You are confusing Descartes with his philosophy. Marx once said that he was not a marxist. The man is more than his philosophy. But the Philosophy lives on and its idealism morphs into something else. No longer method but a truth in itself. Something of the same happens with Hobbes. His philosophy is born of his exposure to an awful war. (Cromwell’s savagery in Ireland is much underplayed), But we than have Hume and in reaction the idealism of Kant, then Hegel, and then German atheism, made flesh by the followers of Marx and in reaction, by Hitler and, I dare say by the “Christian” Democracy of true EU.
Respectfully....I would say that I am making that mistake. The author is.
The author said that Descartes was uncertain.
Descartes was not uncertain, and his philosophy on the face of it leads to great certainty.
However...as it functions in the history of philosophy, some of the author’s points are correct. Descartes’ philosophy is clearly a turning point. But the statement, “Descartes was uncertain” is simply false.
The opposite is true. Descartes was SUPREMELY certain. He may well have been wrong, but he was not uncertain.
And Descartes was not very insightful in that he didn’t see how his starting point was going to unleash havoc in the world....precisely b/c peopel would make the mistake the author has apparently made. They stopped reading after Descartes says that the starting point where we must start is the Cogito. If you stop reading, it seems like that is where he ends, but it isn’t. He keeps going ...and going...and going...and going....and insisting every step of the way that his conclusions follow inexorably from what he just said in the previous section.
In any event...to be continued. :)
I meant to say, of course, that I am NOT making that mistake.....ba ha ha.
I guess this is how misunderstandings happen when one philosophisizes.
At least Rene wasn’t posting on Free Republic.....and like me hitting post without proofreading....