"I think, therefore I am."
- Thread starter Griffstar
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Probably already been said but you might want to read 'Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy'. In his first meditation he argues even if he is being deceived about his own existence he cannot be decieved that he can comprehend the notion of the possibility of being deceived therefore he must exist if only as a thinking being. Personally I think the rest of his argument (concludes God exists) is somewhat weaker.Griffstar said:
All right, you nihilistic bastard, I'll play your game.Griffstar said:
Here's hoping there isn't a character limit.
I quote:
Existence exists - and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.
If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness; a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.
Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two - existence and consciousness - are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it.
To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was - no matter what his errors - the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.
Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
Man cannot survive except by gaining knowledge, and reason is his only means to gain it. Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided by his senses. The task of his senses is to give him the evidence of existence, but the task of identifying it belongs to his reason; his senses tell him only that something is, but what it is must be learned by his mind.
All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity, nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one's thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one's mind and evict oneself from the realm of reality.
Reality is that which exists; the unreal does not exist; the unreal is merely that negation of existence which is the content of a human consciousness when it attempts to abandon reason. Truth us the recognition of reality; reason, man's only means of knowledge, is his only standard of truth.
I am, therefore I'll think.
Thanks for warming me up for my essay.
If this is a dream of mine or yours or whoever I hope they wake up, it's turning into a nightmare for me
I don't. Instead, i take your thread-title as what it implies: Proving that i am.Griffstar said:
Proof: Something that doesn't exist, cannot have any consequences. Conversely: Consequences must happen because of something. What this actually means: There cannot be interactions, without there being interactions. Something cannot be, without being. Contradiction.
Since I am doing something, something that i interprete as "I" must exist. And this at minimum must be that which is done.
Actually, claiming that something does not exist, simply because of its location... is even more arrogant, because it makes existence a matter of personal preference. And similarily, claiming that chauvinism is "human nature" (which is nothing else than claiming that it is predetermined for every human) is also quite arrogant.
Isn't it great how selfish the selfdeclared "altruists" are?
"Bibo ergo sum" (if I got that right) - I drink therefore I amGriffstar said:
Does it matter if we exist? We couldn't percieve something unless it existed. Therefore everything you have ever thought about exists. Even fictional characters ect. as they exist in our imagination (by which I mean we know of them) and therefore we can say they exist as, if they didn't, then we wouldn't think about them.
For example:
Think of a brand new, fictional character who doesn't exist. And bam, he/she/it now exists. Why? Because you made it exist by the mere act of thinking about it. Thats not to say you could walk down the street and meet said character, but it still exists in your head/memories/thoughts. So even if this world turns out to be some kind of Matrix-esque VR then it, and by extension we, still exist. Just not perhaps as physical/solid beings.
Anyway the answer is moot as this is the reality we live in, therefore if there is some hidden truth that proves that we do not in fact exist, then we are A) Doomed to be an existential paradox and B) Be forced to accept that we "don't exist" and just carry on with our lives. If we are just computer programs or the imaginings of some being then it really doesn't matter because there is nothing we can do about it. Probably. I mean we could just bust out of the beings ear or something but somehow, I don't think that is going to happen.
You can't prove a self-evident fact to someone not willing to accept it. I exist. There's no reason to believe I don't. If you don't believe it at this point, no logical arguement will convince you.
You missed the final sentences I typed. "Then you confirm our existence as a dream," or, "We are a dream. We exist as a dream. Therefore we exist."Zechnophobe said:
Proving whether someone exists outside of one's sentience hasn't been done. Yet look at the quotation in my previous statement. "Prove to me..." is an imperative. An imperative sentence (or a command) can only be given from one being to another, otherwise the purpose of a command is pointless-- a will must be had in order to be commanded. A will must exist to be commanded. Those things with wills? Beings.
To ask people whether the exist is to imply their existence in the first place. For an argument, it's analytically answerable.
Edit 1: I forgot a t.
That quote always reminds me of my favorite nerdy joke.
Renee Descartes walks into a bar. The bartender asks if he wants his usual, and Descartes repies, "no, I think not", and promptly disappears.
To answer your question, I have thoughts, and are aware of them. My mind, thus, exists, and is the only thing that I can be absolutely sure of.
Renee Descartes walks into a bar. The bartender asks if he wants his usual, and Descartes repies, "no, I think not", and promptly disappears.
To answer your question, I have thoughts, and are aware of them. My mind, thus, exists, and is the only thing that I can be absolutely sure of.
It was your final sentence I was addressing actually. 'existing as a dream' is a contradiction, at least for most definitions of Exist. Just because you imagine something, doesn't means it exists.Blank Verse said:
