Can you doubt you exist

@nameless,

OK, when discussing philosophical concepts, you begin to leave the "realm" of philosophy by trying to make these concepts so organized.

Quote:

"Everything exists.
Existence is context.
Everything exists in context."
Period.

The truth is that organization is completely arbitrary, and it is left to science, mathematics, and other subjects to organize things. Because anything is possible, what I have said is AN idea of the infinite possible ideas.

For instance, I agree with you, nameless, on your existence "theory", but I will not constrain myself to it, I am open to all ideas. So when you stress it as if you were a Christian and it were from the bible, it turns me off ONLY for the reason that you believe it is 100% true. (If this is not what you meant by

Quote:

Period.

then please explain what you did mean.) Nothing is 100% true, just as no event has a 100% chance of occurring. Yes you could apply that concept recursively, but it does not invalidate it. It can however, invalidate anything else, including everything I am saying. It is a chaotic ideology that reflects everything!

Now that is [almost] ultimate "scope". One of the problems with you disagreeing with me was that, (and this is not necessarily your fault) you and I have different definitions of "scope". The "scope" I mention only represents basically how much you agree with the ideology in the previous paragraph.

One idea I thought of rose from the fact (with the same reasons you currently offer) that everything exists. If everything has a certain attribute, then what would be the purpose of having that attribute? Doesn't that also mean that nothing is also. You can therefore conclude that when all things are, then nothing are as well, right? Because the purpose (of whichever attribute) would be gone, we must re-define the attribute. This is why some things do not exist. (one way to help in understand my term of "scope": If one thought from an [almost] ultimate level on the "scale of awareness", they could conclude that even with the reasons I have provided for some things existing and some not existing, that everything and nothing exist also. All being reasonably true.)

You said:

Quote:

You cannot refute it.

This is always an ignorant statement whether I did or did not refute it.

Quote:

(and probably not to yourself either)

Well, depends on how green the grass is.

Here is some "inter-scope" logic:

I agree with what you say, and I believe you in fact agree with me on what I say. You claim everything exists. Well ok, then lets suppose the idea (merely an idea, independent of its validity) of it not being true that everything exists falls under the set of 'everything'. So when you say it is true everything exists, that should mean that it is also untrue...

(in better terms: the idea of the being true of the being false of everything existing is within the set of 'everything'. Which means that idea exists, which also means that it is true, the being false of everything exists. A.K.A It is false that everything exists.)
No I am not saying that in general it is false everything exists, it just means you should also consider it if you believe so strongly everything exists.

Basically:
It is due to the fact there are some things in the set of everything that contradict it, just as there are the possibilities in the set of 'anything' that contradict the ideology of anything is possible.

1 Reply

@Luthor phil,

Luthor;48559 wrote:

OK, when discussing philosophical concepts, you begin to leave the "realm" of philosophy by trying to make these concepts so organized.

Really? What do you think philosophy is? Something antithetical to trimming the fat from a flabby hypothesis and turning it into a rather indisputable truth. Lets see if you can refute it directly, or if you use the 'blah, blah, blah obfuscation technique.

Quote:

The truth is that organization is completely arbitrary, and it is left to science, mathematics, and other subjects to organize things. Because anything is possible, what I have said is AN idea of the infinite possible ideas.

Ok, so far "blah, blah, blah..." I'm waiting for you to back up that "blah..." with solid evidence/reason/logic, unless that's too ... 'organized' for you. I'd respond to this in itself as there are so many assumptions from youPerspective that are far from anyone's 'truth' but your own. That can be demonstrated, but off topic, so I'll just read on and wait for your simple evidence in refutation of my uncluttered offering that will teach me and replace my little theory with yours. Still waiting. Shouldn't be hard, eh.. ok... waiting...

Quote:

For instance, I agree with you, nameless, on your existence "theory", but I will not constrain myself to it, I am open to all ideas. So when you stress it as if you were a Christian and it were from the bible, it turns me off ONLY for the reason that you believe it is 100% true. (If this is not what you meant by then please explain what you did mean.) Nothing is 100% true, just as no event has a 100% chance of occurring. Yes you could apply that concept recursively, but it does not invalidate it. It can however, invalidate anything else, including everything I am saying. It is a chaotic ideology that reflects everything!

Much nonsense, and still "blah, blah, blah...", no evidence.

Quote:

Now that is [almost] ultimate "scope". One of the problems with you disagreeing with me was that, (and this is not necessarily your fault) you and I have different definitions of "scope". The "scope" I mention only represents basically how much you agree with the ideology in the previous paragraph.

