En réponse à Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>: > I shan't claim I'm into philosophy, but the question that strikes me at > some > point during this kind of discussion is this: Why does something's > unreasonableness prove its non-existence? It doesn't. But at this stage of Descartes's thought, anything that is doubtful (and something unreasonable *is* doubtful) must be thrown away as unfit for a good first postulate of the philosophy. It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist (indeed later in the Méditations Descartes "proves" the existence of the world), only that it cannot be used *at this point of the discussion*. In short, anything we're not 100% sure that it does actually exist, we don't use it, and we pretend, at least for a while, that it doesn't exist, so that we don't get tempted to add doubtful postulates to our philosophy. Fair game I'd say :)) . What forces reality to obey > logic, > to be coherent? > Nothing of course (and this is also a point against Descartes in his following meditations). But this is irrelevant in his first meditation, since his only point then is to find a stable stone on which to lay the foundations of his philosophy. Whether reality is coherent or not is not the point. The point is whether we are sure beyond any doubt that something we take for real actually is. Who says it's no illusion, whether coherent or not? If you cannot prove already that it's no illusion, then you cannot use it, because anything that follows from it will suffer from the same shadow of doubt. Christophe. http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.