wertion
1d ago
But you don’t have to accept that second thing, and it doesn’t follow from the first. Even if one grants value should be assigned to the most stable thing (I think that runs into a grounding problem) you still have to explain why value should be assigned AT ALL.
wertion
1d ago
This is a kind of phenomenology: I would recommend reading Husserl’s Crisis in the European Sciences, where he lays out a more developed version of a view like this.
The problems:
- the self having value is just assumed
- the existence of the outside world from its ability to change the ego doesn’t follow: outside world could be part of the ego.
- how do you know others have selves like the ego? If you’re following Descartes you u’re starting from an assumption the outside world can be made up or deceiving.
I don’t think the view is as novel as you supposed; and I don’t think it’s as airtight as Claude thinks.
The best version of this was offered by Husserl, whom I recommend you read.
I don’t agree with OP but I don’t think cotard’s is a good response to the cogito. Certainly, it can be thought: “I don’t exist,” or “there is no experience happening at this very moment,” but as beliefs, they are incredible, which is why cotard’s is regarded as a delusion.
More options
Context Copy link