Hello there, rip my argument apart!

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I ran a search, and didn’t find it mentioned. But I will assume some of you are familiar with a site inexpressible.com/

I am not here to advertize the place, but if, for those of you unfamiliar with it, you go there you will see that they are running several contests based around philosophical arguments (and the presidential election… go figure.)

Anyway, contest #1 found here inexpressible.com/claim.html
has been going on a while now and has generated quite alot of heated debate. Often sections of the site detailing some of the various arguments are down, so that I havent been able to see an argument or counter-argument similar to the one I am fixing to post here.
The thing is this… I am hoping that, after I publish my argument here, someone will be willing or able to rip it to shreds, or to perfect it (and take credit, I don’t care) just so long as this particular contest is concluded.
Some of the replies from the site admin (or the group of folks defending the original proposition) have been, well, a mess. It seems that they will contradict themselves to save the proposition. (Hell, the proposition itself is a contradiction, but they say the phrase “more reasonably” makes it preferrable to any other proposition given so far.
So maybe it is a scam, or maybe I am should switch majors, but I believe I have come up with a better proposition refuting the original proposition.
So feel free to tear mine to shreds, or like I said, make a better one. Hell, perhaps as a group effort everyone involved can just list ilovephilosophy.com as the author… whatever it takes to save the potiental for true knowledge, I am all for it.

Here is my argument against the original proposition as shown on the site mentioned above.

Original Proposition: “We cannot [more reasonably] truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time.”

Note: ”Who we are” will be considered the universe (domain of discourse) for the argument and as my argument.

My Proposition: I submit that who we are is that which exists, and that we can (more reasonably) truly know that who we are is that which exists, in part or in whole, and be that which exists at the same time.

The original proposition assumes that there is more to know beyond that we exist, and that such knowledge is incompatible with our existence. By claiming that all we know is that we exist, I refute the original proposition as it is stated (I claim my proposition as being more reasonable). The original proposition also seems to assume that there is more to human beings beyond that we exist ( otherwise why the assumption that we cannot truly know who we are?) I submit that particular individuals may believe that there is more beyond the fact that we exist, but that such thinking, even if true, is true subjectively. The only objective truth is that in order to truly know that we exist, we must exist. I do not claim that objective truth may or may not contradict individual subjective truth, only that the most reasonable inference from our existence is knowing that we exist.

I also submit that there are two forms of truth as corresponding to two inter-related things. Subjective truth applies to individuals. I state the word truth, but this is meant to be fashioned more as belief. This is employed to denote individual difference in terms of belief as to the nature of “who we are”. It is my contention that out of all possible individual truths, the one listed in my proposition can be accepted as an objective truth. Objective truth, in this sense, means to apply to all that fall into the category of “who we are”. I submit that this truth “who we are is that which exists” can apply to every human being that exists regardless of whether they accept it or not. My contention in making this difference is this: while individuals may hold that there are truths greater then “who we are is that which exists” I make no claim against them per se, merely that there is a more basic truth ( or argument that is much simpler and more reasonable) that argument is my proposition.

Proving that all we truly know is that we exist (who we are) requires only the consideration that we cannot exist (be who we are) and not know that we do not exist.

I make no claims as to the mechanisms involved in the knowledge of existence, save that we knowing that we exist requires that we exist, as we could not truly know we exist if we did not exist to know it. This seems more reasonable then the original proposition, and avoids complete and infinite knowledge of all things, because possessing infinite knowledge would not alter that, in order to truly know that we exist (again, who we are), we must exist.

Removing the insistence that truly knowing who we are requires knowledge beyond truly knowing that we exist is not an infinite loop that requires further true knowledge of existence if “who we are” is the domain of discourse. The universe is complete in what we know, and in knowing we affirm our existence, and it requires no further knowledge to prove that we exist, because any additional knowledge can only affirm that we exist, as we must exist to gain further knowledge. Any argument made that we do not exist is self-contradictory. An argument is given to prove a point. If no one existed ( or merely one person) there would either be no need to make such an argument, or any means to convince that which does not exist that it does not exist.

