Rethinking philosophy - Clarification

N [After reading the post Rethinking Philosophy]:mm, the old cogito ergo sum
Me: *nod*
N: I think that the gist of it wasn't that there was a "point" to deceiving one, but that someone (the self) had to be experiencing the deception.
Me: again, I haven't read the whole thing just an excerpt and that was my understanding
but I take your point
N: "I think (feel, perceive) therefore I am."
Me: *nod* my understanding based on the excerpt was that the fact that you have thoughts capable of being deceived implies that you exist.
N: yes :-)
Me: in other words if everything your senses tell you could be completely invalid and false, you still exist to be deceived
N: it says nothing about whether anything outside of oneself exists.
Me: right
which I think I got across
well I hope anyway
maybe I didn't
N: Ah, I didn't really get that from the journal.
Me: but that's the difference the McInerny makes between "Classical" and "Modern" philosophy
N: what is?
Me: that in Classical philosophy reality exists outside of individual thought
and in Modern philosophy reality is based on the individual's perception of it
well that's what he says anyway
N: it can be approached that way, certainly
but I believe that there are modern philosophers that based their ideas on the existence of an objective reality (even if one's perception of it is always subjective in some degree).
Me: certainly - there are exceptions to any classification
I think this was intended to be a broad sweeping statement to separate theology from philosophy
N: :-)
Me: my counter point to that is if philosophy is based on the divisions that McInerny outlines then there needs to be a serious reconsideration of the foundations of both "camps" in order to validate them given our current understanding of the universe
N: I'm wondering how widespread this classification system actually is.
Me: *shrug* I have no idea
I only have McInerny to go on right now but it gives me a basis to pontificate from