“...all the things which can fall under human knowledge are interconnected in the same way...”
First thing to point out is that D warns that his third rule above “suppos[es] some order even among objects that have no natural order of precedence”—though (presumably) we ought to suppose such order as we follow that rule. Fine. But the question has to be asked: if there is no natural order, then what guides us in our supposing of an order of thought? This is much like the earlier blog where I wondered about the coherence of a standard we are supposed to apply—first we have to evaluate the standard itself to see whether we ought to apply it, much as a carpenter examines his/her tools, or a football analyst decides what should have happened in the Super Bowl before considering what to make of what actually did happen.
The more I think about D’s rationalism the more I am impressed by the importance of a fully functional and autonomous reason—a central rational faculty. I guess I didn’t realize how meta it is.
“...there can be nothing too remote to be reached in the end or too well hidden to be discovered.”
Peirce is optimistic this same way about the progress of inquiry, yet he builds his idea around a ‘community’ of inquirers. I’m not sure the two are all that far apart—Peirce is Descartes, plus wiki’s, more or less.
Posts
Timothy Chow on the NF consistency proof and Lean
16 hours ago
5 comments:
"first we have to evaluate the standard itself to see whether we ought to apply it, much as a carpenter examines his/her tools, or a football analyst decides what should have happened in the Super Bowl before considering what to make of what actually did happen."
i totally agree with you on what your saying. In part II Descartes got all his tools together (knowledge from others) he put it all together and proved his theories out on his own.
i agree with what you're saying. it's always best to walk a journey alone than with a group. you always see the clearer picture when guided by yourself. you see things that others may not see.
"...our judgements would not have been as pure or as clearer if we had the full use of our reason from the moment of our birth and if we had always been guided by it alone"
“...there can be nothing too remote to be reached in the end or too well hidden to be discovered.”
I think this is interesting. You can figure out anything if you really try hard to find the answer. There are many solutions to everything, surely you can eventually figure out one.
“...there can be nothing too remote to be reached in the end or too well hidden to be discovered.”
i know for most thing if we try hard enough we can eventually figure the answer, but not for everything. At least in my life time, i doubt that someone can answer the question about " does god actually exist?" even Decartes, himself, can't give me the answer for sure.
so there are many question out there that can't not be explained.
“...there can be nothing too remote to be reached in the end or too well hidden to be discovered.”
Everything has an end. Everything that cannot be explained will eventually be explained, but the only factors that contribute to its reveal are a persons dedication to the matter and most importantly time. Thats how I feel about that quote. Its true I mean just a hundred years ago we couldn't get to the moon, but look what was once "too remote" is now in reach unfortunately that feat has gone on longer than the original men and women who pondered it.
Post a Comment