Did67 wrote:I think there is a time when there are only two solutions:
- believe a point that's all
The majority of humanity believes after all in the existence of a god; for me, a stupidity, a very bad answer (especially when it leads where it sometimes leads!) to a very good question: where do we come from? (to which I do not have an answer, but I prefer to steal an agonizing non-response than a false anesthetic answer - and I am polite)
- not to beleive
Looking for "scientific evidence" to believe my always seemed to be the negation of believing - and another sign of human weakness. He wants to believe, but finally he doubts. So he would like "proofs"! Luckily, many gurus, surfing on his ignorance, provides him with a pseudo-scientific gibberish, with false proofs. And here he is diving! So as soon as there is a "proof", I'm more suspicious! Something fishy !
As you will have understood, on such a sensitive and personal subject, all this is only my conviction. The affirmation of an "idea".
extract from "La Philo"
In the Discourse on Method, Descartes operates a separation between practical life, domain of action, and science, the realm of truth.
In practical life, resolution must be the watchword. Descartes gives the example of the man lost in a forest: if he does not resolve to walk upright, but on the contrary hesitates and constantly returns on his steps, he is unlikely to find his way. Practical life is content with the probable, the probable, an ersatz truth. We must act, under pain of paralysis. The moral philosophy of Descartes is satisfied with the approximate, the important thing is the action, no matter the method.
In science, because it is the search for truth, man must attain absolute truths. These truths can only be found using a method. Descartes proposes to reject everything he believes to be true, to check whether something is resistant to doubt.