Comparing Nietzsche's And Merleau-Ponty

Descartes proof, which states that since he can think he must exist, is flawed in the sense that it follows the assumption that some things are absolute. As seen in both Nietzsche’s and Merleau-Ponty’s books, nothing is absolute. They stated that everything was in perspective, and that humanity needed to study what is closer to them, whether it was psychology or phenomenology. The only things Descartes figured out were that he had a reason to doubt and that math and science could help him understand the world. Despite this, he thought he had proven he existed, God existed, and that the physical world existed. Descartes’ proof was flawed in the sense that it followed absolutes instead of perspectives as Merleau-Ponty’s and Nietzsche’s philosophies did.
In Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes said he doubted everything in search for certain, or absolute, truth. The first thing he found that he could
Descartes set about doubting almost everything in order to find truth, but he didn’t doubt enough to understand a world from a perspective other than his own. Nietzsche was the first to suggest that philosophers before him could be wrong in their belief that there could be an absolute truth. Merleau-Ponty lived in a world where science had developed a lot since Descartes. Art and philosophy had also developed, philosophy from Nietzsche’s works, which caused even more of Descartes’ flaws to be brought forth. With modern science at his disposal, Merleau-Ponty pointed out that just about every school of thought was changing; thus Descartes’ analytic geometry would not translate to the physical world. Descartes was right about a few rudimentary things – his need to doubt, and math and science as a way to understand the universe – but he was mistaken in thinking he could find absolute truth through either of these