To clarify: The original proposition is stated as thus, “We cannot [more reasonably] truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time.”
My proposition is that who we are is that which exists ( in other words, we exist) (not necessarily all that exists, merely that “we” exist, I make no claim as to the existence or lack thereof for any other thing). Furthermore I propose that we can, and often do truly and quite reasonably know that we are that which exists ( that we exist). I propose that knowledge of our existence is a result of our existence if only from the fact that to know that we exist on some level requires that we exist on some level. I also propose that once an individual ceases to exist, only then can he or she truly not know who we are (that we/they exist). Thus, we cannot truly know who we are and be anything other than who we are, which is, I believe, a more reasonable claim than the original proposition. Again, to restate, who we are is that which exists. Anything other then we are that which exists can also imply a lack of existence. We cannot truly know that we exist if we do not exist. It could be argued that we do not exist, and we can never truly know that. Such an argument does not appear reasonable to me. It could also be argued that we can exist and not truly know that we exist. This argument appears equally unreasonable to me. It could also be argued that there is more to human existence then just knowing that we exist. I do not dispute that this might be true, but whether there is more to “who we are” does not prohibit that “we are that which exists”. It could also be argued that there is more to truly knowing who we are beyond that we are that which exists. I submit that the burden of proof for this is not on me, as such an argument might or might not prohibit my claim that we truly know that we are that which exists.

In addition, I anticipate arguments dealing with altered states of consciousness, such as deep sleep, drugs, hypnosis, brain damage, etc. These arguments center on individuals impacted individually. This also goes towards potential arguments dealing with individuals who might profess a belief or true knowledge that we do not exist. My proposition is that, human beings collectively, in total, are comprised of individuals who may believe or know or dream any manner of things. I submit that they are that which exists, and that at some level, they truly know that they exist. This is not to say that I necessarily infer that you exist, merely that I admit that which I accept in “who we are” exists. I will also submit that my proposition is strengthened a great deal if one holds that truly knowing we exist is a result of being that which exists. That we exist is a reasonable proposition. That we should, at some level, truly know this is also reasonable, however I admit that it need not absolutely follow. Merely, that it is more reasonable to assume my proposition as based on existence, when opposed to the original proposition that involves a greater number of assumptions. Some of these assumptions are as follows: That our nature prohibits true self- knowledge. That complete knowledge is an unreasonable assumption. That our nature conforms to a mold that would prohibit the possibility of any individual gaining true self- knowledge. That true knowledge is a static entity/construct resting at the end of an infinite chain, or that true knowledge is a static entity/construct in itself. Conversely, one could infer from the original proposition that true knowledge might be ever changing, and exists as such as to deny being. That true knowledge concerning ourselves has not already been found, or that it has been found but that learning it changes us in some fundamental way so as to alter “who we are.” Another assumption is that we could even possibly truly know ourselves in such a way that we know ourselves. This is the assumption that knowledge is conscious thought, or the active pursuit of identifiable facts. This could be so, but is not necessarily so.

What follows is a series of counter arguments against the arguments given to support the original proposition.

  1. Representational knowledge
    Conscious knowledge is apparently based on interaction at sensorial, biochemical, and neurological levels, or any other levels, and therefore we can only know via representation. (i.e. we do not know directly from the external world in a Aristotelian fashion, whereby external knowledge somehow enters directly into our minds. We know through representation based on interaction, whether it be the interaction of neuron cells or the interaction of sensory receptors with external stimulus. One way around this position is to assert that some conscious knowledge is created ex nihilo (“out of nothing”). However, the concept of ex nihilo is less reasonable from our comparative perspective than something coming from something else ad infinitum (infinite causality), because we can only know by imputing (infinite) causality onto things.
    The representative nature of conscious knowledge is important, in the context of Competition 1, because it refutes the notion of true knowledge viz., representative knowledge cannot truly be what it represents, because then it would not be representational.

Counter Argument: My original proposition, to be more reasonable, requires only that what we truly know is that we are that which exists. This knowledge is not created ex nihilo, but is merely a result of our existence. Whether such knowledge must come from the interaction of neurons or a lifetime of contemplation is an unnecessary extension of the fact that we exist. Our truly knowing that we exist, and that who we are is that which truly exists, is all that is needed to satisfy my proposition.

  1. Epistemology of knowledge (human invention)
    Conscious knowledge is apparently derived from human invention. (i.e. we invent conscious knowledge from interactional based information.)
    Since we are the ones behind the invention of conscious knowledge, we cannot invent true knowledge of ourselves and be ourselves. In other words, we cannot be the basis for invention and at the same time the product of invention.

