Re: KuJomu - the writing

Florian Rivoal writes:
 > oops. pressed send too soon. i do it again
 >
 > >En réponse à 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"?