Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 09:57:00 +0100
From: Paul Mathias <pmat-AT-ext.jussieu.fr>
Subject: Re: PLC: sets


Patsloane-AT-aol.com wrote:

> Well, I don't actually think of it, though I remember Descartes thinking of
> it. I would assume this means Descartes actually exists, but I don't.  Luck of
> the draw, and I don't begrudge him the fruits of his creative (or self-
> creative) thought.
>
> hypothetically,
>
> pat

No no no no. "Descartes" did *not* think of it. It is a "thing" that "thinks"
(of) it. Actually not even "of" it, since the "thing" has/is no other reality
than the actual thought it has of being thinking. In other words, the "subject"
of that thought, after the first Meditation, and the annihilation of all existing
things (doubt), is a "metaphysical" subject or subjectivity as thought and
"the-time-it-takes-to-think".
Tricky, undoubtedly, though really fascinating. But the main thing is: don't try
and *imagine* it, don't try and imagine "situations" where and when this could
happen. This is neither an empirical nor a psychological process.
Now of course, commonsense would object:
"What the heck could a metaphysical process be? ain't that contradictory?"
"Sure thing buddy, replies the Sorbonass, but hey =97 this is France, y'know..."

Humphrey Dumphrey





     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---