Can you really prove your existence?

joefromchicago wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
cogito ergo sum

I think, therefore I am.

Because the 'I' can question it's existance means the questioner must exist. It is implausible that a question can exist without a questioner.

René Descartes , man. The only french philosopher worth anything.

And how did Descartes know that there was an "I" to begin with?

Because the 'I' can question it's existence means the questioner (the 'I') must exist. It is implausible that a question can exist without a questioner.
Ask redundant questions much?

1 Reply

joefromchicago wrote:

Descartes can rightly be considered the first modern philosopher. He's not important because he had all the right answers (most of them turned out to be wrong), but because he asked all the right questions. Philosophers are still trying to answer them.

I am more of a Nietzsche/Wittgenstein guy, and I didn't claim decartes or anyone else had 'all the answers'.
However, nobody has been able to refute 'cogito ergo sum' in a convincing manner.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
And how did Descartes know that there was an "I" to begin with?

Because the 'I' can question it's existence means the questioner (the 'I') must exist. It is implausible that a question can exist without a questioner.
Ask redundant questions much?

The relation of "questioner" and "question" is a logical relation. It is, in other words, the relation of ideas, not of things. To say that there is no question without a questioner is to say something that is logically true but empirically empty. Yet Descartes's object was to prove that he existed not as an idea but as a thing. Descartes could no more prove his own existence by relying upon the relationship of question and questioner than he could prove the existence of god by relying upon the relationship of idea and ideal.

Doktor S wrote:

I am more of a Nietzsche/Wittgenstein guy, and I didn't claim decartes or anyone else had 'all the answers'.
However, nobody has been able to refute 'cogito ergo sum' in a convincing manner.

That post was not directed to you, it was directed to crayon851. Not everything is about you, Dok.

0 Replies

I say I exist...that's enough proof for me. If you have read this, why then you have confirmed that I exist.

0 Replies

@Doktor S,

Doktor S wrote:

cogito ergo sum

I think, therefore I am.

Because the 'I' can question it's existance means the questioner must exist. It is implausible that a question can exist without a questioner.

I'm not seeing how it's possible that the 'I' ever really questioned its existence.

To prove means to start with doubt and by virtue of the proof arrive at a state of confidence. Where there's no doubt possible, no proof is possible.

Cogito ergo sum doesn't result in a gain in confidence. There never was any lack of confidence. It only represents awareness of knowledge. What am I not seeing?

0 Replies

This reminds me...I mean, should ´t the question be, can a set always contain itself ???

0 Replies

The answer cannot ad new property´s to the question...if to exist I have to question my existence to make it valid later on, my questioning is always redundant, given I have to exist to at least the extent of my concept (of existence) to make the question...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

The answer cannot ad new property´s to the question...if to exist I have to question my existence to make it valid later on, my questioning is always redundant, given I have to exist to at least the extent of my concept (of existence) to make the question...

Yes! It's dubious to use doubt of my existence as proof of it. Even if the exercise was possible, the ends would eliminate the means...
There's still something foggy in my mind about this.

Hi Albuquerque! I hope Portugal is blooming to your satisfaction.

2 Replies

@Arjuna,

The process of doubting 'I exist' ensures that it is true.

We cannot deny our existence.

1 Reply

@crayon851,

crayon851 wrote:

Can you really prove that you exist ? I'd really like some ideas of how you could prove your own existence absolutely without any room for refutations made against your existence.

If we can confirm that I did something or said something etc., then we have proof that I exist.
If we can confirm that: I doubt that I exist, then we have proof that I do exist.

0 Replies

@Owen phil,

Owen phil wrote:

The process of doubting 'I exist' ensures that it is true.

We cannot deny our existence.

We can not deny our existence.

Therefore we can not doubt it.

Therefore we can not ensure that it is true.

I recognize that my existence is certain.
I can't prove it.

0 Replies

@crayon851,

crayon851 wrote:

Can you really prove that you exist ? I'd really like some ideas of how you could prove your own existence absolutely without any room for refutations made against your existence.

I don't exist, that means I can come with my non-existant baseball bat and beat you silly?

...why does some people ask very simple selfexplanatory questions?

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

crayon851 wrote:
Can you really prove that you exist ? I'd really like some ideas of how you could prove your own existence absolutely without any room for refutations made against your existence.
I don't exist, that means I can come with my non-existant baseball bat and beat you silly?

...why does some people ask very simple selfexplanatory questions?

Because it looks like Descartes went from doubt to certainty by virtue of logic.

Very intelligent people have imagined that he did. Through blurry thinking it gives them encouragement that such a thing is possible.

It's not possible. No ontological proof can be purely a priori. You can't prove something that can't be doubted. -- (I found it... Hume!)

Descartes didn't go from doubt to certainty. He jumped up and down pointing at the fact that certainty exists. We all have it. And you didn't buy your certainty with any logic.

That whistling sound is all the air leaking out of the British Empiricism balloon. Razz

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

Eh, huh? ..what? Uhmm not sure I fully understand whom you speak to in this and that.

Please put it in very simple lay man terms.

0 Replies

@crayon851,

crayon851 wrote:

Can you really prove that you exist ? I'd really like some ideas of how you could prove your own existence absolutely without any room for refutations made against your existence.

Who ever asks you this question, all you have to do is punch them in the face.

1 Reply

@pseudokinetics,

pseudokinetics wrote:

Buddhahood has only been attained by hmmm... one person i think. It takes years of meditation and realizing the beauty of life. If you wanna learn about Siddharta Gautama look him up on the internet or read about him in a book.

if only one person has ever been enlightened then it is a complete waste.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

crayon851 wrote:

Can you really prove that you exist ? I'd really like some ideas of how you could prove your own existence absolutely without any room for refutations made against your existence.

Who ever asks you this question, all you have to do is punch them in the face.

That's rather like Dr. Johnson's refutation of Berkeley's idealism. Of course, Dr. Johnson didn't succeed in refuting Berkeley's idealism, any more than a punch in the face would prove that someone exists.

0 Replies

I don't believe Person #1 can ever prove to Person #2 that #1 exists. This is because, in order for #1 to prove that he exists, he must do something. However, anything that #1 does could be a figment of #2's imagination.

I personally choose to operate under the overarching presupposition that other people do exist. Because otherwise, I don't think life is really worth living.

0 Replies

@Arjuna,

Arjuna wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

The answer cannot ad new property´s to the question...if to exist I have to question my existence to make it valid later on, my questioning is always redundant, given I have to exist to at least the extent of my concept (of existence) to make the question...

Yes! It's dubious to use doubt of my existence as proof of it. Even if the exercise was possible, the ends would eliminate the means...
There's still something foggy in my mind about this.

Hi Albuquerque! I hope Portugal is blooming to your satisfaction.

Hi there, glad to have you around !
(I was worried that some of you would n´t show up given the abrupt change without even given notice to anyone...)

To were I stand the best proof of existence is that in the case we don´t really need a proof given we are our on limit to the question...that was the point, and I think you obviously agree !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Hi Mr. Albuquerque!

Yes, I appear to still be around... glad you are. I've learned not to argue with you unless I'm prepared to become convinced.... in other words: to learn something.

0 Replies

Can you really prove your existence?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know