Counter Argument: The only true knowledge needed to overcome the original proposition as it is stated is that we truly know that we exist and that that knowledge accords with our being (that which exists). Whether we are conscious of this or not does not change the fact that we exist, and that our true knowledge of this is a necessary product of existence. Beyond that, I make no assumptions as to the nature of human consciousness, only that we truly know that we exist and that we are that which exists.

  1. Internalism and externalism
    Since we are the knowers trying to be the known at the same time, we need to get outside of ourselves, otherwise we would have no space to know who we are. Yet by getting outside of ourselves, without considering its probability, we cease to be ourselves; and by ceasing to be ourselves we have no grounds to know who we are because there is no who we are to know. Hence, whether as ourselves (internalism) or outside of ourselves (externalism), we cannot truly know who we are.

Counter Argument: The domain of discourse (the universe) is limited to the fact that we truly know that we exist and that we are that which exists. In order to get “out of ourselves” in this case would require us to cease to exist, which would lead to us no longer know that we exist. But, in order to do this it is more reasonable to say that we would cease to exist rather than argue that what we are is something else now, or that knowledge consisting of the fact that we exist somehow carries over after we cease to exist.

  1. Temporal lag
    Conscious knowledge is apparently defined by temporality, and therefore as soon as we think we know who we are, we cease to know who we are because what we know is past knowledge of who we are. (If we deny the notion of time, we also deny the notion of thought, which then self-defeats the denial of time.)

Counter Argument: I make no temporal claims, save that for all the time that we truly know we exist requires that we actually exist. This continues to the very moment we cease to exist, at which point we can no longer truly know we exist regardless of temporal lag.

  1. Comparative nature of reason (reliance on past knowledge)
    Reason is apparently defined by comparison of conscious meaning, and therefore what we reason and thereby know is based on what we previously know, which means that we can only know in the context of past knowledge.

Counter Argument: I truly know that I exist at this moment, because I exist at this moment. Every moment, in the present that I continue to exist I will truly know that I exist. It could be that I could be incapacitated in such a way that I might exist and not know that I exist. Individually this is true. Collectively, it would require mass hypnosis on a global scale or something akin to a rash outbreak of sudden comas. And even then, it is still possible that I exist and truly know that I exist. As an individual it could be that I can exist and not know it, but it is more reasonable to hold “we” will continue to know that we exist so long as we are that which exists.

  1. Incomplete empirical knowledge
    Empirical knowledge of who we are whether of our biological or conscious make-up, cannot completely capture ourselves in entirety due to the complexity of our make-up. Laon explains this position in Entry 296, in which he says,
    “… truly know who we are’ must at least involve complete physical knowledge, for example of all our bodily systems, endocrine, muscular, central nervous, digestive, and many other systems, plus their complex interactions; and yet that relatively observable knowledge is beyond the capacity of any doctor, or indeed of the whole of medical science. Then add the necessity, to attain the standard implied by ‘truly’, to also know every aspect of our own personalities, all our memories, all our intellectual capacities, all of our hopes and fears and shames and secrets and drives and so on, including - which is surely a contradiction and therefore impossible - knowing the mental events and capacities we are not conscious of. If that is not impossible enough for you (and its impossibility is quite clear to me), then remember that ‘truly knowing’ ourselves must also involve knowing those extraordinary and crucially important things that the particles we are made of at the sub-atomic level.”
    To put what Laon Shelley says in context, Steve Burwen in Entry 209 states that “a single human brain [alone] contains [approximately] 12 trillion neurons, which are connected to anywhere from 3,000 to 100,000 other neurons.”) Hence, due to the sheer complexity of the human brain, it is inconceivable within the bounds of probability how all the neurons themselves of a single human brain could be known.

Counter Argument: We truly know that we exist, and we are that which exists. The number of neurons needed to be aware that we exist may be quite high or may be quite low. Existence and true knowledge of existence might possibly involve no brain activity at all. I make no assumptions as to whether it does or does not, I simply know that I exist and that knowing that I exist is a result of my existence. This is not cogito ergo sum, but sum ergo sum. I am what…that which exists.
In addition, it is not necessary that I have any knowledge of my internal organs, how they function etc, and know that I exist. It is possible, that I may be deprived of all sensory input and still know that I exist. It is an assumption, not entirely reasonable, to think that knowledge of bodily function is required for me, or anyone, to still exist and truly know that they exist. I submit that I exist at this very moment and have no true knowledge of anything, save that I exist. That I exist, is true despite what I may or may not know and will continue to be true up to the moment I cease to exist.

