the more obvious candidate is cogito ergo sum, but descartes appraoch is wrong in epistemological terms. it might be argued that his method of doubt strips the world of complications in accord with the principle of economy of explanation, but i think is more rightly viewed as a huge and unnecessary assumption: that there is some subjective reality called 'I' that exists independently of the objective reality of the body and physical world.

further, it occurs to me that the truths you propose about the see-saw are conditional truths, rather like those in mathmatics and logic where they say:

if A>B and B>C then A>C.

A>C is a logical and rational truth, but conditional, like the position of one end of the see-saw is a condition of the position of the other end.

thus it's said that A>B and B>C are 'suffcient conditions' to infer that A>C, but A>C is not in itself an independent truth - only a logical relation.

Well actually, I don't exist - not yet, but that's another matter entirely.

I'm willing to concede - without knowing for certain, that you experience 'I' - and that Descartes experienced 'I' - but cannot concede that 'I' is an experience independent of, and therefore distinct from the physical body and physical world.

Therefore, logically, if the existence of the physical body and world can be doubted, such that existence itself does not stand as a rational and undeniable truth, then neither does 'I'.

By reverse, if 'I' exists then the phsical body and world exists and the plethora of rational truths we would ordinarily concede without knowing for certain fall within the scope of our reasoning.

So you're right, as Socrates, if he existed, said: i know that i know nothing.

Yeah, that's kind of like 'go to work having eaten an egg' or 'do you have milk?' - more correct, but way less catchy.

'Cogito ergo sum' - the whole of western philosophy caught it, but i don't like what Descartes was selling - religiously sensitive epistemology.

'Science is not a tool to be employed by ideology, but a rule for the conduct of human affairs.'

Too wordy!

Well I challenge you to touch your elbow with your nose!

I'm still trying...i'm sure it's possible...

mark black wrote:
No, you clearly don't understand, and my perspective is not compatible with yours. Furthermore, not all perspectives are equally valid. Yours is wrong for the reasons stated.

naemelss wrote:
I'm glad that I spotted 'this' egoic babble before reading the rest of your post. Saves me time and trouble..

[/quote]

wounded? no. i just think it fair that people know how you react when things don't go your way - that you are an ideologue as opposed to a philosopher, unwilling or unable to change your ideas when presented with contrary evidence. Rather, with a flurry of insults, you run away, as you will run away from jehocifer's challenge to justify this silence is truth ********!

jehocifer, nameless doesn't hold 'in silence, truth' as an opinion, and doesn't have a hope of ever understanding what it means. it's someone else's opinion he borrowed, like he borrowed the idea that 'how shall we know?' should be subordinate to 'how shall we live?' - he's pretending to intellectual ability he doesn't possess, but is in fact so egoistic himself, he's terrified of admitting that he doesn't know and/or doesn't understand. Thus, he cannot learn, and the cycle continues. good luck, but i doubt that you will coax a constructive or illuminating dialogue from nameless.

indeed, we shall see, and i share your hopes, because for all his sarcastic intransigence, nameless is not at all stupid.

nameless

another borrowed opinion.

mark.

jehocifer,

told you so.

mark.