How do I know I Exist?
- Thread starter Wintermute_
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ah, Theory of Knowledge! I kind of miss it - had to use my bf's account just to answer this.
Not to discount anyone's opinion, but I, personally, wouldn't use Descartes. "I think, therefore I am" implies that the speaker is presently aware of his capabilities to perceive himself and to form an intelligent response to his or her environment. If you are going about disproving your own awareness, it would be in direct conflict with the statement's predication and you would have to make the argument that no "reasonable" response is possible.
I.e. you are unaware of your existence because you cannot think.
I think your best bet would be to rely on the Empiricists. Adopt the school's assumption that the only reliable way to interpret reality is through your senses, the physical and sensory details that compose our living experiences. Since there is no empirical way to validate existence as an abstract concept, no human mind should be able to comrehend it, only its physical existence as a body. No soul -> no higher consciousness -> no capability to perceive the self.
Good luck! -Former TOK student, and IB graduate. =]
Not to discount anyone's opinion, but I, personally, wouldn't use Descartes. "I think, therefore I am" implies that the speaker is presently aware of his capabilities to perceive himself and to form an intelligent response to his or her environment. If you are going about disproving your own awareness, it would be in direct conflict with the statement's predication and you would have to make the argument that no "reasonable" response is possible.
I.e. you are unaware of your existence because you cannot think.
I think your best bet would be to rely on the Empiricists. Adopt the school's assumption that the only reliable way to interpret reality is through your senses, the physical and sensory details that compose our living experiences. Since there is no empirical way to validate existence as an abstract concept, no human mind should be able to comrehend it, only its physical existence as a body. No soul -> no higher consciousness -> no capability to perceive the self.
Good luck! -Former TOK student, and IB graduate. =]
There's an old saying. i think therefore I am. So what about a moment where you aren't thinking. Then you aren't existing/
Honestly, most philosophy professors I know would get a big kick out of that course of action. Just don't show up and be sure to have one of your friends say, "Who's that?" when the professor asks about you.Veloxe said:
A guy I know aced a philosophy final by, when being asked to prove that a chair placed on a desk in front of the class exists in a written exam, just wrote "It doesn't," turned in his blue book, then left.
Thanks! Lord knows I'll need it to survive Diploma... Very helpful concept! Disprove the self, disprove existence. Do tell though... was IB worth it? I long to know.Jarvaelison said:
Well, you could say that everything that makes you who you are is a dream, but that would also mean that everything you saw is a dream, as part of the false conciousness, leaving it to say that everything which is the nothing is you, and that makes you as...well, as the entire universe
I'm not good at this, I'll try this again
Suppose you're the character in a first person story then everything exists only as you see it therefore that makes you... God
I soppose you can say that your conciousness is a mere illusion of the void, but that makes you everything, again.
Fuck it, just do what I did and say this: existence is impossible, pretty easy say that the universal speed limit A.K.A. light speed breaks the law of the conservation of energy, let's say somebody is going at L (the maximum speed of movement) and activated a rocket, the energy pushing from that rocket would impact you, not making you go any faster and not going back to where it was. Q.E.D the laws of the universe are contradictory, and Q.E.D that the universe is impossible and Q.E.D. that it doesn't exist.
Hope it helps.
I'm not good at this, I'll try this again
Suppose you're the character in a first person story then everything exists only as you see it therefore that makes you... God
I soppose you can say that your conciousness is a mere illusion of the void, but that makes you everything, again.
Fuck it, just do what I did and say this: existence is impossible, pretty easy say that the universal speed limit A.K.A. light speed breaks the law of the conservation of energy, let's say somebody is going at L (the maximum speed of movement) and activated a rocket, the energy pushing from that rocket would impact you, not making you go any faster and not going back to where it was. Q.E.D the laws of the universe are contradictory, and Q.E.D that the universe is impossible and Q.E.D. that it doesn't exist.
Hope it helps.
Okay, for this question, you have to go about reasoning 'Objective Truths.' Since you are trying to prove the fact that you do not necessarily exist, the way you would go about that argument would be to present analogy. Say a man is walking down the street eating a banana. Another man, who happens to be a crack addict (or any other mind-altering drug addict) walks up to the first man and strikes up a conversation:
Druggy: What are you doing with that gun!?!
Man: What gun, I am eating a banana.
Druggy: No, that is most definitely a gun. Why are you pointing that in your mouth!?
Man: No sir, this isn't a gun, this is a banana.
Druggy: Someone call the police! This guy is trying to kill himself!
Given this unlikely scenario, who is correct? If you say the man eating the banana, how did you come to this conclusion? What if the man eating the banana was on drugs, and the Addict was merely trying to get the man to take the gun out of his mouth. You see, the way we perceive reality (perception of existence) is faulty, because all reality is is just a compilation of electrical signals stimulated to the brain. How do you know if you really exist, or if your whole life is just a conglomerate of memories some drug addict or RPG player thought up of while strung out on their respective addictive substances? And if someone pulls out that "I think, therefore I am" playing card, characters in books think all the time, it doesn't mean they exist.
