If your proof of your own existence is "I think therefore I am", then you have no proof. That is not your thought - it is someone else's thought, someone else thinking and then proving their own existence. All you've done is copy the self validation of another. I am because I am, I don't need the validation of any philosophers to prove this existence to myself.
@Alex
> If your proof of your own existence is "I think therefore I am", then you have no proof.
That actually is the proof; fuzz it a little. Something is thinking: at least that thing must exist. You perceive it as your "self". The self must somehow exist, there is some entity that perceives itself. There must be some external reality because that self can draw a contrast between its own perceived characteristics and those of others, so there must be at least two things. But you can't prove that other people experience a self: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie .
> I don't need the validation of any philosophers to prove this existence to myself.
It's not really validation, it's like an attempt at figuring out what can be known for certain.
(If I have just sperg-shat all over a shitpost, then my apologies.)
> If your proof of your own existence is "I think therefore I am", then you have no proof.
That actually is the proof; fuzz it a little. Something is thinking: at least that thing must exist. You perceive it as your "self". The self must somehow exist, there is some entity that perceives itself. There must be some external reality because that self can draw a contrast between its own perceived characteristics and those of others, so there must be at least two things. But you can't prove that other people experience a self: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie .
> I don't need the validation of any philosophers to prove this existence to myself.
It's not really validation, it's like an attempt at figuring out what can be known for certain.
(If I have just sperg-shat all over a shitpost, then my apologies.)
Well I don't know much about long-haired stuff but i bet they need brainz more than a regular zombie
It all comes back to the question: "if a malevolent demon wanted to manipulate me into thinking all kinds of absurd things, how can I be sure I even exist at all?", it's an extreme skepticism that anything can be known at all.
But even if the empirical world is an illusion (it largely is), if you can sit and think about whether you're being manipulated then at least something that is "you" must exist to think those thoughts. It may or may not be the embodied self you think you are (and in some ways that's an illusion too -- you are the amalgamation of billions of individual cells working in concert), but *something* that is you must exist.
It isn't about externally validating someone else's existence, it's about proving to yourself that you can at least know that you exist.
It's a problem that comes up when you start questioning everything, that everything means everything. Everything means that you need to question what your eyes and ears tell you, it means that you need to question what your skin feels, what your nose smells, you need to question whether you exist at all because if you are questioning everything then you have no basis to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that even you yourself exist unless you can derive it from some logical basis.
You end up with a similar problem from the ought-is problem in ethics. I spent many years trying to think of some way that you could prove mathematically and scientifically that there was a certain way of living that was objectively correct, and the reality was that in the movement of atoms and stars, you will never find a reason not to fall into degeneracy. The place you find that meaning is within yourself because you're a human being made of human being components.
Ironically, modern era philosophers like Descartes largely ended up falling into the materialist/empiricist framework so you can take the fact that you think as proof that you exist, but you can't take the fact that you feel love as proof that love exists.
But even if the empirical world is an illusion (it largely is), if you can sit and think about whether you're being manipulated then at least something that is "you" must exist to think those thoughts. It may or may not be the embodied self you think you are (and in some ways that's an illusion too -- you are the amalgamation of billions of individual cells working in concert), but *something* that is you must exist.
It isn't about externally validating someone else's existence, it's about proving to yourself that you can at least know that you exist.
It's a problem that comes up when you start questioning everything, that everything means everything. Everything means that you need to question what your eyes and ears tell you, it means that you need to question what your skin feels, what your nose smells, you need to question whether you exist at all because if you are questioning everything then you have no basis to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that even you yourself exist unless you can derive it from some logical basis.
You end up with a similar problem from the ought-is problem in ethics. I spent many years trying to think of some way that you could prove mathematically and scientifically that there was a certain way of living that was objectively correct, and the reality was that in the movement of atoms and stars, you will never find a reason not to fall into degeneracy. The place you find that meaning is within yourself because you're a human being made of human being components.
Ironically, modern era philosophers like Descartes largely ended up falling into the materialist/empiricist framework so you can take the fact that you think as proof that you exist, but you can't take the fact that you feel love as proof that love exists.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
@sj_zero @Alex
> It all comes back to the question: "if a malevolent demon wanted to manipulate me into thinking all kinds of absurd things, how can I be sure I even exist at all?", it's an extreme skepticism that anything can be known at all.
If that did occur, it would necessitate the existence of a "self" and an external force. "Cogito ergo sum" does not imply that your thoughts are correct, just that there is an entity experiencing something.
> it's about proving to yourself that you can at least know that you exist.
That's what I was saying, yeah. If it didn't come across, I wouldn't be surprised; I may have been rambling.
> Everything means that you need to question what your eyes and ears tell you,
Well, yeah, but you can be certain that a thing perceives something, that thing is the self. The self may perceive something incorrectly or may draw the wrong conclusions, but even a brain in a jar is a thing: if *everything* you have ever perceived was a lie, and then you drew the wrong conclusions from it, you can still be certain that you do exist.
