Replies

Further, even if you DO recognize Cartesian self-awareness as a beginning point for knowledge, Not what I did, go take it up with someone who might have actually done so.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It seems that I misunderstood you. Do you start somewhere else? If so, where? I read your posts, and must have missed it. What DO you posit for a starting point for knowledge, and standards for evaluating such? That IS the point of the thread, you know. If I am mistaken, I will rush to apologize, I assure you.

____________________________________
there is no escape from solipsism with Descartes.
In principle, there is no escape from solipsism even without Decartes.
He himself recognized that, and acknowldeged that one had to posit a benificent God who had ordered the cosmos to be congruent with our brains (and vice versa) in order to make meaningful statements about ANYTHING other than our own existence.
On that point, he was mistaken.>>>>>>>>

Good job. You have confused the hell out of me. As bad I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and say "you just don't understand what he is trying to say...., it is the internet, after all...." here is where we are. First, you acknowledge that there is no rational escape from solipsism "without Descartes" (I am unaware of any thought, anywhere, anytime, that does not presuppose self-existence, so I really do not understand that interjection)....., or with him. Then I give you a textbook definition of solipsism, the inability to speak meaningfully about anything other than self without "cheating" and bringing in another reference point (God, in the case of Descartes), and you tell me that Descartes was incorrect.
Were you trying to say that Descartes should have brought in a DIFFERENT external reference point to validate his perceptions of the cosmos....., one previously and up to now undiscovered by someone other than you? That seems to be the only other option I can see. Either that, or you are saying that Descartes was right to be a solopsist and then wrong to be a solopsist.

At this point, all I have seen are halfassed swipes at those who consider a theocentric epistemology, a nod to Descartes, and a tossing out a few empirical maxims, dredged up on the fly. Then you are all offended when you get back gratuitous sneers with...., well, gratuitous sneers. It just happens that way.
We COULD move from the realm of chest thumping ego into a discussion of what you consider to be a viable basis for epistemology, and you will see a big "I AM SORRY FOR OFFENDING YOU, PLEASE FORGIVE ME. I ENJOY THIS CONVERSATION" in your rearview. NO ONE loves to be proven wrong on those kinds of issues than I. We are at an intersection, and your light just turned green. I will wait and see.

Good job. You have confused the hell out of me.

Woo hoo!

Okay, actually that wasn't my intent, but I suppose at least it's a start. ;-) On these threads people often talk past each other because they think they already know "where the other person is coming from". (There are at least a couple of prime examples on this very thread -- folks who'd rather pigeonhole someone into one of their prefab mental categories than to actually listen to what's being said -- and what isn't.) If I've managed to inadvertently confuse you, the upside is that you'll read subsequent material with a fresh eye, if just to figure out what in the heck sense I (might) be making...

But unfortunately, that really must wait a few hours, I *have* to get some sleep right now. But you've made a number of cogent points in your most recent posts to me (as well as some I take issue with), so I'll be happy to address them as soon as I can manage to.