Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

SuperJay · 07-01-2004, 06:32 PM

First, let me address the question, can I prove I exist?

I think a far better argument can be found with a nuanced look at the statement "I do not exist", which is ultimately, a meaningless statement, in that by saying "I" you are ascribing existence to a self prior to denying it, and the statement is contradictory. To discuss one's unbeing, one must be. So the question of existence becomes less of a true/false thing, and more a necessity, as there is not an alternative.

In the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, there were something on the order of 30 tenses to take in account the strange causalities and timelines associated with time travel. Similarly, present-day English and most other languages limit us in philosophy. Language is based upon making assumptions before you say something and stating a clear subject. That aside, as any good philosopher will tell you, the weakness of any philosophical statement is the fact that you have to make an assumption to prove anything. For example, "thought exists". It's dang hard to say anything without making an assumption, because at the root of it, that is what all knowledge is based on. Without the assumption, for example, that gravity is a force, newtonian physics doesn't exist. Without the assumption that time exists, Einsteinian physics falls apart. Even the concept of "space" is technically an assumption. Proving the existence of the self reaches the limits of philosophy. We can only think about it in the limited terms of our own minds. So, it is inherently a circular argument, since the whole argument is based on the assumption that "I think".

I am still working on "can I prove you exist?".

07-01-2004, 06:32 PM	#25 (permalink)
SuperJay Tilted Location: Driving around upstate NY.	First, let me address the question, can I prove I exist? I think a far better argument can be found with a nuanced look at the statement "I do not exist", which is ultimately, a meaningless statement, in that by saying "I" you are ascribing existence to a self prior to denying it, and the statement is contradictory. To discuss one's unbeing, one must be. So the question of existence becomes less of a true/false thing, and more a necessity, as there is not an alternative. In the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, there were something on the order of 30 tenses to take in account the strange causalities and timelines associated with time travel. Similarly, present-day English and most other languages limit us in philosophy. Language is based upon making assumptions before you say something and stating a clear subject. That aside, as any good philosopher will tell you, the weakness of any philosophical statement is the fact that you have to make an assumption to prove anything. For example, "thought exists". It's dang hard to say anything without making an assumption, because at the root of it, that is what all knowledge is based on. Without the assumption, for example, that gravity is a force, newtonian physics doesn't exist. Without the assumption that time exists, Einsteinian physics falls apart. Even the concept of "space" is technically an assumption. Proving the existence of the self reaches the limits of philosophy. We can only think about it in the limited terms of our own minds. So, it is inherently a circular argument, since the whole argument is based on the assumption that "I think". I am still working on "can I prove you exist?". __________________ Round and round the shutter'd Square I stroll'd with the Devil's Arm in mine No sound but the scrape of his hoofs was there, And the ring of his laughter and mine.