Jim Rosinski wrote:

Actually I didn't mean it that way at all. If my words seemed

Oh! Then I'm sorry. I interpreted your remark as: "Hey, you dumb, you're
not even recognizing that you're inconsitent yourself" or something to
that effect. After all, this is usenet...

patronizing, it was only out of respect for the presumption (based on
some trivial grammar errors and your return address) that English is
not your first language.

Actually, it's not even my second, and I know that I'm far from perfect.
But then, judging by usenet articles, I have my doubts whether many
native English speakers score much better. :-(
(Before somebody jumps at me: It's the same here, sadly.)

As to the substance of your post, maybe I'm dense but I don't see how
"cogito, ergo sum" explains why self-inconsistency is acceptable.

Sometimes I allow my thoughts to leap, and maybe the analogy is poor.
The humanists: I doubt everything, but I need an undoubtable starting
point. Me: There are absolutely no absolutes. (More exactly, I said: The
truth is, there is no truth.) You need to accept an axiom as starting
point to solve both problems. If you think about it, that cogito thing
is an axiom, too.

Stefan