Wow, I loved this! Basically stated, I think therefore I am; and age old saying. So just making this far in the reading I stopped and thought a while about this couple of lines. My truth cannot be shaken unless I allow room for doubt, as long as I am coherent with the truth, then I cannot be deceived by the lies...relatively speaking that is.
Reading on...there are three limitations that come out of the cogito: it is first-personal only; mine works with me, and yours works with you- second it is present tense and basically states as long as we are thinking, we exist; when we stop thinking, we no longer exist- third is I may not seriously have what I think makes me, me and this could very well still be of the [demon] deceptions. My resource book says..."in sum the 'I' of the cogito is a bare instant of self-consciousness, a mere pinprick cut off from everything else, including its own past."
For me the 'sum' referred to above, is amazingly on point and is a place I try desperately to find. The present, the relinquish of the past, the freedom of only the here and now..."one moment at a time".
Here is where the building from ground zero begins; he develops a rule: 'that the things we conceive very clearly and very distinctly are all true'. He follows this up as truth because of God. [God] brings about only truth in idea and is perfect therefore he will not lend us a deceptive thought- or an un-truth. My views...how does he know it is only of a [God] inspiration when he is in thought, or for that matter how can he attest to differentiate good/God from bad/demon if he has deconstructed his entire belief structure? And do not all concepts derive essentially from someone/where else, for there is no such thing as ultimate original thought, right?
Cogito ergo sum was meant to rule out skepticism and doubt in an attempt at rational pursuit of knowledge, and he actually left just the opposite affect of many later dated Philosophers. He does however mention that deception can occur (and will occur-to me) so we may be wrong in thinking something to be of sound rational of idea or thought, but we will not be able to know if we are making such a mistake and if we don't identify the problem we therefore cannot give a clear answer or statement of ultimate truth. Or can we? So, this once again, leaves much room for what he was battling against; skepticism.
SO, I am now spinning here writing this and reading and trying to wrap my mind around it, and I hit wall after wall....It almost leaves me feeling at a place of a double-standard; which I have found is essential in theory for that brings about further attempts at the quest for truth.

(originally written November 2008)
No comments:
Post a Comment