Edit: I re-read this, and the explanation is a little bit murky at the end, so, Philosophy-mobile AWAAAYYYY: My argument would be analyzed as being based on characters in novels or movies or video games, and one would be right. The character, the flesh and blood and sword and shield and emotions and prerogatives, all in all, is not real. That is the truly unreal thing of this world: Imagination. If the equation supports all real numbers, what doesn't it support? Imaginary numbers. That really is the only place you can take refuge in this argument for. What if we are all just characters in someone's book? How could we know it if Frodo didn't? Now using this argument, people will throw out at you phrases such as "But Frodo is real, I see the letters right there on the page!" To counter this: Ask the question "Are you just letters on a page then?" It's foolproof!
Druggy: What are you doing with that gun!?!
Man: What gun, I am eating a banana.
Druggy: No, that is most definitely a gun. Why are you pointing that in your mouth!?
Man: No sir, this isn't a gun, this is a banana.
Druggy: Someone call the police! This guy is trying to kill himself!
Given this unlikely scenario, who is correct? If you say the man eating the banana, how did you come to this conclusion? What if the man eating the banana was on drugs, and the Addict was merely trying to get the man to take the gun out of his mouth. You see, the way we perceive reality (perception of existence) is faulty, because all reality is is just a compilation of electrical signals stimulated to the brain. How do you know if you really exist, or if your whole life is just a conglomerate of memories some drug addict or RPG player thought up of while strung out on their respective addictive substances? And if someone pulls out that "I think, therefore I am" playing card, characters in books think all the time, it doesn't mean they exist.
Edit: I re-read this, and the explanation is a little bit murky at the end, so, Philosophy-mobile AWAAAYYYY: My argument would be analyzed as being based on characters in novels or movies or video games, and one would be right. The character, the flesh and blood and sword and shield and emotions and prerogatives, all in all, is not real. That is the truly unreal thing of this world: Imagination. If the equation supports all real numbers, what doesn't it support? Imaginary numbers. That really is the only place you can take refuge in this argument for. What if we are all just characters in someone's book? How could we know it if Frodo didn't? Now using this argument, people will throw out at you phrases such as "But Frodo is real, I see the letters right there on the page!" To counter this: Ask the question "Are you just letters on a page then?" It's foolproof!
We have to assume that the universe is a closed system (in the thermodynamic sense) which encompasses all of reality, and that all human experience exists within this closed system we call the universe. Since you exist within the system you are observing, you can not profess knowledge outside of that system. Thus, to know you exist would require external knowledge of the system you exist in. To know whether or not you exist you would be required to be both outside and inside of the system in question. Naturally this in itself poses a recursion problem in which subsequent self-observations begin to nest with each concurrent observed system. The physical problem of existing across multiple closed systems not-withstanding, the cognitive problem with such a scenario proves to be even more difficult to work out, as an infinite number of recursive selves would be required to communicate active thought processes of observation across closed systems. Since only, at best, hypothetical methods for the transmission of thought across space-time exist, we can safely conclude that, based on our current level of science, we can not self-actualize our own existences.Wintermute_ said:
A lot of people will tell you it's not, and they might be right. However, I think it was the best thing I could have done for myself.
I came into college as a sophomore with 34 credits, got enough scholarships that I get paid every semester I attend, and find my classes here immensely easier as a result of the preperation IB gave me. I pulled As, Bs, and a C in high school; I have straight As at university.
Just study for those exams! It seems like a drag, but my diploma has saved me so much money in college expenses alone.
I came into college as a sophomore with 34 credits, got enough scholarships that I get paid every semester I attend, and find my classes here immensely easier as a result of the preperation IB gave me. I pulled As, Bs, and a C in high school; I have straight As at university.
Just study for those exams! It seems like a drag, but my diploma has saved me so much money in college expenses alone.
Use the "what if I'm really a humaniform robot created yesterday, programed with the memories and thought patterns of this person named [insert name here]? What if I'm just a memory gestalt of [insert name here] who died years ago, and my-...or rather his/her parents decided to recreate their child through robotics?" argument.
I take it your school favoured Philosophy over English classes then.Seeing as you spelt therefore wrong and you put is instead of in.That came off as vaguely insulting which I didn't really mean it to be sorry about that.Also I don't think having philosophy has a bigger part of the curriculum would be a particularly good thing as it would just take time away from over more piratical subjects like maths and English that sort of thing.King Toasty said:
Well let my lay down some points for you.
1. I think, therefore i am.
2. If i didn't exist, why would i worry about existing?
3. I care about what happens to me, if i didn't exist would i have self preservation?
Sooo yea this is what i got on the top of my head.
1. I think, therefore i am.
2. If i didn't exist, why would i worry about existing?
3. I care about what happens to me, if i didn't exist would i have self preservation?
Sooo yea this is what i got on the top of my head.
I banged my shin pretty hard on the coffee table and teared up. Does throbbing pain = existence? If so, I am totally here.
Veloxe said:
Bhahahahahaha, that's exactly what I thought. I mean, if he actually gives a presentation, then he's effecting the minds of other people, thus proving his existence. It's a catch-22. At least, I'm pretty sure that's what a catch-22 is.
If that fails, well......It might be a bit of a trick question. You could try arguing that, since our assumptions about the universe have been continually proven wrong throughout our incredibly short time on this planet, it's safe to assume that we don't actually KNOW anything about the universe and it's workings. Including, but not limited to, the nature of your own existence. Or non-existence. As the case may be.