  1. Recursive reflexivity (infinite regress)
    Apparently all conscious knowledge if it is asserted with absolute truth-value succumbs to infinite regress, whereby we reach an end link in our chain of reasoning which infinitely repeats because we never come to an absolute endpoint. Or, we face “recursive reflexivity” whereby each addition of knowledge of who we are changes who we are so that we never attain true knowledge of who we are, or as Laon Shelley in Entry 296 says,
    “… additional self-knowledge adds to what the circle is: it means the circle is a sentient simple-minded circle that knows it is a sentient simple-minded circle that knows it is a sentient simple-minded circle. If it knows that, then to truly know itself it now has to know that it is a sentient single-minded circle that knows it is a sentient simple-minded circle that knows it is a sentient simple-minded circle. This cycle goes on forever, to infinity, in what Gödel calls ‘recursive reflexivity’. The knowledge never includes the whole system, because the knowledge expands the nature of the system it tries to know.”

Counter Argument: That we are that which exists is not an absolute proposition in that it continues for infinity. Once we cease to exist (be who we are) we also cease to truly know that we exist. This is very reasonable. It does not require an infinite chain of existence, an Absolute being, or complete knowledge of all things. The domain of discourse is “who we are” coupled with true knowledge thereof. Who we are is that which exists, and we can exist while truly knowing that we are that which exists. This is still quite reasonable.

  1. Precedence of possibility
    Since possibility is necessary for the existence of impossibility, and impossibility is not necessary for the existence of possibility, it follows that possibility precedes impossibility. This axiom defends the competition from the standpoint that it cannot be claimed with validity that it is impossible to truly know who we are, and therefore, the proposition is impossible to overcome.
    Also, since the proposition is asserted from a limited perspective, it is consistent with the precedence of possibility, and in particular the possibility of truly knowing who we are.

Counter Argument: Obviously #8 is not an issue for my proposition. Not only is it possible to truly know that we exist, but we must exist at some level to claim that we exist, and that who we are, very very possibly, is that which exists. If we are that which exists, and we know that we exist as a result of that existence, then I am not claiming that it is impossible to truly know who we are, I merely claim that who we are is that which exists, and that my claim is more reasonable then the original proposition.

  1. Limited perspective
    By asserting the proposition with limited truth-value, we avoid the skeptical contradiction of claiming to not know anything from a position of knowing, or in the context of the proposition, claiming to not truly know who we are from a position of truly knowing who we are. Also, the criticism that the proposition has limited truth-value, thereby is uncertain, is cancelled out because apparently all propositions from our perspective have limited truth-value, and as mentioned, if the proposition did not have limited truth-value, it would be contradictory.

Counter Argument: I claim that who we are is that which exists, and that we can truly know that we are that which exists and be that which exists at the same time. This seems to contain no contradictions and is, by my thinking, extremely reasonable.

  1. Precedence of human consciousness
    Based on the premise that we cannot (more reasonably) get outside of our minds and know that we are (i.e. mind in box), and the conclusion that we can only know what we know, it follows within the limits of what we know that the nature of what we know (i.e. the nature of human consciousness) precedes what we know. So any conception whether metaphysical or scientific will be primarily defined by the nature of our consciousness, and since human consciousness is apparently comparative and incomplete in nature (Arguments 1-7), comparative incompleteness will define, within limits, any knowledge of who we are.

Counter Argument: My proposition requires only that we know that we are that which exists and that, basically, we exist. It makes no inference as to the nature of that existence. I make no claims of scientific proof or even of a human mind, per se. Consciousness may, in fact, have nothing to do with what we truly know. I am not arguing that point either way, I only claim that we are that which exists on some level sufficient to truly know that who we are is that which exists. While it may be possible that a human being can exist in such a way as to not truly know they exist, that applies only to those individual human beings in particular, and for them, can stand as a subjective truth. Collectively, or as all individuals in total, we are that which exists, and we can know, quite reasonably, that we are that which exists.

Note: Again, it may be that there is more that can truly be known, or there could be more then we just exist. To argue such requires more assumptions then simply stating that “we can truly be who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same exact moment as who we are is that which exists and we know that we exist.”

This seems to refute the original proposition as it is stated and seems equally if not more reasonable.