> It all comes back to the question: "if a malevolent demon wanted to manipulate me into thinking all kinds of absurd things, how can I be sure I even exist at all?", it's an extreme skepticism that anything can be known at all.
If that did occur, it would necessitate the existence of a "self" and an external force. "Cogito ergo sum" does not imply that your thoughts are correct, just that there is an entity experiencing something.
> it's about proving to yourself that you can at least know that you exist.
That's what I was saying, yeah. If it didn't come across, I wouldn't be surprised; I may have been rambling.
> Everything means that you need to question what your eyes and ears tell you,
Well, yeah, but you can be certain that a thing perceives something, that thing is the self. The self may perceive something incorrectly or may draw the wrong conclusions, but even a brain in a jar is a thing: if *everything* you have ever perceived was a lie, and then you drew the wrong conclusions from it, you can still be certain that you do exist.
On that note, does the experience of distance exist at a distance or is it immediately present in having distance but not being at a distance itself?
I want to be clear about something, I wasn't really disagreeing with anything you said, I was just jumping into the conversation because this is my jam. :p
What if I ask them the breakfast question and then pinch their nipple really hard while they try to answer?
>(If I have just sperg-shat all over a shitpost, then my apologies.)
The measure of a good shitpost is its ability to inspire seriousposting.
I was mostly just making a joke about original thought - you know what they say, there's nothing new under the sun. "I think therefore I am" is well known, but not particularly original. If you're just repeating things you've heard, can you truly be said to be thinking? I figure someone who's more philosophically oriented could give some deeper thought to this, but to me, it was just a passing thought I thought would be a funny shitpost while I was waiting for my morning coffee to finish brewing.
>It's not really validation, it's like an attempt at figuring out what can be known for certain.
I know. But to the average person, or maybe average midwit, isn't it validating to say "some smart philosophy guy said something that proves my existence, so I must exist"? Most people seem to be endlessly seeking validation for their identities and feel a need to be told they're valid, or feel a need for reaffirmation of this validity. I was just extending this from proof of identity to proof of existence as a whole. "I think, therefor I am" is philosophically sound, but "I am, therefor I am" is a tautology. It is not philosophically sound. But asserting that it is true, fully knowing that it is based on a fallacy, is asserting one's self as the supreme authority on one's existence. It is claiming that I am the only one who can know that I am, and I know that I am, so I know that I am.
The measure of a good shitpost is its ability to inspire seriousposting.
I was mostly just making a joke about original thought - you know what they say, there's nothing new under the sun. "I think therefore I am" is well known, but not particularly original. If you're just repeating things you've heard, can you truly be said to be thinking? I figure someone who's more philosophically oriented could give some deeper thought to this, but to me, it was just a passing thought I thought would be a funny shitpost while I was waiting for my morning coffee to finish brewing.
>It's not really validation, it's like an attempt at figuring out what can be known for certain.
I know. But to the average person, or maybe average midwit, isn't it validating to say "some smart philosophy guy said something that proves my existence, so I must exist"? Most people seem to be endlessly seeking validation for their identities and feel a need to be told they're valid, or feel a need for reaffirmation of this validity. I was just extending this from proof of identity to proof of existence as a whole. "I think, therefor I am" is philosophically sound, but "I am, therefor I am" is a tautology. It is not philosophically sound. But asserting that it is true, fully knowing that it is based on a fallacy, is asserting one's self as the supreme authority on one's existence. It is claiming that I am the only one who can know that I am, and I know that I am, so I know that I am.
@Alex
> If you're just repeating things you've heard, can you truly be said to be thinking?
This was the thing that made me think "This is probably a joke and I'm probably ruining it".
> But to the average person, or maybe average midwit, isn't it validating to say "some smart philosophy guy said something that proves my existence, so I must exist"?
I don't think most people wonder if they exist or not or feel anything when they get an abstract ontological means of proving their own existence. (Maybe if they are stoned.)
> Most people seem to be endlessly seeking validation for their identities
People that are socialized try to figure out their relation to society and I think it's a symptom of anxiety/oversocialization to constantly try to re-confirm it.
> is asserting one's self as the supreme authority
This was actually how God identified himself, so I thought this was a joke.
> If you're just repeating things you've heard, can you truly be said to be thinking?
This was the thing that made me think "This is probably a joke and I'm probably ruining it".
> But to the average person, or maybe average midwit, isn't it validating to say "some smart philosophy guy said something that proves my existence, so I must exist"?
I don't think most people wonder if they exist or not or feel anything when they get an abstract ontological means of proving their own existence. (Maybe if they are stoned.)
> Most people seem to be endlessly seeking validation for their identities
People that are socialized try to figure out their relation to society and I think it's a symptom of anxiety/oversocialization to constantly try to re-confirm it.
> is asserting one's self as the supreme authority
This was actually how God identified himself, so I thought this was a joke.