Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SpectralJulianIsNotDead
It's not an important distinction to make in everyday life, but when talking about religion, the past, the meaning of life, morals et cetera. you've got to be careful, or you're going to trigger me to go into Descartes mode. Or if I'm feeling a bit saucy I'll go into Socrates mode and keep asking you "Why?"
|
People that spout off on Descartes trips have ruined many of my philosophy courses. You can undercut really everything for whatever personal agenda you have with a simple Cartesian rant. Often I would be in a class discussing Spinoza or Kant but then we all have to go through remedial Descartes because some twat can't suspend the question of the validity of perception. And Cartesian philosophy isn't that great, as it ignores the Heideggerian point that the existence of the world is not resting upon perceptive corporeal but the relations in which the corporeal
represent in which we (our will) relates to. Pushing a Cartesian in front of a speeding bus should illustrate the point adequately. Perception is all one has and, while doubtable, they are certainly not ignorable. One needs to grow up and realize the utility of truth, just because a thing is doubtable does not mean that it isn't useful. The ramifications of aphilosophy are important to consider, unless you enjoy the idea of solipsistic catatonia.