Good afternoon all,

After the past couple of weeks spent learning more about Thales and Socrates, Descartes' was... different to say the least. I must admit I found the Meditations borderline confusing. I felt is if I were reading something written by an individual who was frustrated, at war with their own mind, frantic, but indeed intelligent. It seemed Descartes was frustrated with the lack of answers he had pertaining to existence, which was causing mental turmoil and he was frantic for answers.Descartes states in Meditation II that he is certain about his existence due to his ability to convince himself of certain ideas and beliefs, and since he has that ability then certainly hemustexist in some capacity. He also says that because he is always being deceived by a powerful being, this is further proof of existence. In other words, if "I" did not exist, the ability to convince one's self or to be convinced or deceived by any other higher power wouldn't not be possible. He eventually concludes that that the existence of "I" has to be true whenever he believes it to be so, or possiblebecausehe believes it to be so, as non-existent beings lack the ability to think. The remaining question was what the very nature of "I" actually was. Reading about Descartes definition provoked me to think more deeply into existence and reality and how the two are interconnected.

this is a discussion I need a reply to this