Re: KuJomu - the writing

>En r�ponse � Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>:
>
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
>The problem is not whether you cannot doubt your own existence or not, the fact
>is that the very fact that you are now doubting proves that you must exist. If
>you didn't exist, you wouldn't be doubting right now. The point is not only
>that you cannot doubt your own existence, but also that you must exist in order
>to even think: "I don't doubt my own existence". You arrive at a loop where you
>must necessarily posit your own existence as certain, or you will reach a
>contradiction: if you don't exist, you cannot be thinking and doubting. But you
>are thinking and doubting right now, so you have to exist in order to do those
>things. That's what I meant with the equivalence "cogito, sum": the very fact
>that I am thinking means that I necessarily exist, and since no other attribute
>can be given to me *at this point of the discussion* except the thinking, I
>necessarily exist as a thinking being.
>
>In short, it's not the fact that you cannot reasonably doubt your own existence
>that makes your existence certain, but the fact that you are *doing* this very
>doubting.
I agee with andreas. our mind may be governed by human reason, but nothing tells
us that what we consider reasonable is the truth. our way of thinking may be
biased. We can not imagine how we could not exist and be doubting at the same
time. But i do not consider that what I can not imagine can not be. I may be
the limits of our mind, not of reality.