How do I know I Exist?

[conflictofinterests]

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...

You can't prove that YOU personally don't know that YOU personally don't exist. You could prove that you don't know you exist in this form. You could be a self-conscious program experiencing a virtual reality for all you know. But you can't prove that you don't know you exist. Something that comprises "you" must have asked that question in the first place, so you MUST exist. This project is asking you to do the impossible.

 

[conflictofinterests]

It's called solipsism, mate.

But that's the belief that nothing aside from you exists... That's almost the exact opposite of the posed problem...

 

[trebor 25]

.

 

[conflictofinterests]

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?

Get an official-looking piece of paper saying "[YOUR NAME] has an I.Q. of 3. He's too stupid to know that he exists."

Yes, an amount of thought is required to prove that oneself does exist... The capability comes about after about the age of 6, but few realize it until they take a philosophy class or actually look up for themselves the meaning behind "I think, therefore I am." I suppose if you were rendered mentally handicapped you would be unable to know or prove that you existed, because you lacked the logic capabilities to do so.

Maybe if you go epistemologically with skepticism and claim that knowledge itself is impossible you could get away with that, but "I think, therefore I am" is a pretty airtight argument, even for those guys.

 

[conflictofinterests]

Go for the ego. If the ego, therefor you, is but an illusion created by your brain/body to facilitate their (the cells that compose the brain/body) survival it would mean that you don't exist. in reality you are the emergent form of the messages sent from cell to cell and that the 'real you' is actually each individual cell, their role in the body and the messages they send.

But that still denotes a "real you." "You" is still objectively existent, if only as something different that what you first assumed.

 

[dvd_72]

You're trying to prove to others that you do not exist, rather than yourself, regardless of the actual assignment question. Descartes' much recited phrase 'Cogito Ergo Sum' only proves to the thinker that he exists. His problem is discerning whether everything external exists, as the senses are fallible - ala The Matrix.

Thus, you argue with the class. How do they know you exist? How can they trust their senses? How do they know you think? This path will require you to be quick witted and well versed in the musings of a plethora of famous philosophers.

The other option has been stated before. Don't turn up, and have a friend simple ask "Who?" when the roll is called. However, this really depends on your philosophy teacher as I've known those who'd fail you for such an action, or given you top marks.

This is the best answer to your question from the ones I've read.

"I think therefore I am" is pretty tough to invalidate, but that only works for proving to yourself that you exist. Because your senses can be fooled there is no way of knowing if everyone else actually exists or is just a trick of the mind, much like dreams are. They can say they think, so they know they exist, but there's no way YOU can know if they think.

To thier senses, you do not think, therefore you do not exist. Try working with that.

 

[conflictofinterests]

If you have the capacity to doubt your own existence then that is proof that you are self aware and therefore must exist. However this hyperbolic doubt does become circular because as soon as you convince yourself that you do exist then you can immediately claim that you are no longer totally self aware because you believe something with certainty.

Philosophy degree answer

Pleh, epistemological skepticism.

 

[conflictofinterests]

You're trying to prove to others that you do not exist, rather than yourself, regardless of the actual assignment question. Descartes' much recited phrase 'Cogito Ergo Sum' only proves to the thinker that he exists. His problem is discerning whether everything external exists, as the senses are fallible - ala The Matrix.

Thus, you argue with the class. How do they know you exist? How can they trust their senses? How do they know you think? This path will require you to be quick witted and well versed in the musings of a plethora of famous philosophers.

The other option has been stated before. Don't turn up, and have a friend simple ask "Who?" when the roll is called. However, this really depends on your philosophy teacher as I've known those who'd fail you for such an action, or given you top marks.

This is the best answer to your question from the ones I've read.

"I think therefore I am" is pretty tough to invalidate, but that only works for proving to yourself that you exist. Because your senses can be fooled there is no way of knowing if everyone else actually exists or is just a trick of the mind, much like dreams are. They can say they think, so they know they exist, but there's no way YOU can know if they think.

To thier senses, you do not think, therefore you do not exist. Try working with that.

Ooh, I love when philosophy gets close to insanity. I was just a figment of your imagination. You're on drugs, you're in a virtual reality, you're in a coma. x3

 

[CarlMin]

It's called solipsism, mate.

But that's the belief that nothing aside from you exists... That's almost the exact opposite of the posed problem...

I thought that was the problem

 

[Halceon]

The fact that you have to give a presentation, the fact that you're actually expected to have one, the fact that you're thinking about it or even the fact that somebody is thinking about you proves your existence. You can't, in any definite way, that you exist in the form that you believe you exist.
In short, even if you're a simulation or the listener's imagination, you exist at least as said simulation in the computer/brain.

 

[Weaver]

Read Descartes... he tackled this awhile ago

 

[Jonluw]

First you need to define existence, don't you?

