Re: D1. Separate computer science ontology from philosophical ontology
Avril, Rob, and Philippe,
AS> Descartes wanted to have something that is completely sure,
> something where he could totally rely on.
I certainly don't object to assuming that I exist. But what I
don't like is Descartes's insincerity. Never for an instant
did he ever doubt that he existed, and his so called "proof"
is a useless piece of sophistry. His existence is far more
reliable than his foolish attempt to prove it. I agree with
Peirce and Whitehead that Descartes led western philosophy
on a 300 year wild goose chase.
AS> I gather that (correct me if I'm wrong) because John is
> against pursuing anything like PPO, he will not even agree
> that something exists.
I am certainly not against pursuing philosophy, and I agree
that a lot of things exist, including you, me, and most of the
people we know. (I said "most" because I don't want to exclude
the possibility that some of us may have imaginary friends.)
RF> A basis in reason, doubting all dogma, was Descartes greatest
> philosophical contribution, and clearly a great advance over
> what went before for many purposes.
Descartes was not doubting "dogma". He was a fraud:
1. He started by pretending to doubt the undoubtable.
2. He ended with the dogma that God really does exist.
I have no quarrel with people who either do or do not
believe in God. But I don't like frauds.
John