Potential Replacement of Descarte's Proposition?

[Eodnhoj7]

No

And why no?

Occurence observes the full range of experience, thought does not. Occurence is of a greater depth.

People are constantly trying to rephrase Descartes, and it's always boring and pointless. Descartessaid what he said, and if he said what you said instead, it wouldn't be half as influential or interesting. Just say what you want to say and don't try to replace or reword Descartes. Leave him alone

I am not rephrasing him, I am replacing him.

[Flannel Jesus]

I am not rephrasing him, I am replacing him.

Alright. Have fun with that. Seems silly to me but you do you.

[Age]

Thought can be doubted by pure feeling. Pure feeling can be doubted by thought. Doubting occurence makes doubt an occurence.

And, 'occurrence' is a 'perception', and, 'perceptions' can be False and/or Wrong.

So, AGAIN, what I POINTED OUT, PREVIOUSLY, STILL STANDS.

But, considering you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to what I POINTED OUT, PREVIOUSLY, you are, STILL, 'none the wiser', here.

Perception is rooted in occurence for it just occurs.

And, for 'occurrence' to occur, there HAS TO BE Existence, FIRST.

And, BECAUSE there is 'thought', of which 'I' am AWARE OF, BECAUSE 'I' EXIST, then BECAUSE 'I think, therefore I AM', literally, just means BECAUSE 'I' AM AWARE OF 'thought', itself, therefore 'I EXIST'.

Which, OBVIOUSLY, can NOT be REFUTED.

Existence is FIRST. 'I' EXIST, is IRREFUTABLE.

Awareness is SECOND. 'I' AM AWARE, 'thought', or 'thinking' PROVES AWARENESS IRREFUTABLE.

That there IS 'thought', and 'I' 'existing', IS IRREFUTABLE.

Now, HOW to DECIPHER WHETHER ALL or if ANY OF the ARISING, or OCCURRING, 'thoughts' are True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, or NOT, I have ALREADY EXPLAINED.

But, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one would like to DISCUSS FURTHER, then 'I' am more than WILLING, READY, and WANTING TO.

Oh, and by the way, 'occurrence' can only come AFTER. As OBVIOUSLY Existence, and Awareness, has to come or already be HERE, PRIOR.