Quote:

One idea I thought of rose from the fact (with the same reasons you currently offer) that everything exists. If everything has a certain attribute, then what would be the purpose of having that attribute? Doesn't that also mean that nothing is also. You can therefore conclude that when all things are, then nothing are as well, right? Because the purpose (of whichever attribute) would be gone, we must re-define the attribute. This is why some things do not exist. (one way to help in understand my term of "scope": If one thought from an [almost] ultimate level on the "scale of awareness", they could conclude that even with the reasons I have provided for some things existing and some not existing, that everything and nothing exist also. All being reasonably true.)

More nonsense, more "blah..." with nothing to refute my theory. Still waiting. Refute it with evidence or get off the pot. Your 'attributes', and 'purposes' are all "blah, blah..."' You have, as yet, refuted nothing. Is 'organization' that repulsive to you that you are unable to back up your attack with anything as simple and elegant as what I offered? I'd be willing to even accept a sloppy refutal, but you're going to have to give me something better than this...

Quote:

You said: You cannot refute it.

This is always an ignorant statement whether I did or did not refute it.

How boring. Theres the attack but nothing in evidence, your honor! No simple evidence in refutation. You know? I'm beginning to despair your ability to back up your assertions.
I am certainly ignorant about so much, and it would be so easy for you to educate me with one little example that refutes what I said. You cannot. Just step down with some grace, no one else has been able to refute it yet.

Quote:

Well, depends on how green the grass is.

No, that depends on your offer of evidence. If I snipped everything thqt you wrote that doesn't support your attack, there'd be nothing left.

Quote:

Here is some "inter-scope" logic:

I agree with what you say, and I believe you in fact agree with me on what I say. You claim everything exists. Well ok, then lets suppose the idea (merely an idea, independent of its validity) of it not being true that everything exists falls under the set of 'everything'. So when you say it is true everything exists, that should mean that it is also untrue...

Nonsense, untrue and off topic, still no refutative evidence...

Quote:

(in better terms: the idea of the being true of the being false of everything existing is within the set of 'everything'. Which means that idea exists, which also means that it is true, the being false of everything exists. A.K.A It is false that everything exists.)

Although mildly amusing, what you offer as 'logic' is meaningless trash. Still (poor) "blah, blah..."!

Quote:

No I am not saying that in general it is false everything exists, it just means you should also consider it if you believe so strongly everything exists.

I don't believe it at all. Belief is not necessary. I have thought and evidence. You seem to have no evidence to support your 'thoughts'.
I'll be willing to accept a better theory the very moment that you refute this one. I've done it all my life and it's a simple thing for me to dump an old 'lie' in favor of a better one. Until then, it remains the 'best' theory extant. Have at it.

Quote:

Basically:
It is due to the fact there are some things in the set of everything that contradict it,

No, there are not.

Quote:

just as there are the possibilities in the set of 'anything' that contradict the ideology of anything is possible.

No there aren't, and I'm still waiting for your evidence; show (demonstrate, provide, diagram, offer, manifest...) something that doesn't exist in context, anything will do, anything... waiting... But, until then, save your breath with the "blah, blah...", I'm waiting for your evidence to display my ignorance to the world! Go ahead! But unless you can 'get it up', more of the same will continue to fail.

0 Replies

@Jessica phil,

First, the fact you think I use obfuscation at all makes me mad. If you cannot understand what I say, then don't go blaming it on silly terms like obfuscation.

Second, what on earth kind of evidence are you looking for? You cannot "prove" anything in philosophy, and I certainly have not seen you back anything up with evidence. It is completely in our heads. I honestly agree with you on almost everything, excluding you disagreeing with me, (which is about 90% of what you write to me).

Quote:

blah, blah, blah

Quote:

"blah, blah, blah..."

Quote:

"blah..."

Quote:

and still "blah, blah, blah..."

Quote:

more "blah..."

Quote:

all "blah, blah..."'

Quote:

Still (poor) "blah, blah..."!

Quote:

save your breath with the "blah, blah..."

Are these all referring to obfuscation and nonsense?? I know what I mean when I write. I did refute that everything exists with some common logic, or according to you my

Quote:

meaningless trash

How do you not consider this logic? If this is not logic then please give me an example of what is. If you do consider this logic then I am not sure why I am arguing with someone who calls logic meaningless trash.

