Z3BR0X

So, one of the most baffling questions has always been 'how do we know we exist?'

Many people instrantly turn to the quote 'i think therefore i am'
When you look at this, you can see how utterly rediculous it is.

For an argument to be air-tight, you need to start with no assumptions. But look at the begining of the argument "I think"

By saying "I" you are assuming yourself to exist already. This argument only works if you and the person you are 'arguing' with agree with the premise that we exist. However...if both agree with that, it is unlikely you would be having the disscussion in the first place.

So, i through down the Gauntlette, prove that we exist.
doesnt matter how, use A Priori, A Posteriori arguments, inductive, deductive arguments, lets here what you have.

Z3BR0X

Buzzby

You can't convince another person that you exist. You might be a figment of their imagination. This is called "solipsism", a philosophical position that can't be refuted. You can certainly prove to yourself that you exist. If you didn't, who is asking the question?

Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum is not an argument that you can use to prove your existence to anyone else, but it is self-evident to a person making the statement because he is capable of making the statement.

René Descartes walks into a bar. The bartender walks up to him and says, “Would you care for a drink?” Descartes replies, “I think not” and disappears.

__________________

Z3BR0X

Buzzby-- i think your choosing to ignore this part of my argument:



There is infact a very easy way around this problem. However im intrested to see if anybody can see it without help.

sterbo

whether or not this consciousness (a sense of one's personal or collective identity) constitutes "I" or "exist" by some definition is only of consequence if we or anything for that matter exist at all,
which is presumptive only, thereby rendering the question moot and as such the answer is simple -
We don't...
.

__________________

Z3BR0X

what would you say to the argument 'to think is to exist'

There is no assumption that there is an existence on the first place. Only uses the assumption that thought necessitates existence.....would you agree with this?


btw, forgive me if i appear slow, ive only been studying philosophy and ethics for a few months.

Richi

I don't think. I don't exist.

__________________

1tokeovertheline

I don't think I exist.

Richi

I know I don't exist.

Buzzby

I didn't ignore it. I answered it: there is no way to prove that "we" exist. You can only prove, to yourself, that you exist. If you didn't exist, there would be no one there asking the question.

There are no assumptions involved. If you are aware, then you must exist. Awareness implies the existence of a being who is aware. The hitch is that there is no way to prove your existence to anyone else (should they happen to exist). Cogito Ergo Sum. That's what Descartes meant by that statement.

sterbo

By definition -
Assume - to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate;
Imply - to recognize as existing by inference
inference - The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.

So ultimately, if assumptions are involved. How do I know if I? am aware?

By definition -
To know - to be aware of something as a fact or truth"
Aware, (or it's synonym) - Conscious - to emphasizes the recognition of something sensed or felt

And on and on and on.
Facts and truths only exist as we define them,
ergo "circular logic"

By definition -
Circular logic - an argument which is valid in the sense in which logicians use that term, yet provides no reason at all to believe its conclusion.

Analogous to the "Does God exist" conundrum, I may think I know but in fact I don't know... -

.