From: "Florian Rivoal" <florian@...>
> >From: "Florian Rivoal" <florian@...>
> >> 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.
> >
> >It doesn't have to, but whether it is thinking accurately or not it has to
exist
> >in order to do that thinking.
> You reach this conclusion using your reason. As you admit reason may be
fallible,
> how can you be so sure of the result?
If I can reach this conclusion using my reason, then by necessity my reason must
exist for me to do so. Are you missing this?
> >> 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.
> >
> >You may be right there but the issue is that whether you can say it is
fallible
> >or not it must be there to have that quality. *From* that point you can go
on
> >to demonstrate things 'it is reasonable to think'.
>
> Our reasonable way of thinking tells us we must exist to think, and even
doubting
> your existene is a proof that you exist, since you doubt. I understand
perfectly
> the point. But "Our reasonable way of thinking" tells us.
How can "our reasonable way of thinking" tell us, if it doesn't exist?
> So if reason is "wrong", what is this assertment worth?
It tells us that some assertion is being made!
Even if you put down all the wrong answers, we still know the test was taken,
because we have the filled-out form in our hands.
*Muke!
--
http://www.frath.net/