Descartes, of course, is one of the most famous skeptics, and his "dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum",
has been rightly challenged by other philosophers, because the "I" in his reasoning could just as well be the effect of thinking than the reverse, that the "I" is the result of the experience of thinking. The idea of "no self" predates Descartes by 2000 years. The "I" that supposedly exists could be explained by reductionism. Other philosophers who lived after Descartes, pointed these problems with his thinking.
Descartes self-doubting was only a starting point in all of this.
Call it reductio ad absurdum if you must, but I suppose anything could be doubted, including obviously whether skepticism the epistemological tool.
Edit: of course this is basic Philosophy 101, but I remember being skeptical of Descartes' starting point when I took Philosophy 101 over 40 years ago.. a blast from the past for me, I suppose.
Nevertheless, I also suppose that's it's as good a starting point as it was about 400 years ago during Descartes' lifetime.
Those "no-selfs" were some asiatic cosmosophs (and some european/american LaborRats with their mystical monism/materialism).
I know, that my I is the only archimedical point I have; but not an abstract I - what would lead to an empty solipsism -, but a vital I: "I am I and my condition." (GOMEZ DAVILA): I am I - and I am thrown towards totality, towards the telos.
Poll