You refer to my 'attack' a couple times,

Quote:

back up your attack

Quote:

Theres the attack but nothing in evidence

Quote:

that doesn't support your attack

Why do you consider it to be this way? I was in no state of mind of attacking you. Things don't get settled this way.

Yes it is true that everything in context exists. I would not be a fool and disagree with that, but what I do disagree with is everything being context. Everything has context, but is not necessarily context. If everything was just context then a lot of things would not make sense, and communication would be a lot harder then what it is. How would children learn? The conventionally true statement "The grass is green." requires much more than context to understand. It requires visual input, possible touch input (for distinguishing grass from other things such as paper), and the rest of the senses.

I said "It is due to the fact there are some things in the set of everything that contradict [everything exists]," and you replied:

Quote:

No, there are not.

Yes, there are, and I demonstrated it in my so-called meaningless trash.

I also said "just as there are the possibilities in the set of 'anything' that contradict the ideology of anything is possible." which you again replied:

Quote:

No there aren't

Think about it, if anything is possible, then it is possible for "anything to be possible" to be false. How does that not contradict the original ideology?

If you do not understand something I am saying then feel free to ask me, instead of claiming it is just a filler.

1 Reply

@Luthor phil,

Luthor;48600 wrote:

First, the fact you think I use obfuscation at all makes me mad. If you cannot understand what I say, then don't go blaming it on silly terms like obfuscation.

I asked for evidence and you presented nothing but a load of really tortured 'logic' that presented no evidence to refute my statement. All the twisted and tortured 'logic' was 'obfuscation; smoke and mirrors rather than any real evidence. I made a simple statement that can, if possible, be refuted by a simple example to the contrary. So far, nothing.

Quote:

Second, what on earth kind of evidence are you looking for?

Let me simplify for you. I said that everything exists (in context). You didn't like the statement and "attacked" it. By 'attack' here, I refer to a 'critique' or 'refutal'.
All you need to offer is evidence of something that doesn't exist in order to refute my statement. Thats all.
I offered a statement that is supported every time that some fails to refute.
Just produce something that doesn't exist. Thats all you have to do.

Quote:

You cannot "prove" anything in philosophy, and I certainly have not seen you back anything up with evidence.

As I said, 'you' are my evidence in support.

Quote:

If you do consider this logic then I am not sure why I am arguing with someone who calls logic meaningless trash.

I do not call 'logic' meaningless trash, necessarily, but the tortured 'logic' that you offered. I didn't get into specifics due to the topic and getting all tangential.
One example of which I speak is;

Quote:

You claim everything exists. Well ok, then lets suppose the idea (merely an idea, independent of its validity) of it not being true that everything exists falls under the set of 'everything'. So when you say it is true everything exists, that should mean that it is also untrue...

Nope, that would be a 'subset'.
'Ideas' exist.
An 'idea' that 'not everything exists', exists!
Everything exists!

Quote:

I was in no state of mind of attacking you. Things don't get settled this way.

How could you attack me? All that is available are these words. And I already spoke to this.

Quote:

Yes it is true that everything in context exists.

Then all this has been moot? Huh? You agree yet argue?

Quote:

I would not be a fool and disagree with that,

Not necessarily so! Many that disagree aren't 'fools', and sometimes 'fools' speak wisdom...

Quote:

but what I do disagree with is everything being context.

So, this is the crux of your disagreement? Would that we could have struck right here at the heart. You simply ask for clarification, rather than argue, and clarification is forthcomming, usually forestalling the 'argument'. Such is understanding.
See how 'organization' can be a fruitful feature of a discussion such as this? 'Organization' isn't a 'bad' thing... Cutting through the 'fat', like my definition of existence.
Ok...

Quote:

Everything has context, but is not necessarily context. If everything was just context then a lot of things would not make sense, and communication would be a lot harder then what it is.

No existence without context. I find no difference between the two.
If the 'truth' upsets the applecart of comfort and tradition, I say none too soon! Is it not 'best' for our 'word-view' to update along with understanding? Or 'best' to restrict understanding to accomodate our comfortable (already known) lies?

Quote:

How would children learn? The conventionally true statement "The grass is green." requires much more than context to understand.

Without 'context' there would be nothing to discuss.
A much 'truer' statement that can't be refuted as easily as your's is;
"The grass appears green to me, Here!, Now!"
There is no "the grass is green" other than as describing the grass that you are looking at under the conditions and context of the moment of description. The "grass appears brown during the fall/winter in some places". Understand?
(See E-Prime)
Perspective = context.

