Re: I know less than nothing about philosophy but...

Posted by Sambersil on September 14, 2000 at 00:21:16:

In Reply to: I know less than nothing about philosophy but... posted by Diarmuid on September 11, 2000 at 12:13:10:

: Isn't that what Descartes was on about when he said "I think, therefore I am"?

: His point being that nothing he saw with his senses was 100% trustworthy (i.e: he could be hallucinating). But the fact that he was thinking, and aware of thinking, meant that he could be certain that his mind existed, even if everything else was fictional.

The only way he would have knowledge of his thinking is through information he received about his thinking. This information could be true or false. Nobody knows they think.

:
: : I am an iNTj and a type five with a wing of four. I am 15 and extremely introverted, with hardly any social relations. For the past three years, I have been working on a system of philosophy to answer basic difficulties of existence, purpose, etc. I have what I believe to be a set of solutions, and they make me fairly happy. However, within a few months ago I had an inspiration that questions the entire purpose of the five personality: Assuming logical mistakes are possible, and they seem to be possible, any logical conclusion is not necessary correct because the logician could have made a mistake someplace. This holds true for ANY conclusion, even basic tenets such as 1+1=2. This means that NOTHING is possible to be known. Any refutation of this idea is not necessarily correct either, because it could have a mistake in it. Read that last sentence a second time before you shout mentally in outrage, thinking, for example, that my logic contradicts itself by stating, in effect "nothing is certain, not even this statement"

: : This is a repost of my first comment that I had on the comment board, because nobody seems to read the comment board but a lot do read this.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup