Discourse on method: Questions on Polo’s method of the abandonment of the limit

Journal article published in Miscelanea PolianaAfter studying a few authors of the 'System Philosophies' —the family of views that draw inspiration from Descartes— an aspiring young philosopher remarks: why are these people obsessed with the theory of knowledge instead of tackling the real issues? The youngster could have been wrong in his observation, yet all agree that the obsession for the method over thematic questions is the hallmark of the modern thinkers...with Kant marking the so-called critique/dogmatic divide… Is it any wonder then that they seem to be quickly running out of line? Consider the following example: after seeing a slithering cobra coiled up in a corner of your tent on waking up in the morning in a camping expedition would you first stop to think of whether the eyes are reliable enough to be taken on their face value? Would you not rather be more inclined to think that the matter in hand is weightier than a consideration of the conditions for the possibility of seeing it? What is more important: the disease causing organism under observation or the electron microscope the researcher is using to observe it? Why the obsession for method with the consequent relegation of the real topics to a distant second place? We know that thinking is important but should we stay the course of our inquiry just in the thought process? Would the following expose provide an answer to this puzzle?After studying a few authors of the 'System Philosophies' —the family of views that draw inspiration from Descartes— an aspiring young philosopher remarks: why are these people obsessed with the theory of knowledge instead of tackling the real issues? The youngster could have been wrong in his observation, yet all agree that the obsession for the method over thematic questions is the hallmark of the modern thinkers...with Kant marking the so-called critique/dogmatic divide… Is it any wonder then that they seem to be quickly running out of line? Consider the following example: after seeing a slithering cobra coiled up in a corner of your tent on waking up in the morning in a camping expedition would you first stop to think of whether the eyes are reliable enough to be taken on their face value? Would you not rather be more inclined to think that the matter in hand is weightier than a consideration of the conditions for the possibility of seeing it? What is more important: the disease causing organism under observation or the electron microscope the researcher is using to observe it? Why the obsession for method with the consequent relegation of the real topics to a distant second place? We know that thinking is important but should we stay the course of our inquiry just in the thought process? Would the following expose provide an answer to this puzzle