In Anticipation of further arguments:

  1. Again, it may be that we truly know much more or are capable of truly knowing much more than what I proposed. My proposition does not disqualify future knowledge, “truth”, or even fundamental changes in being. It merely holds that so long as who we are is that which exists, we can truly know who we are at the same time.
  2. No doubt my argument for subjective and objective truth will be attacked. Note that the nature of it is such that one does not necessarily deny the other, it serves to explain possible discrepancies among individuals while still maintaining that my proposition is the most reasonable one. The author(s) of the original proposition may accept as truth, "We cannot [more reasonably] truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time,” this does not mean that it is more reasonable then my proposition however. Thus, subjective and objective truth can be jettisoned as an argument and the proposition can still hold.
  3. I have been careful to avoid a cogito ergo sum type argument per se. There may be many lines of thought for or against my proposition, but understand it was crafted in the framework of the original proposition. One could say that we must know something, to which I would reply, “yes, we know we exist.” Beyond that, I make no claims as to what we truly know.
  4. It may be that I have put undue stress on “can” and “cannot” while formulating my proposition. Even if this is the case, I still hold my proposition to be more reasonable in comparison. As the multitude of challenges has shown, there can be quite a large number of inferences made from the original proposition. My proposition, on the other hand, only affirms that who we are is that which exists and that we can truly know this at the same time. It denies the possibility of very little, save arguments such as the original proposition.
  5. It is my belief that my proposition refutes the original proposition, or, is equally reasonable. Taking this into account, I submit that the idea behind it is sound, however the execution of the argument for it may be very flawed. I ask, if it can be done, that my proposition itself also be refuted as it is stated if this is possible. Or, if not outright refuted, please demonstrate how the original proposition is more reasonable still. This is in addition to whatever additional refutations may come to my argument as a whole or in part.
  6. Finally, from the “who we are” page:
    “ Our primary claim is that we ourselves must exist at some level, otherwise there would be no conscious awareness of thoughts/utterances/appearances. In other words, we must exist at some level in order to be aware of thoughts, even if there is something controlling our existence. (i.e. to say that we do not exist at any level, then it does not follow how we can be aware of thoughts, or to say that something else exists and not ourselves, then it does not follow how we can know that something else exists.)
    The primary claim that we must exist at some level, acts as the foundation for the claim that we cannot truly know who we are in part or in whole and be who we are at the same time.
    In the context of the Competition, there are no restrictions on the actual composition of who we are. The only requirement is to more reasonably show complete knowledge of who we are, whether in part or in whole.”

I believe that my proposition reasonably shows complete knowledge of who we are, in part, that we are that which exists. Or even, in whole, that we are that which exists, and that we can truly know that we are that which exists at the same time. Any knowledge beyond that may consist of assumptions that are not necessarily fact.

Thank you in advance.

2

:astonished::o :evilfun::evilfun:

Uhm. Wow.

3

You used the word ‘I’ 13 times as well as once in the proposition itself. Tell me what you mean by this mysterious word ‘I’ that you have used so frequently, but go to such lengths to determine that you can know what ‘I’ is? When you’ve answered this, ask yourself, how it is possible to rationalize how ‘I’ can truly know ‘I’, if ‘I’ already contained meaning before the proposition is mentioned.

For a more ostentatious response: Hurry up and complete the circle of epistemology.

(No I’m not a nihilist.)

4

Hello o.i.c,

I haven’t yet read what Gate Control Theory submitted. At first glance, the “proposition” itself seems a bit confused, but I’ll leave that for another time. Instead, I want to comment about what you’ve said (what I quoted above).

Lichtenberg’s critique of Descartes’ Cogito was a protest against Descartes’ presumption of the first-person, given that was the very thing Descartes was trying to establish. This particular instance of “begging the question” has been long debated. But on this point I stand with Descartes. I’d rather there were another way to proceed, but to my mind there is no other way. It seems necessary to posit “I,” and then work backwards to try to understand what “I” entails.

Furthermore, if the self is not a single, unified entity, then it might be entirely reasonable to suppose that one aspect of the self could go looking for the other aspects. This possibility is further served by the fact that most of our mind is unconscious, and this unconscious self appears to play a large role in our consciousness.

