In all of my hating on Descartes, I found a quote that made me think, which surprised me." For it is obvious that whatever is true is something, and I have already demonstrated at some length that all I know clearly is true." At first I thought I would be able to go off on a field day tearing Descartes apart about how stupid and obvious this statement is and how this statement is obviously true when referring to Descartes because his conclusions and epiphanies are so simple and primative so they would be impossible to be false. But it is actually a well thought out analysis of what one clearly knows. Think about it, if you have the thought that a certain person is a nice truthful human being, and on every encounter this is the vibe that they gave off to you, but you don't know the person in actuality is a backstabbing liar, you obviously don't know the person is nice, you think the person is nice. But, there is a "know" about this fact. You know it is true that you think the person is nice. And this rule can be applied to any thought really. That is why that statement caught my eye. It's not the world's greatest discovery, but I got something out of it.

Descartes' Overall Brainbusters in Method 5

One thing I forgot to point out was how Descartes focuses on the human perception and what we percieve as true and not true in Meditation 5. "But once I percieved that there is a God, and also understood at the same time that everything else depend son him, and that he is not a deceiver, I then concluded that everything that I clearly and distinctly perceive is necessarily true." Well Rene, I guess if something is clearly true, then it makes sense that you would percieve it as clearly true. What a brain buster, he must have had to think real hard to come up with that one. "But I now know that I cannot be mistaken in matters I plainly understand." I guess this also would make sense. You know what else makes sense? The color red, is red! This is about the complexity of these brainbusting epiphanies that Descartes has come to. If I recall correction the title of this part is MEDITATION 5: Concerning the Essence of Material things, and Again Concerning God, That He Exists. So what I've concluded about the essence of a material is that a triangle has 3 angles that equals 180 degrees, and that God's existence is as much an essential property of God's as having three angles that add up to 180 degrees is an essential property of triangles. AKA since triangles have three angles, God exists. Sorry, that's not good enough for me. How about you analyze the three religions. Find out their origins, their icons, their holy books, and their histories, then critically analyze the credibility of each religion and tie that into the existence of God. That's how you will percieve whether God is real or not. And the other main point that I learned in this Meditation: I cannot be mistaken in matters I plainly understand. So if I know something's true, then it's true. A little obvious wouldn't you think? Rene Descartes has officially unimpressed me, hopefully John Locke will give me something to think about.