Who pissed me off? René goddamn Descartes. Why do I resolve it with chocolate? No reason in particular. I just like to eat some chocolate before going on a walk to think, and this is a ten-mile walk subject. What in Descartes pissed me off? You see, I’m taking a fifteen lessons in three weeks intense course on history of philosophy, and, while the philosophers before Descartes have had their... fallacies, and some of them have believed in god/s and in since disproven scientific models, their reasoning and logical process mirrored against what knowledge they had of the world back then, is something I can follow and conclude their reasoning to be sound. Not so with Descartes. Descartes’ foremost pièce de résistance is that the only thing we can be 100% sure of is that we’re thinking, which sounds like a sound and logical premise. However, the next thing he followed up with is, according to my teacher, that “perfection” can be imagined, therefore it exists, and it’s called God, therefore, God exists. Maybe my brain’s been sitting in the modern secular sauces for too long, but, to me, that is not sound logic. Since God, by it’s definition, and without taking a stand on whether it actually exists or not, is something perfect, beyond human comprehension, isn’t trying to prove it by a human idea of perfection a self-fulfilling prophecy? Furthermore, it shouldn’t be anywhere near the topmost almost-certainty to try and understand the narrator that creates us, which is a magnitude above us and probably facetious beyond our understanding, when we could create a narration ourselves, and therefore, demonstrate the omnipotent (God) by becoming omnipotent (to the people and narratives we create, and are thus a magnitude above). And that’s why, everyone, I’m mad at Descartes: he, from what I gather, didn’t even try to approach the problem this way around, a far more logical and more “absolutely certain” way.
dailybridgerton
origamiaround
pixelskylines
vaporwave
kianamaiart
yousharknotpass
discoholicmusic
izzy806