Quote:

It requires visual input, possible touch input (for distinguishing grass from other things such as paper), and the rest of the senses.

It requires distinguishing 'this' from 'that' to be perceived.
White lettering on a white page, can not exist as it cannot be perceived. A white page on a white background cannot be perceived, doesnt exist. The page, in context; the writing, in context, exist. If it can be perceived, it exists. It is this 'context' that is synonymous with existence. One cannot be, without the 'other'.
For a complete definition of 'you', one must, necessarily, include; your unvironment, society, food that you eat, thoughts that you think, dreams that you dream, air that you breathe, atmosphere and planet of which you are a feature, galaxy.. universe, at the moment of perception. The entire universe is the context that is necessary for a complete definition of who you are. Without such 'context', there can be no you or I. Everything exists in its context.

Quote:

I said "It is due to the fact there are some things in the set of everything that contradict [everything exists],"

By everything exists as the 'set', the notion of 'something' that doesn't exist, is just another subset, as I have demonstrated.

Quote:

...my so-called meaningless trash.

I apologise for using such inflamatory and dramatic language. It certainly doesn't add anything fruitful to the conversation. If I had a 'choice' I just wouldn't say things like that.. probably..
OK? Peace?

Quote:

I also said "just as there are the possibilities in the set of 'anything' that contradict the ideology of anything is possible."

How have we slid into an "anything is possible" conversation.
(Is a 'round square' possible?)
How has 'anything is possible' been wrung from "everything exists".
Possibilities exist, in context.
Everything that is 'possible', already exists.
Everything exists.

Quote:

Think about it, if anything is possible, then it is possible for "anything to be possible" to be false. How does that not contradict the original ideology?

All 'thoughts' exist. Everything exists; any argument, any refutation, and other disagreements are subsets within the complete set of 'everything exisit'. disagreement exists. All unique Perspectives exist and the 'realities' that they perceive. Saying/thinking that nothing exists, exists.
Beginning to understand?

Quote:

If you do not understand something I am saying then feel free to ask me, instead of claiming it is just a filler.

It makes sense that you first understand what I'm talking about (as it is that to which you respond) before attempting refuttal/rebuttal. When you understand, accurately, what I am talking about, then it behooves me to attempt to understand youPerspective if you are attempting to refute/correct my statement.

Again, I apologise for the 'dramatic hyperbole'. I get like that sometimes.
The 'point' remains valid, though.
Are we understood yet?
*__-

1 Reply

@nameless,

Quote:

Beginning to understand?

I have always understood these things. You and I have very similar perspectives, you just don't happen to think so. For example, which I have mentioned before, when you state,

Quote:

"Everything exists.
Existence is context.
Everything exists in context."

I am not claiming it to be untrue. That is probably why you cannot find any "evidence" in my words since I am not disagreeing with it. What I am disagreeing with: Because everything exists, and anything is possible (if you disagree with anything being possible please let me know) the following should also all be equally true: Nothing exists, only some things exist, existence itself doesn't exist (completely contradictory, however its possibility of being true exists, yes?) I have explained why before and could further explain them but am not willing anymore and do not find it worth it.

Quote:

How have we slid into an "anything is possible" conversation.
How has 'anything is possible' been wrung from "everything exists".

The two statements, "Anything is possible", and "Everything exists" both support each other. This is why I agree with you and why you should also agree with me.

Quote:

(Is a 'round square' possible?)

Possible what? to exist? If everything exists, then it should be possible.
The round square argument could go on forever, I would rather not argue about this. Philosophical debate goes nowhere. :brickwall:

Quote:

As I said, 'you' are my evidence in support.

I am your evidence? This means that I am evidence because I cannot refute your assertions? If it is considered evidence then you are just as much evidence to me as I am to you.

I for one do not think that this will end in agreement.

0 Replies

@Jessica phil,

Luthor;48741 wrote:

I am not claiming it to be untrue. That is probably why you cannot find any "evidence" in my words since I am not disagreeing with it. What I am disagreeing with: Because everything exists, and anything is possible (if you disagree with anything being possible please let me know)

I do not agree with your 'anything is possible'. All 'possibilities' are actualities right Now! All that can possibly exist, does. Everything exists! Now! *__-
It is a shining example, bye the bye, of the careful and thoughtful application of Occam's razor!

(So your following 'therefores' are not (necessarily yet) valid as they proceed from a questionable premise, which is, perhaps, why they are redolent of paradox. Paradox is a sign of 'error'.)

