> Russell's (wasnt it Bernard Williams'?) criticism of the cogito is just to
> say that Descartes added non certainties to his certainty. The assumption of
> an 'I' to recieve the 'Thoughts'. Nevertheless, with regards to the hardcore
> 'realist', this isnt going to be much comfort. As much as possible he wants
> the world to be as it seems to be, so he side steps problems about
> perception and subjectivity and very much wants to avoid any introspection
> whatsoever. But, one would think that the existance of a self at every
> space/time crosshair of 'here' by 'now' was most likely one 'reality' he
> could swallow about introspection. But, sure enough, the 'I' is assumed. It
> isnt certain. The realist should start banging his drum again.
Well, okay, since I have a little time, I'll do so.
The realist does *not* want the world to be "as it seems to be". No,
the realist focuses on the fact that a wholly independent world "out
there" exists and existed before he did. In fact, it is the subjectivists
who start calling their own unassailable introspections "reality".
The only real problems about perception and subjectivity are scientific
ones, having to do with the way that brains create models of (outside)
reality and also of themselves in it, and also---often to the point of
diminishing returns---models of themselves thinking about their
> But subjectivity is certain.
Since the only thing that is certain is "I think therefore I am" or
"...I am thinking", it's not a stretch to say that no worthwhile
knowledge is certain. All knowledge is conjectural. To be fair,
you should google for "Pan Critical Rationalism" if you have not
already read up on it.