As Hume remarked, looking for the self is a strange business. I’m not suggesting otherwise. But I’m prepared to posit the self; and I’m going to allow myself to try and discover other aspects of myself. I have no choice but to know myself through myself. To know how a mind works will only take me so far. My analogy is of looking at a powerful sports car and imagining how it must feel to drive it, vs actually feeling the road pass through your fingertips on the steering wheel, and “hearing” the engine in your stomach. There’s a world of difference between knowing that a rose is fragrant and the actual experience of smelling a rose. It’s only through experience that something becomes subjectively real. As Max Velmans has said;

“It is through consciousness that we real-ise the world. That, and that alone, is its function.”
– Understanding Consciousness, p269

Best wishes,
Michael

5

That is fair enough. I didn’t state it explicitly that I believe from “we are that which exists and we truly know we exist” I can rightly infer that I exist, since “I” falls in the domain of discourse for “who we are” (my take, that which exists/ we exist/ I must exist to truly know this.)

Also at the end is a quote outlining some of the argumentation for the original proposition, specifically “who we are”

“ Our primary claim is that we ourselves must exist at some level, otherwise there would be no conscious awareness of thoughts/utterances/appearances."

So I think that what comprises me as an individual, or we collectively could be any sort of things, so long as, at the most basic level, we admit we exist.
That said, I should go back and edit out the “I”'s… that would make it more precise. And less subjective sounding.

6

I’ll extend my apologies to GateControlTheory since now this thread may diverge from his intentions. But this is relevant.

Polemarchus,

I’m not sure that I view this position as a necessity. Necessity in this context means you posit ‘I’ for something else, and I feel this is an entanglement of progression (similar issues within science, mathematics). I approach it more ignorantly and innocently, and merely believe that I exist. I cannot come to any consideration of where my thoughts originate. I find the belief “Cogito ergo sum” to be flawed as I have no notion of ‘therefore’ before my belief that I exist. Descartes, of course, was only able to continue after his leap of faith - another example of the “true” enlightenment (ha). While this is for me, maybe it is possible for someone else to come to something more basic, however, I have yet to find such an idea that does not have assumptions of itself rooted within itself.

[In this next section I will write ‘self’ far too many times - sounds so imaginary when I do, but read it as if ‘self’ points to you (the singular sense)]
As for the rest of your post, I think what you are really mentioning is what I call self-analysis. Trying to understand oneself is quite another matter than trying to prove that oneself exists. Self-analysis is not possible if the self formed its own ideas from itself. Well, maybe becoming concious of self-founded ideas is possible and would then be a part of what I consider self-analysis. However, I think it is fairly obvious to most that some of their ideas originated elsewhere and were learned. So, this also is what I consider to be self-analysis - understanding and becoming concious of self-founded and learned ideas. Note that even becoming concious of self-founded ideas could be considered “learning”. I would even go as far as advocating self-analysis is necessary because otherwise one’s beliefs are superficial; mere tradition.

Hm. Well, while I think I know why you feel this way because I used to as well, I realized the limitations of my methods to come to know myself, and thus reference philosophy (what I consider to contain science, epistemology, metaphysics, morality, and a host of other subjects) to realize where learned (maybe even indoctrinated) ideas originate.

7

Apology Accepted :stuck_out_tongue:

And I want to state for the record that I agree with this

.

I guess to steer this back towards the original topic, is it reasonable to assert that one can exist and know that one exists without having to prove that there is some mechanism or thing in itself that would allow for that knowledge?

Basically, is knowledge of one’s own existence a priori? And if so, does that necessarily mean that there are any other “truths” that can be proven?

8

Ha. You seem to be quite stuck on trying to find some kind of objective truth here. My response to the first question would be no since “reasonable” in this context implies there are premises behind the belief that one can know that one exists, while I have yet to find any valid premises. I don’t claim to have come across every suggested premise, hence this may not stand as objective observation. However, those that I have come across are fallacious. If you are searching for an answer to pure nihilism (that which denies all existence), I’m not sure there is any. However, pure nihilism seems impossible. A pure nihilist would be unable to navigate this world, and hence any claim to be a pure nihilist is disingenuous. This is not a defeat of nihilism because it merely points to the implications of the idea.

Kant. I think Kant merely provided a way to clean up the use of language (use of analytic and synthetic statements - analytic being redundant). Having said this, whether the acknowledgement that oneself exists is founded independent of experience is a question I also cannot answer in my personal case because I am now concious that I do believe I exist. Only after traversing through epistemology have I become concious of this previous assumption. I’ll finish my objective response later…

9

The ole being vs. becoming argument? I’ll need some time to respond to these well thought out posts.

Prolificisticationist! Where are you at in Va?

