I found Descartes quite interesting to listen to at first as he was saying he was going to reject everything and start anew on a quest for truth. I was curious to see whether or not this approach could really lead to a better method at attaining truth, since ridding oneself of prejudices sounds like a pretty good idea. But like most philosophers, he describes this ideal better than he practices it. Conclusions aside, such as his proof for the existence of God, I see two main flaws in his approach.<br><br> First off he does his statement of throwing all opinions away is silly since any system of logic from which you deduce “truths” from previously proven truths must have at its base a set of truths you accept without questioning, also known as postulates or axioms, from which you build everything else upon. For you cannot prove something from nothing. Now let’s look at what his axioms are. The first one is “I think” from which he deduces “I am” (18). The next two axioms are “[I] think of something more perfect than I was”
This is the end of the preview. Sign up
access the rest of the document.
This note was uploaded on 04/16/2008 for the course HIST 101 taught by Professor Wormer during the Spring '08 term at Columbia.