Quote:

the following should also all be equally true: Nothing exists, only some things exist, existence itself doesn't exist (completely contradictory, however its possibility of being true exists, yes?) I have explained why before and could further explain them but am not willing anymore and do not find it worth it.

I don't think so, considering the faulty premise.

Quote:

The two statements, "Anything is possible", and "Everything exists" both support each other. This is why I agree with you and why you should also agree with me.

All 'possibilities' exist, Now!
I would agree if I could! But my offering needs no support, it's support is the lack of any refutation. (No offense to your statement; it is a persistent meme...)
My head starts to hurt when I try to draw parallels between the two statements; one being some nebulous someday sort of thing, and the other is Here! Now!
(But, if you can eat the fruit from 'that' tree, I get the rabbit! *__-)

Quote:

I am your evidence? This means that I am evidence because I cannot refute your assertions?

Yes, thats how it works. I cannot ever conclusively 'prove' the universal validity of something like this. I can only offer the statement for critical thought and thus possible refutation. The first valid refutation (and there cannot, possibly, ever be), will dismantle the 'theory' immediately. That is how your failure to (yet) provide any refutation adds you to the critical thought examination pool (and perhaps subsequent criticism) of the profered item under examination. As the pool grows, and continues to fail, tangentially, the 'light of universality' grows ever brighter. But no matter how bright and long it has withstood the tests of time, ine small 'exception' is all that is necessary to pop the (now revealed as) lying baloon!
'Truth' cannot be 'falsified'.

Quote:

I for one do not think that this will end in agreement.

Thats not whats important, Luthor.
First, we have had a bit of a rocky start in our discussion. There was small commonality, from which understanding can grow. We put in some energy, thunk a bit, asked a question, bumped a shins and finally achieved a, perhaps, larger area of commonality, from which future understandings can grow.
I don't think that we need to agree/support/adopt each other's Perspective's, just to understand them.
Personally, I find that if I understand any Perspective, sufficiently, I cannot possibly argue with it; in it's context it is a feature of 'true reality' (as are all Perspectives), how can I argue with that? Thats what I find every time I walk a mile in 'someone's' moccasins. But, I'm wandering...

Thank you for the conversation, if you have any questions, please, feel free...
Peace

1 Reply

@nameless,

What splits our arguments into two is that you stand from the "complete set" of "Everything exists," while I stand in what I consider to be the complete set of "Anything is Possible". Either can be used to argue the other, as you have:

Quote:

All 'possibilities' are actualities right Now! All that can possibly exist, does. Everything exists! Now!

and Anything being possible argues the validity of anything, your theory being under 'my' set of anything, could also be false.

Quote:

My head starts to hurt when I try to draw parallels between the two statements

I agree and have avoided doing so, although we could go deeper, only for the point of working our minds and none other.

One of my favorite, and was unlucky enough to not have said it first:

Quote:

I don't think that we need to agree/support/adopt each other's Perspective's, just to understand them.

It is true. I understand you, but not necessarily agree with you. I could side with you and support your ideas simply because I understand your reasoning, however I do not see it as the only reasoning, and was hoping you would see that too.

With the mutual agreement (of your quote above), I ask;
Do you understand me?

1 Reply

@Luthor phil,

Luthor;48960 wrote:

What splits our arguments into two is that you stand from the "complete set" of "Everything exists," while I stand in what I consider to be the complete set of "Anything is Possible".

If I can translate your; "Anything is Possible" to mean;
All 'possibilities' are actualities right Now! All that can possibly exist, does. Everything exists! Now!,
then we are saying the same thing.
But your illogic of the claiming of things not existing (not possible) gives the lie to 'anything is possible', the impossible is not possible, and even that illogical argument 'exists', like everything else exists. This is our area of divergence and where I see that your argument fails; exists (like everything else), but fails as soon as you say that something, anything, does not exist;
You said; "Because everything exists, and anything is possible... the following should also all be equally true: Nothing exists, only some things exist, existence itself doesn't exist"
Even though poor logic/logically untrue, your concepts still exist.
You 'cannot' rationally/logically/thoughtfully agree that everything exists and at the same time argue for the nonexistence of something.

Quote:

I could side with you and support your ideas simply because I understand your reasoning, however I do not see it as the only reasoning,

My personal reasoning is irrelevent. I trimmed all falsehood and Perspective and that which remains is true (unless disproven, which is not possible).
The fact remains, no matter how you get there, the truth remains that "everything exists"! Period.
However you find this 'truth' is fine ("all roads lead to Rome!").
If you truly understood what I offer, you would find that all argument necessarily fails.
Truth is indisputable/irrefutable!

