| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Lainaus "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>: > RF> Either way, my answer to this thread is: don't separate > > computer science from philosophical theory. If for no other > > reason than because you don't need to. > > I certainly agree. And this is an excellent point of agreement > on which to end this thread. > > Descartes wanted to have something that is completely sure, > > something where he could totally rely on. > > I certainly don't object to assuming that I exist. But what I > don't like is Descartes's insincerity. Never for an instant > did he ever doubt that he existed, and his so called "proof" > is a useless piece of sophistry. His existence is far more > reliable than his foolish attempt to prove it. I agree with > Peirce and Whitehead that Descartes led western philosophy > on a 300 year wild goose chase. So, never mind Descartes, but it is clear what holds: there is something that exists rather than nothing, at least the thinker. > Nobody outside an asylum for the seriously psychotic doubts > that they and other people exist. The inference from 'I exist' to 'other people exist and there is a world outside my own mind' is not plain. First we got to agree that we have a common name for the totality of all things that exists: Substance. Then we can start to think whether Substance is the thinker, or if also other thigs exist. Now, does somebody disagree with this naming convention at this point? Avril