I see you point. It makes lots of sense, i thought you meant something else, like discartes was saying you have to think to exist, but anyway that must have been a misinterpretation on my part.

This part stands better ,alone

I have now edited my initial post and thereby my initial idea should be better acceptable.

What happens to the posts following your initial post ?:detective:

Assumeably nothing? I think k-amy is busy man, who should do more importaint things than come editing his post, just because I edit mine.

What happens to the posts following your initial post ?:detective:

Since HexHammer's only argument for his view that Descartes was wrong was, in any case, fallacious, and since he removed even that argument, what is there to comment on? An uninformed, and an unargued opinion?

HexHammer;126571 wrote:

Ignorence only becomes stupidity if it has a negative consequences.

And stupidity is a real problem, if you also have power ..just look at 9/11 -> Iraq War

I am ignorant of quantum mechanics. But that does not make me stupid. And it does not have negative consequences. How do you explain that?

[QUOTE=kennethamy] I am ignorant of quantum mechanics. But that does not make me stupid. And it does not have negative consequences. How do you explain that?

It has since moved from 'I think therefore I am' to 'I think therefore you are' and maybe beyond.

Maybe it is just a personal equation, beyond that it appears to have no real meaning. A bit outdated? maybe, but it does provoke some thought, only most of us have heard it too many times, doesn't help much in life , so wheres the value.

Maybe it is just a personal equation, beyond that it appears to have no real meaning. A bit outdated? maybe, but it does provoke some thought, only most of us have heard it too many times, doesn't help much in life , so wheres the value.

This is excatly what I tryed to convince k-a, to see, yet he exclusivly saw on my faulty equation, when it was the endgoal which was the point.
Imo it's why so many professionals gets things wrong, as they try to look too accurately at things, and are decepted because some factors may vary from their narrow teaching. Books can't cover all situational diversions.

It's purpose was to discover an absolute certainty, and therefore to have a foundation for knowledge. At least that was Descartes purpose. Those not interested in Descartes project will, of course, find no value in it. So what?

It's purpose was to discover an absolute certainty, and therefore to have a foundation for knowledge. At least that was Descartes purpose. Those not interested in Descartes project will, of course, find no value in it. So what?

I'm primarily trying to understand anothers thoughts here, but we each have our own aims. I can't say if they are getting it wrong, depends on what thier end goal is. I am interested in broadening my perspective through your eyes, even thus I am often missunderstood.
P.S. Kennethamys response to my post led me to believe that he did understand

Then why didn't he say so from the start, it seems a bit selfcontradicting.

I think you are right, K-A is a busy man. I also realise that he is far beyond me in terms of knowledge and understanding. I think K-A often designs his comments to cause us to think for ourselves, he already knows the answer, what would I really learn if he told me directly? Much more I think if I am led to think. See?