0 Replies

@Jessica phil,

You can doubt you exist but how would I know?

I can doubt I exist but how would you know?

Thus communication is of utmost importance in determining existence. The brain is the tool. I can doubt when I'm awake but I cannot doubt when I am asleep...Wait... the brain is still there when I am asleep so therefore it must mean that a certain part of the brain is asleep and not the whole brain since some part is controlling the body's vital functions.

Therefore, I reach a conclusion that something has to be active for me to doubt myself. Perhaps only at a peak can I truly doubt myself because only there is the I present.

So to begin to ask can you doubt you exist? one must first be at that peak where one can ask it in the first place.

When Descarte said I thnk therefore I am was he at a peak? What peak?

At the peak of mind, when one is thinking there can be no doubt that we exist.

But take another peak. Say an orgasm. At that peak, is there an I? Don't we forget the I, forget the partner, and even forget the world at that moment? Perhaps at that peak we actually do not exist.

0 Replies

@Jessica phil,

Descartes said If I doubt that I am doubting , then I know that I am doubting that I am doubting, and if I am doubting that I am doubting then I am thinking that I am doubting and if I am thinking I exist and if I exist "I am" "who I am"

Maybe he used the same logic as God did to old Moses?

Hey guys something like that I hope!

0 Replies

@Jessica phil,

Arguments are superflous.. We must behave as though we do exist sans proof, or we will not exist even with proof...

0 Replies

@Jessica phil,

No coz when you feel pain-physical pain you know about it.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Surely the act of doubting nullifies the whole concept of being able to doubt you exist. How could you possibly doubt when the act of doubting in itself is proof that you do.

I suppose you could get into some mind trap and think by some re configuration of information that has come your way that you do not exist.

Maybe the question should be (when looking at existence) what are we actually existing as? To doubt that you exist to me is absurd.

So the answer to your question from me is a bold plain No.

1 Reply

@dizzy phil,

I knew a man who was not there the next day he also was not there

IS THAT MAN ME?

0 Replies

@Jessica phil,

how can a person doubt their existence? i mean it makes no sense. you have to exist to be able to doubt yourself. no?

0 Replies

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Sorry if you don't like it. I told you how you can refute it, if you ever can. All you'll be able to do is find 'subsets' of which there are many. I found the complete 'set'.

He would have to give an example of just one thing that does not exist. But that might be difficult.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

He would have to give an example of just one thing that does not exist. But that might be difficult.

How about this, in the quantum world of the infinitesimal lets take an electron. to exist it must be observed, this is a scientific fact and you can check it out if you like.

From my perceptive if I vanish and cease to exist, so does the universe.

Would the universe exist it there were no one to observe it.?

Would you exist if there were no other observers in all of existence?

Or what you be the only real thing and become God?

0 Replies

@Jessica phil,

What you are trying to point out is considering the answer that existence of oneself. Two words that would prove appropriate at this point of discussion are facts and assumptions. The word assumption is an enigma in itself. What could be a assumption at a persons objective need not be an assumption for another. That theory would also go well with the word fact. In literal terms facts and assumptions have been built on a set of theories which at a point of time proved would lead to practicality. At this juncture considering that the two words facts and assumptions have one nature in common , a theory. The very fact of my existence in one's view is dependent very much on perception, imagination. A theory is what one forms for my existence at a case that the person has no literal proof of my existence, this is an assumption. In case the assumptions does not convert into practicality as i defined previously, that leaves me with a subtle theory of me in non existence. My material truth of existence is very much parsed by a value of assumption. Basically gives us a view here of 4 terms assumptions, facts, practicality and a theory.Descartes's theory spoke of existence of his own self being the utter fact.It never actually romanticized on self thinking and existence but was more of an emphasis of one's existence in ones view. We have a theory here. Descartes "theory" = i exist but anything else" is no rational thought, but a theory of one self. As my afore theory goes like. Theory is a common term for assumption, fact and practicality. Descartes = " i exist but anything else " is a perception on his self. A assumption, a theory. So the question now would be " I exist, i perceive my existence but anything else. Do you?

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

Hi

There are confused people, who don not know what their real identity is, example . I am God

So are they doubting their real existence?

0 Replies

@Jessica phil,

i would doubt i existed, if i were to exist atall

0 Replies

Can you doubt you exist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know