10

Well yes, if I could come up with some objective truth for existence and knowledge then more problems would be fixed then just my proposition. :slight_smile: As far as my proposition itself goes in terms of the competition, it is claimed that we exist(as part of the competition itself), so my proposition has nothing to prove there (for the competition itself).

But after reading the way it is written I thought that maybe, by limiting the domain of discourse to just human beings, the only assumptions I am making is that

  1. We exist
  2. we know we exist.
    (1 is a given in the competition literature… it is # 2 that I see them objecting to)

One of the objections raised that there is no premises presented submitted to show that one can know that they exist. I agree… the best I could come up with is that i could not know that I exist if I did not exist. I suppose the implication is… Since I know I exist therefore I must exist, which is not the route I wanted to go, but may be the route I have to take.

What I am looking for is (and I admit my argument does a poor job of doing this) showing how truly knowing we exist can be a result of existence itself and that, as such, my proposition, I should say our proposition since people are helping out :slight_smile: ) is more reasonable than the original proposition. I think that would work, as a kind of minimalist argument, because it then avoids having to posit a mind, consciousness, etc. Which will require proof that might ultimately serve only to strengthen the original proposition.

It might be easier to scrap my proposition and propose that we do not exist, but as I mentioned in my argument, such a proposition seems unreasonable to me (and I think would seem unreasonable to almost anyone). Thus, this isn’t a search for pure nihilism, as I think the original proposition I am trying to defeat, if carried out logically, would preclude any human being ever arriving at any “truth” about human beings. And that, my friends, would just tear my little idealistic heart to shreds.

11

And I agree. Proof that I am in fact, not here writing this right now would tear my little idealistic heart to nonexistent shreds.

Forgive my humorous injection, but Jesus man. Beam me up Scottie! God just told me (and I quote…) that Whomsoever questions his own existence is mad. Seriously, at what point do you people see the comedic value of this stuff?

It’s genius! :stuck_out_tongue: To the intellectually less endowed like your Prolificisticationistic Articulationist - nay, even to plain ol’ Joe Lay Public: The reason these discussions seem such exercises in circular silliness can aptly be summed by the following quotes of most ‘colorful’ reasoning:

“I am now conscious that I do believe I exist. Only after traversing through epistemology have I become conscious of this previous assumption.”
-o.i.c.

“It might be easier to scrap my proposition and propose that we do not exist, but such a proposition seems unreasonable to me.”
-GateControlTheory

LOL! This is gold. Viewed in a Last Comic Standing limelight, this is some funny, funny stuff - pure Steven Wright material. Watching this type of discussion is akin to gazing into an abyss of spiralling madness. Personally, I know I exist because I’m here to figure as much. (Yes, for me, cogito ergo sum works fine! Praise the Lord for Descartes!) AND …I didn’t have to spend years of searching to arrive at this ‘conscious belief’! Holy hell, bonus mask! bonus mask!

Sorry for the intrusion, folks. My fun-poking is ignorant, superficial, light-hearted, and I certainly mean no hard feelings. Please carry on. :wink:

12

lol well when you phrase it like that, yes it does seem silly. But if you look at it from a Philosophical perspective one can try to arrive at veritas by accepting certain points as fact and arguing (not the popular conception of arguing… an argument means something else in Philosophy…something akin to a proof, rendered via language (written or spoken)) or you could approach it like Descartes, and tear down everything and build back up. Not that you have to build back up. (Note, even then, some people hold that nothing can be proven semantically)
That we do not “exist” and are merely images in the dreams of some unkown being might be quite reasonable to some folks.

My problem is, having just basically started to reach the more technical areas of Philosophy as an undergrad, I am quite ignorant about most of it. I do know that the nature of man’s existence is a key question, and from that, how, exactly, can we objectively prove this… well it isn’t cut and dry.
Thus one could deny we exist and that there could be any knowledge of existence thereof and refute the original proposition (granted if it could be proven) but to do so, like I said, would ruin my day.

13

Prolificisticationist,

Thus far, I’ve given most people the much leeway in opining. I’ve even gone as far as trying to determine whether they have reasons behind their opinions. Marshall McDaniel will attest to the trivial discussion that ensues. I will give you time to read the posts if you wish to determine exactly who stands where on the question. I have resisted succumbing to ridiculing the entire question posed by GateControlTheory to demonstrate that it is a trivial question; one which before learning philosophy, I accepted unconciously. (I can tell you all the “unconcious beliefs” you reveal in your post - however, I just do not have time) I will also give you time to learn logic so that you can apply it effectively. Moreover, it is far too easy to ridicule such a question as you have proceeded to do. It is stronger to ridicule it using reason, especially if you wish to communicate the ridicule. I actually predicted it would require 2 days for someone to answer as you have done, while it took you less than that, good for you. I expected that from my original response (the ostentatious one), that someone like you would find it too revealing of your character to continue as you have. You proved me wrong in both cases…just “giving credit where credit is due”.

