Why didn't Descartes doubt reason?

Why didn't Descartes doubt reason?

Because he was frickin DUMB

Because he needed something to get him right back into his Christian prejudices.

I guess it just makes sense to use reason but I can't quite explain why

If he did, he wouldn't have doubted in the first place.

He does though, he just seemingly forgot to doubt it in his account of the light of nature.
I haven't read anything other than his meditations so I'm not sure how he responded to the cartesian circle problem, but maybe he claimed the light of nature was something other than reason? That seems like a very Catholic approach to take and it would get him out of his circle.

The truest level of doubt is a paranoid psychotic break desu.

The project of doubting reason is self-defeating, as Hume showed (though he mistakenly took Descartes to have entertained such doubt).

Descartes does doubt the functioning of one's own reasoning faculties, e.g. in performing arithmetic incorrectly and having a systematic blind spot to one's own errors.

cartesian circle isn't a problem, if he has the idea that God exists something had to give him that idea
it's no more circular reasoning than to suppose chairs exist because you've seen one before

It's true by necessity. I've never seen anybody who understood the concept of logic argue against logic.

>It's true by necessity
no it isn't

Plenty of logicians criticized specific uses of logic. Criticizing logic as such is usually a transformation of what logic means because there's logic in or behind the criticism. I suppose it's the same with reason.

Maybe a critique of language and its ability to be proof of anything is better than doubting reason as such. Even irrationalists mean something precise by reason when they attack it. This makes post-nietzscheans such as Foucault, Derrida and Deleuze capable of attacking reason and truth and at the same time considering their attack a necessary step on the way to reason and truth. Of course there is some hesitation there, but ultimately all of them have stated something similar about this.

Oh, and it works for Nietzsche as well obviously.

I think you misunderstand the problem.
He thinks that he can know God exists because of the light of nature, and he can trust the light of nature because God exists.
It's a circular problem of the criterion that every logical system will run into in one form or another if it tries to establish it's authority based on its own logic.

I can't stand that cunt and I haven't even read a paragraph by him

doubt is a form of reason

Reason is cause and effect, there is no reason to doubt cause and effect.

Cause and effect are self evidently, self consistently, naturally, unavoidably true.

Any possible nature would unavoidably be beholden to the law of cause and effect.

(except a 'fake/simulated' nature (like how at least the screen of a video game can display what appears to be appearances of physicality breaking the laws of cause and effect): which he did to some degree touch upon. But even if the universe as a simulation, that would not absolutely negate the possibility of cause and effect from existing, and cause and effect being used in minds)

Because he defined himself as a thinking thing. That's what dualist monism means, dipshit.

He fucking DID. That's the point of the evil demon part.

You should read Descartes and Leibniz

>Cause and effect
>self evident
>natural
>unavoidable
Go read Hume before you try to participate in these kinds of discussion

Because he didn't think to. He was the first real modernist, so he could only go so far.

What is this pre-Humean nonsense

Hume: Cause and effect doesnt exist
You: I believe you because...
Me: for you to even understand his arguments is proof of cause and effect existing, language (itself), the speaking, and understanding is proof of cause and effect existing.

why did he take the sum as given?
t. heidegger

Not with reason, anyway

You can use logic to map where logic might fail. This is commonly used in debates on God and metaphysics.