Either I exist, or my subconscious created this thread and all the people talking within it.
I don't care, as long as I get to play Paper Mario.
I don't care, as long as I get to play Paper Mario.
How do I know I Exist?
- Thread starter Wintermute_
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Prove you don't exist? That reminds me of a class I once took where the only question on the final exam was "Why?" The answer? "Why not?" I'm 100% serious.
Perhaps the thing to do is to not go off on a five page tangent about this or that, but rather whittle it down to a core idea that's opposite of what's been asked of you, keep the wording and concept simple, and run with it.
Perhaps the thing to do is to not go off on a five page tangent about this or that, but rather whittle it down to a core idea that's opposite of what's been asked of you, keep the wording and concept simple, and run with it.
Ahh Rene Descartes, my favorite philosopher. Though I'm always worried I spell his name wrong.King Toasty said:
You get an A for not just parroting his conclusion but also expounding on it in a simple way.
beyond the obvious (Descartes) i actually accidentally discovered something on this issue within objectivism (and it's one of the few good things within objectivism)
consciousness is a reactionary phenomenon. As she puts it, "to be conscious is to be conscious of something," that is consciousness itself cannot be distinguished or grasped except in relation to an independent reality. "It cannot be aware only of itself?there is no 'itself' until it is aware of something." Thus, Objectivism holds that the mind does not create reality, but rather, it is a means of discovering reality... simply put, you know you exist (or at least your consciousness does) because you react and interact with a reality (even if the reality is manufactured ie: the matrix, etc)
consciousness is a reactionary phenomenon. As she puts it, "to be conscious is to be conscious of something," that is consciousness itself cannot be distinguished or grasped except in relation to an independent reality. "It cannot be aware only of itself?there is no 'itself' until it is aware of something." Thus, Objectivism holds that the mind does not create reality, but rather, it is a means of discovering reality... simply put, you know you exist (or at least your consciousness does) because you react and interact with a reality (even if the reality is manufactured ie: the matrix, etc)
It's impossible for an individual to prove they don't exist to themselves - if they are thinking, they exist. The mere act of question your existence proves that SOMETHING IS THERE TO QUESTION ITS OWN EXISTENCE, thereby, solving the problem - if you can question your existence, there must be something doing the questioning.
It's a fools quest - Descartes proved that the ONLY THING you can be absolutely, 100%, never-ever-doubt-it, carve-it-in-stone, certain of is your own existence.
Whoever gave you that topic is either doing it as a joke or is just trolling you. You can't prove you don't exist to yourself. You can't. Unless you are insane.
It's a fools quest - Descartes proved that the ONLY THING you can be absolutely, 100%, never-ever-doubt-it, carve-it-in-stone, certain of is your own existence.
Whoever gave you that topic is either doing it as a joke or is just trolling you. You can't prove you don't exist to yourself. You can't. Unless you are insane.
You can't argue that a person doesn't exist. A lot of people don't understand the phrase, "I think, therefore I am" It implies that everyone else exists as well, because they think.
No, what you should argue is that what matters is that a person chose to be. A tree doesn't chose to grow, it just does. You have the power of choice, and should apply it.
No, what you should argue is that what matters is that a person chose to be. A tree doesn't chose to grow, it just does. You have the power of choice, and should apply it.
Well that's the whole POINT of Philosiphy silly, to make you feel bad!/I kid.I kid. The whole point of Philosiphy from my perspective is realising that when you think about things, you're a lot of times not going to know or even be capable of ever comprehending the answer, but you could at least try, y'know, for the heck of it.GeneralFungi said:
It?s all about the difference between being fairly sure about something and having no reason to suspect otherwise, versus being certain about it. Think about how we generally verify things and think about how that can?t be applied to the experience of being ourselves. Not to mention any verification must be viewed with our own senses which are known to be rather faulty. We can never separate ourselves from ourselves, an outside viewing is impossible.
I'm sorry, but I already took care of this in another thread, and my answer was basically that Descartes already did the work for me.
you could assume yo are a mere clone. Or that you are a homonculus (fake human).
You can also say the entire world is some kind of RPG or dream and you are just a "NPC" (Non-Player Character)
You can also say the entire world is some kind of RPG or dream and you are just a "NPC" (Non-Player Character)
Pfft. Philosophy is just a bunch of posuers spending way too much time analyzing questions that either have really obvious answers or that have no possibility of producing a definitive answer of any kind. Often both at the same time, actually.
If you want real answers to anything, you're looking for science. It's different in that it pays the fuck attention to the world around it and produces answers from that. Thus the answers it produces actually have a meaning outside of the head of the person that came up with them.
And yeah, I know science came from philosophy. That doesn't actually change anything I said though. Philosophy can be a fun distraction, and can even occasionally stumble onto something useful, but anyone who actually takes it seriously is not nearly as smart as they think they are.
If you want real answers to anything, you're looking for science. It's different in that it pays the fuck attention to the world around it and produces answers from that. Thus the answers it produces actually have a meaning outside of the head of the person that came up with them.
And yeah, I know science came from philosophy. That doesn't actually change anything I said though. Philosophy can be a fun distraction, and can even occasionally stumble onto something useful, but anyone who actually takes it seriously is not nearly as smart as they think they are.
continuity, dialog, cause and effect, ripple effect, and your parent's proly kept a pic of you from conception to this very day so you know you is you and not some random conspiracy theory of children look-alikes and hiveminds 
If someone says they don't believe they exist, a steel cap to the groin should not produce a reaction.
If this is for a debate, your odds are not good. The only way I could see going around this is commenting on how your actions seem to do nothing or noone notices.
If this is for a debate, your odds are not good. The only way I could see going around this is commenting on how your actions seem to do nothing or noone notices.
According to G. I. Gurdjieff, no of us exists objectively. We are confined within our subjective being and cannot (atleast not yet) break through and achieve objective consiciousness.
But then again I'm having a hard time believing unfalsifiable claims like this.
But then again I'm having a hard time believing unfalsifiable claims like this.
Each person is a god, each person, through their perceptions of what is create their own reality, their own world. However, as you are one, there are countless others who create their world and they preceive you differently as well. In other words, since none of them will see you the same way you see yourself, even though you preceive that you exist, the majority of existence says that you do not.