Re: KuJomu - the writing

>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?

>This does not say anything about the validity of the thoughts it thinks--or the
>nature of its reality--or even that its world must be consistent with reason.
>
>> 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. So if
reason is "wrong", what is this assertment worth?

Reply