How do I know I Exist?

[Kpt._Rob]

I'm sorry if this is insulting your intelligence, but you have heard of Rene Descartes, right?

Rene Descartes' "proof" of his existence isn't accepted in all philosophical schools. I, for one, don't accept it.

OT: If I were you OP, I would try to look into Buddhist philosophy, or Eastern philosophy in general for that matter. The core revelation made by Siddhartha Guatama (the Buddha) was the idea of anatman. "An" means no, and Atman was the idea of an ultimate self which you see in the Hindu traditions. So anatman means no self.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

I believe the theory goes:

If God, the gods, or reality is benevolent, then he/they/it would not attempt to fool an individual. If that is true, and if I am capable of thought, then the fact that I am aware of myself means that I exist as I perceive myself to exist, or in a manner that is approximate to how I perceive myself.

However, if God, the gods, or the universe is cruel, then my thoughts might be a lie - a dream or a story or a cruel joke. In that case, I might not exist, or if I exist, I may not exist as I believe I exist - my reality might be a dream created for me or created by my own mind.

Since I only have my own sense to tell me, and senses lie (or can be fooled) I have no proof that I exist.

It's been a while since I had this class - but this is pretty much what I remember.

That's how it starts, then it twists around to eventually come to the "I think, therefore I am conclusion."

Maybe look at Plato's Cave and work from that?

 

[BioHazardMan]

Nothing can be proven, prove that you DO exist.

 

[Trolldor]

I'm sorry if this is insulting your intelligence, but you have heard of Rene Descartes, right?

Yeah, great stuff, and that is the problem. Thats a solid idea Descartes had! and I have to PROVE that I DON'T know I exist for the presentation. How the fuck?

You can't.
Proof of non-existance is non-existant. There is nothing tangible you could present. Any "proof" of non-existence is the absence of evidence and presence.

 

[Wintermute_]

It's been a while since I had this class - but this is pretty much what I remember.

You had TOK? well, thanks, this helps, but then the context of faith in God? the nature of reality (does it have a will/ grand design?) is brought into question, hence, my argument is not sound, for it would be based on belief. I can use this, but its iffy...

 

[spartan231490]

Ask yourself this question, and then answer.

I have to deliver a presentation that has me "prove that I DON'T know I exist" and can simply not figure out how to go about doing this. Its pretty damn hard to prove you don't know something like that!
Wonder if anyone here knows about TOK...

Tell your teacher/prof that you can't prove a negative and tell him to screw off?
I know I exist because I exist. I can interact with the outside world and what I do has an effect, therefore I exist.

 

[Loviathan]

The Cartesian proof only can only prove the existence of thought, He conceded (well not really, he used it as a logical mechanism that it may be the case) that the rest of his perception could be imaginary or even created purely to fool him.

This philosophy operates on the assumption that something has to exist to think. In fact, It seems that all philosophy operates under that assumption. It is one that I make aswell, which is interesting. We have no proof that something that does not exist must intrinsically have no sense of self. In fact we may even be proof that it does.

 

[GeneralFungi]

I'm in grade 9 (young, I know) And yikes, will we really be learning this kind of thing? It seems to me more like an infinite loop of questions that get you nowhere. The more you find out, the more questions you have, thus the more things you need to find out.

In the end, the only thing you learn is that you are even more ignorant then you thought you were.

 

[SeaCalMaster]

I'm sorry if this is insulting your intelligence, but you have heard of Rene Descartes, right?

Yeah, great stuff, and that is the problem. Thats a solid idea Descartes had! and I have to PROVE that I DON'T know I exist for the presentation. How the fuck?

Ah. In that case, I would use the Clinton strategy: make a big deal about the definitions of certain key words (probably "know," "I," and "exist," and maybe even "prove" if you're really into it) and, if possible, find definitions that work for you.

Captcha: totelpf factual. I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Ask yourself this question, and then answer.

I have to deliver a presentation that has me "prove that I DON'T know I exist" and can simply not figure out how to go about doing this. Its pretty damn hard to prove you don't know something like that!

Take the Pedant's Path. Who is 'I'? What is 'knowing'? What is 'existance'? Try to answer those 3 questions comprehensively and conclusively... then attack all underlying assumptions in your answers. What you're looking for is in there.

 

[Aur0ra145]

I'm sorry if this is insulting your intelligence, but you have heard of Rene Descartes, right?

I think, Therefore I am.

Anyways. Yeah. I totally exist.

 

[jyork89]

It's obvious I exist.
However, I cannot tell if I exist in the form I believe I exist in. Or for that matter, whether anyone else exists. But if I am dreaming etc and that dream is my definition of reality then everyone in that dream would by my definition exist even if they were just figments of my imagination because my imagination would be my reality and I would be god and I just went cross eyed...

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

To demonstrate a proof of this sort, I'd go with logic similar to this:

Any means I have of knowing I exist are internal to myself. I can observe the world through my various senses, and I can judge this information accordingly. Proof of the existence of the world around me is predicated then upon my existence. This implies that I only provably exist if and only if I can also prove the world exists. Since this introduces an impossible task, it remains uncertain if I actually exist or not.

 

[Sightless Wisdom]

I doubt therefor I think; I think therefor I am. Or some similar sentiment once spoken by Rene Descartes. It's one the best for "proving" your own existence, though it's not absolute as nothing really can be absolute when you question fundamental things like existence. You either have to accept that you do exist, or be considered insane.

 

[Electrohydra]

Ask yourself this question, and then answer.

I have to deliver a presentation that has me "prove that I DON'T know I exist" and can simply not figure out how to go about doing this. Its pretty damn hard to prove you don't know something like that!
Wonder if anyone here knows about TOK...

Three tips for you...

First, GET OUT OF IB WHILE YOU CAN!

Assuming that doesn't work, we get two possibilities:
1-Your TOK teacher is just a normal boring teacher and you'd best just google your question and say random stuff you find there.
2-Your TOK teacher is cool and actually cares about you simply thinking about the question and saying it's impossible to complete the task he/she has given you is a perfectly valid answer (if you explain why, AKA Descarte's idea or even better your own if you can)

Also, to those simply quoting Desartes, the teachers wants the OP to prove the opposite of what he said.

And one more thing, for those who say you might simply be a computer program or something like that, I say you still exist, if only as movement of electrons. You may not have a physical body or free will, but you still exist.

My 2 cents

 

[Biosophilogical]

Ask yourself this question, and then answer.

I have to deliver a presentation that has me "prove that I DON'T know I exist" and can simply not figure out how to go about doing this. Its pretty damn hard to prove you don't know something like that!
Wonder if anyone here knows about TOK...

So you are asking us to give you exactly what you don't need. You are trying to prove you don't know you exist, and you are asking us to prove we do know we exist?

OT: To be honest, I don't know that I exist in any real sense. I mean, all my neural processes could be part of a super-intelligent creature's imagination. All my thoughts, feelings, self-awareness, etc could, in theory, be someone imagining a conscious being (me) that isn't aware that it is imaginary. What I mean is, the being that is being imagined (me again), may be imagined in such a way that, even though I'm just a construct of a being that is aware that I am its contruct, the nature of the construct that is me, is that I am not aware that I am a constructed aspect of the 'greater being's' psychological whole.

 

[Aetera]

All you can be sure of is that your thought process, and thus your thoughts, exist. Nothing else can be made absolutely sure of. Cogito ergo sum.

 

[EllieRyan]

I'd suggest you try to work out what it means to exist. Work out what the properties of existence are. Then determine whether or not you meet the qualifications.

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

Pinch yourself.

If you feel pain, you're good.