Re: KuJomu - the writing

>Florian Rivoal writes:
> > oops. pressed send too soon. i do it again
> >
> > >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.
> >
>What definition of "to exist" could fail to apply to something that is
>doubting?  It's a matter of definition, it doesn't have anything to do
>with the nature of physical reality.
>
>What do you mean by "true"?
>
> > Descartes ideas do not proove anything. they suggest it can be
> > so. Why? because there is one essential thing he did not proove:
> > That reason is unfailable. He postulates (without saying it) that
> > any result found through reason is true. I disagree. Any result
> > found through reason is reasonable. that's all. Nothing says the
> > world (what ever it is) has to comply to reason. So as long as no
> > one has demonstrated reason(good luck!), philosophy can not proove
> > anything (science either, btw), it can only suggest what is
> > reasonalbe to think.
> >
>What "world"?  What do you mean by "not comply to reason"?
world= reality, if this does have a meaning. Reason may not be an absolute and unfailable rule.
I can not explain, because i am saying that those questions may be (i don't say
they are, just they may be) impossible to understand for a human mind. I mean
our mind may not be capable of thinking accuratly. Don't ask me what definition
of exist could match this. i did not say descartes was not inteligent enough to
find it though i am, i say human mind may be unable to understand. So to me,
any philosophical demonstration can concluded : it is reasable to think
that..., but it can not concluded : i prooved that... Nothing is prooved since
you have a least use one postulate: reason is unfailable.

Replies