>sensory information has the potential to be misleading or

>>9291174
Did you read it? If you did you would know he didn't actually believe that, but was presenting all of the scenarios that could possibly lead to genuine epistemological skepticism and attempted to refute them

You don't use logic to get an idea of God. You just find the idea in your own mind. It's like doing maths and realizing you have the idea of infinity without having ever perceived anything infinite, and without understanding how you could have invented this idea yourself.
What you say is legit regarding Descartes' proof of God, that is actual not valid. I think most people admit it. The argument of the dream is correctly discarded by Descartes, but the argument of the evil demon is not. - However, it's not relevant regarding the cogito itself, which does not rely of any specific idea.

>>9291235
>which does not rely of any specific idea

elaborate

>>9291274
I just meant that it's pure intuition. Despite the word "therefore", logic is not involved.

>>9291302
Ah

thank you

>>9291235
>>9291302
So certainty is based on intuitive non-material truths?

>>9291339
Well it is one, but I don't think it's "based" on anything. Every other truth is based on it.
I think of it as a substraction. Preconceived ideas ? Discarded. Senses ? Get rid of it. Mathematics, logic, innate ideas ? Hell no, they could be fallacious. Surely there's nothing left now. Oh wait, there's me doubting = cogito

>>9291174
You cannot understand the non-material by means of the material.

The entire world is composed of consciousness. It is just a thought in the infinite sea of pure, metamorphic intelligence. Just as a dream is real to the dreamer, the waking world is real to the unwise.

Now go outside.

>>9291174
>but what if your reason is inherently corrupted or manipulated towards falsehood


How else would you have reached this conclusion without the use of reason? lol

The most cloying sophistry - or it's highest application, really depends on who is doing what - is using logic to examine logic. Then we can see clearly where and what the limits of this faculty are.

File: 3055851_1351400710707.47res_434_274.jpg (81KB, 434x274px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 434x274px

>>9291426
Are you suggesting that the skeptics are hypocrites, and that the whole cogito argument is a waste of time because reason alone can debunk skepticism?

>>9291524
Well that is your summation now, isn't it?

>>9291174
Kant raped him. Dont read outdated thinkers who are.objectively wrong

>>9291174
>So is this how the "u can't know nuffin" movement started?

there were plenty of skeptics before descartes. check out sextus empiricus (though even he wasn't the first)