>>184668138>he's so fucking stupid he couldn't even format out the paragraph breaks from the text he copied it from and the (explain)
Here, let me show you how it would have looked if you had actually typed it out properly (or even just gone through it and chopped out all the shit that woud instantly expose him);
In short, Descartes thought we could avoid error by confining ourselves to those thing that appear to us so clearly and distinctly that there is simply no room for error. In the end, Descartes (in agreement with a long tradition) thought we “clearly and distinctly” perceive the things we are directly aware of - without intermediary - the things that are, so to speak, present to the mind in person, not by proxy.
And what are these?
Well, first of all, I am aware of my own existence. This is summed up in Descartes famous phrase “I think, therefore I am” (= Cogito ergo sum.) This “cogito” is a famous notion. We will see it referred to time and again in Husserl and Sartre.
The “cogito” will always be a kind of funny case. As somewhat more typical cases of what Descartes has in mind, consider; the oar in the water.
In this case, the way things appear to me is not necessarily the way they really are.
I'd put a bounty on from what he plagurised if I could. Fucking retarded hunterfags; I'm sure you now have a basic understanding of Epiricism, but perhaps a basic understanding on English grammar and formatting will do you more good in the long run.
Funny thing is, Being and Nothingness have very little to do with Descartes and Empiricism outside of the background theory within the first few pages, and is much more about Existentialism and Free Will - so either you didn't read it and plaguried the essay, or you speedread it and missed the enitre point of the piece.