Certainty: Adding to Descartes


Thinking that “I” do not exist, is proof that “thinking” exists. As well as thinking, order exists, the order being those thoughts. Those thoughts are either the world, or a representation of the world. So because those thoughts have order, and they reflect attributes in this world, (numbers, comprehensive order, ect) the world exists. Either as thought or as some other way. Either way, we know that existence exists, as thought or as material is to be disputed. But we can be sure that something with order exists.

Another way to describe it would be,

I can be certain that the world exists because it appears as a complex structure with patterns. Because of it’s complexity and apparent order of pieces, I can conclude from this, that it is not nothing. If I remove certain pieces I can change the order. Thus I can not change something that doesn’t exist. I can only change something that exists.

Anything not existing would not have patterns, pieces or interwoven parts, and would not have structure. Thus the world exists.

I can be certain that I exist because I am a great deal of order and complexity myself. Whatever that may mean. I have pieces and exist interconnected with this world of complexity and order. And I can change the order of this world. Thus because I am part of a whole, I exist just as that whole exists.

I understand that there are many different views regarding this issue. As well, most of these views are very ancient, and some such as Descarte’s rely on the existence of God. But Logical propositions and all the rules that have evolved in Philosophy simply limit man’s inherit natural intelligence. Following ancient rules regarding language and grammar are highly confining and limited. Thus because of these reasons, we have limited definitions when we want unlimited knowledge. Aristotle’s “unmoved mover” and reason, and logic in general. All of these things leaving out many pieces which keep our knowledge stifled and in hand cuffs. When man’s mind wants to venture into unlimited dimension.

So if the coming Philosophers are to be at all courageous and adventurous, they will abandon much of Philosophy altogether as historic remains of an ancient language. And in order to break free of these rules, man will let himself roam wild. And Philosophy will be a release from conformity and exclusion. No rules or confinement will be suggested. Otherwise we create more problems and fall back on ancient habits.

I understand that man will feel naked, without any footing or security. But this is how he is supposed to be. So I understand my argument might have ancient rules that forbid it to occur, but it is quite simple to understand. And anyone with a natural intelligence untouched by modernity, will think clear, that order, complexity, pieces, and attributes suggest “existence.” And anything “not existing” would not have any of these features, or it would neccesarily declare it’s existence.


Kevin Thomson