Descartes's thought, anything that is
>doubtful
>(and something unreasonable *is* doubtful) must be thrown away as unfit for
>a
>good first postulate of the philosophy. It doesn't mean that it doesn't
>exist
>(indeed later in the Méditations Descartes "proves" the existence of the
>world), only that it cannot be used *at this point of the discussion*. In
>short, anything we're not 100% sure that it does actually exist, we don't
>use
>it, and we pretend, at least for a while, that it doesn't exist, so that we
>don't get tempted to add doubtful postulates to our philosophy. Fair game
>I'd
>say :)) .
I may've expressed myself badly. Let's go again; I cannot reasonably doubt
my own existence, but how does this make my existence certain?


    Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Reply