I hear a lot of "But what if I'm just a character inside someone's dream", and the only answer I can give to that is: Then you do exist. Just not in the way you think. You exist as a figment of that persons imagination.

 

[idskusters]

I lie to the church
Wel not to the law but the church yes all the time

 

[funguy2121]

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...

OP, that's just cheating! So what is TOK?

All we have to go on is what our senses tell us and what scientific abilities we have discovered. The question is epistemological. Since there are precious few things that we can prove as an absolute, for just about every matter we have to go with what the most compelling evidence is. And the most compelling evidence tells us that we eat, sleep, wake, use the restroom, interact with others (at least indirectly through media) every day. Therefore, to the best ability that anyone can know, we DO exist. What evidence suggests otherwise?

I don't envy you in having to argue the opposite in class. From my perspective, that would be a lot harder.

 

[Lucie]

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...

Well, and this is probably already mentioned, there are beliefs that say that there is no true self. In Buddhism for example this is called Anatta [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta]. According to this teaching you're like, let me put it really simple, an onion. You peel away the different layers (the layers being: karma, experiences from this and past lives) and what will remain? Nothing, and that's what your true self is, nothing.

Hmm on second thought this isn't exactly "proving you don't know you exist", it's more "proving you know you don't exist" and there's quite a difference.

Also these are not my own beliefs. I have a close friend who is a firm supporter of these teachings and this is what she says about it on the subject of existence and the soul/self. But I might misinterpret her words, so if I voiced this teaching incorrectly I apologize in advance.

 

[Subbies]

Go for the ego. If the ego, therefor you, is but an illusion created by your brain/body to facilitate their (the cells that compose the brain/body) survival it would mean that you don't exist. in reality you are the emergent form of the messages sent from cell to cell and that the 'real you' is actually each individual cell, their role in the body and the messages they send.

But that still denotes a "real you." "You" is still objectively existent, if only as something different that what you first assumed.

Yes but if you recall the question, we are talking of the existence of the 'I', the individual ego. If it is merely an illusion, then we can not be sure of it's existence, therefor "I" cannot be sure that "I" exist.

 

[King Toasty]

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

He'd better have, though I doubt it. Probably heard, "I think therefor I am" though, everybody has. He just doesn't get what it means.

They should teach Philosophy better is schools, so we don't have people asking this stuff. D:<

Captcha: offeader elighten. Deeeeeeep.

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.

Surprisingly, it CAN be spelled either way. I'm Canadian, so I'm guessing that's the difference. And if you're going to criticize someone for their English, don't say, "piratical" subjects. I'm assuming you mean practical, and if you do, you're an idiot. Philosophy is a very practical subject, and I doubt you know what it is.

I agree you are right about the misspelling of practical I believe I auto corrected it to the wrong word by accident after I mistyped it.I do know what philosophy is and in my opinion being able to read,write and do at least simple maths trumps knowing about philosophy.The fact is a lot of people don't have these simple skills and without them they have very limited options for things like jobs and for instance learning about philosophy as it would be much harder to do that if you couldn't read or write.

The fact that I'm IN HIGH SCHOOL proves I can read, write and do math. I likely wouldn't be there if I couldn't, would I? It's not like they teach it at grade one- most of them wouldn't understand it. But mine starts at grade 11, by which time most people have matured enough to really GET philosophy. Or at least, the kids in my school. And it's an optional couse, so it's not really taking anything else up.

 

[dslatch]

Hmmm... one of the unanswerable questions.

 

[Drake_Dercon]

I can prove that I don't know I exist.

1. Human feeling of merit is based on others' opinions of them
2. You are aware you exist
3. You can only prove beyond any doubt that you exist, everyone else could be illusory
4. Nobody else can prove that I exist
5. My merit is based on others' opinions
6. If nobody can prove that I exist, how can I be sure?

Sure it's flawed when you think about it, but I didn't for long. I could probably come up with something better if I had more time.

I can also carry it forward to prove that I exist:

6. But everyone else can't be proven to exist
7. Therefore merit is illusory
8. Therefore merit cannot be trusted
9. Only my own senses and thoughts can be trusted
10. My senses all indicate that I exist, as does my capacity for thought
11. Therefore I must exist.

Just take the first one and forget the second and you should do fine.

 

[Continuity]

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...

Well first it depends on what you mean by "exist", do you mean in general or specifically that your existence is what you think it is I.e. Do you know that you exist as a human being on the planet earth etc.

If in general then you can't prove it because you do exist, the only contentious point is what is that existence exactly. For examPle you may have no corporeal existence, your entire existence may be an element of a computer simulation, or even somone elses imagination, however even then you have an existence, it's just qualitatively different to your notion of your own existance.