>No he doesn't. When I said that his "discours de la méthode" is really an >introduction to the Méditations Métaphysiques, I meant it really. The method of >reason he uses in the Méditations has already been discussed and justified in >the Discours (successfully I don't know, since I didn't read this one), as at >least a *valid* way of exploring reality (maybe not the only one, but if done >correctly, its results are as true as we can get). Anyway, his method is not >postulated without saying. He spent a full work on justifying it. Now, you may >disagree with his justifications (I don't know, I didn't read it. I just >remember the bit about it in the prologue of the Meditations), but you cannot >say that he just postulated it. I didn't read it either, but my point is, a human mind, using human ways of thinking can not proove human ways of thinking are right. if human ways of thinking are failable, then using a human reasoning to proove that human reasonig is correct is a none sense. i agree as far as you(or descartes) say it is "as true as we can get". But i think we can not state it is absolutrly 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!), > >Well, Descartes claims he has in his Discours (it's not for nothing that it's >called "Discours de la Méthode"). see above > philosophy can not proove anything (science either, btw), it can >> only suggest what is reasonalbe to think. >> > >There is only one thing really wrong in your thinking: you take it that >Descartes tried to prove his own existence, or the existence of the "ego". >You're wrong. It has nothing to do with a demonstration. The existence of >the "ego", the "sum", is *not* the result of a reasonable series of thoughts. >The "sum" *preceeds* any rhetorical justification, and the whole point of >Descartes's first meditation was not to *prove* the "cogito, sum", but to >recognise what's unavoidable: the existence of the ego, not as *consequence* of >something, but as preceeding any consequence. Yes, and it does it pretty good. Except that i consider that we can not know if a human mind is "clever" (i think the term is not good, but i don't find a more apropriate one) enough to think of all the possibilities. Maybe there is another possibility for doubting without existing, that is not acceptabe for a human mind. Or maybe the simple concept of existing is a mistake. >The problem with your discussion >is that you say as much as you want that you may not exist yourself, or even >deny your own existence, the very fact that you utter or even think those >sentences claims your very existence (what sense can you give then to a >sentence which means something but exists only if it's wrong?). It's not a >matter of whether reality follows reason or anything like that (that's a >critique that can be told to Descartes about the rest of his book, but not >about the first meditation). It's not even a matter of whether you can imagine >that you don't exist or not (I know I can, so strange as it may seem :))) . But >I also know that what I imagine then, whether implies the existence of >something else, if not me, or is plain *wrong*). It's a matter that as soon as >you're even simply conscious, you're claiming your very existence to yourself, >whether you want it or not, and there's no honest way to deny it. It's not a >necessary consequence of your thinking, nor even really a cause of it. It's >*there*, whether you like it or not. You can deny it as much as you want, the >simple fact that you deny it wouldn't happen (I don't even say "be possible", I >just say "happen") if you didn't exist. It's not a matter of whether reality >follows reason or not, nor whether you can imagine all that there can be (I >agree with you on that point, but it's an irrelevant one). It's just >unavoidable. More than a fact, a cause or a consequence, it's a *definition*, >an undeniable definition. And what's truth besides an unavoidable and >undeniable definition (undeniable, not in the sense that you cannot deny it, >but in the sense that denying it is just plain *wrong*. As I said, if you don't >exist, you're not denying anything, not because of a reason, but by definition). > >Of course, I repeat that the rest of Descartes's philosophy is doubtful and is >full of holes. But the "cogito" is not, not as a consequence of something, not >as a proven fact, but as an unavoidable definition, something which is as near >as truth as you can get. All this seems completly logical to me, and i can not find anything to say this reasoning is wrong. I am not doubting this reasoning, or my owm existence, i am doubting reason.