14

It seems to me that the whole problem of referring to the self as I could be solved by providing a definition of “I” before proceeding with the argument. I don’t think that by using the word “I” in an argument. “I” is merely a point of referance that directs the readers attention toward the author as an individual. Another technicality that would refute the contentions provided that state that the use of “I” in an argument advocating a viewpoint on the ability to understand one’s self as an existant entity is that in such an argument we are merely pondering the effectiveness of the human processes for understanding one’s self. There is no reason why someone would have to have an accurate definition of their self to present an argument that analyses the processes used by humanity to define the self. Even without a formal definition of the self, one can still refer to one’s self while presenting an argument that defines one’s self, as long as the reader understands that the author, while referring to his or her self as “I” is using the word as a point of referance to his or her self without officially placing a set value to “I”. The final reason I think it is okay to refer to the self as I in an argument presenting a value for “I” is that if we were to stick to such technicalities then we would never get anywhere. If I have to know what “I” am before I begin pondering what I am, then I can never begin the process of pondering what I am because in order to know that I would have to ponder it, and in order to ponder it, I would have to know it. It creates an unneeded paradox. I is a frame of referance that any reader can identify with, because any person, entity, or thing with the ability to read would know the frame of referance in relation to how they percieve their self.

15

Here’s my personal solution to the madness of determining one’s existance…

  1. Individual existance does not exist.

I exist because I am in a universe. I am part of this universe. If this universe could not exist, then neither could I. Therefore; my existance as being separate from the rest of the universe is an illusion.

  1. Individual existance does exist.

The universe exists. I am part of the universe, therefore I exist as long as you consider my existance in relation to the universe. Though I am existant you cannot say that I exist, only that I partially exist since I am only part of existance.

To me to referance the definition or existance of myself in relation to myself seems paradoxical. It seems much easier, and much less paradoxical to ponder the definition or existance of myself in relation to the rest of the universe.

16

Seriously sir, you do me a great disservice if you do not ridicule my argument. Frankly, I am out of ideas on how to improve it. I know that I am out of my depth when it comes to the original proposition and what I had intended in my counter proposition. I do believe that there is something to it, I mean, my proposition would refute the original proposition as it is written. But I posted it here because i knew enough to know that it is seriously flawed. I just don’t know how to fix it, or if it cannot be fixed, to see if there are better arguments to take its place, believe me, I am more than willing to see them, as it will afford me the chance to learn even more on the subject.

17

Jolly Good Show!

let me see if I have this right and if I can apply this correctly (keep in mind I may phrase this in the terms of the competition):

The original proposition implies the existence of a universe in which “who we are” exists at some level. Plugging in 2 The universe exists. I am part of the universe, therefore I exist as long as you consider my existance in relation to the universe. Though I am existant you cannot say that I exist, only that I partially exist since I am only part of existance.

The domain of discourse, being the universe in which I exist and which you must admit that I partially exist applies further to… plugging in 1 I exist because I am in a universe. I am part of this universe. If this universe could not exist, then neither could I. Therefore; my existance as being separate from the rest of the universe is an illusion.

Being that I exist and could not exist apart from the universe, who I am is a condition of my existence and the universe not only allows for this, it necessitates it if I am to exist…

That sound about right?

18

sigh…maybe then you will appreciate that I feel you did me a disservice to believe I have not ridiculed your argument. Must I be blatantly obvious and ridicule you personally to allow you to understand the implications of what I say?

19

What do you mean by ‘I’? If you are able to answer that, how do you think its possible to know the universe exists before you exist? (Be it the unconsious assumption that you exist, or the belief that you exist)

Prove the universe exists. That the universe exists is an observation/assumption after ‘you’ realize ‘you’ exist. This occurs either after an unconcious or concious assumption that ‘you’ exist. Your formulation is meaningless. One cannot say ‘I’ or ‘I am’ in a proof that ‘I’ (that which ‘I’ points to - not me) exist.

Then why did you do so?

20

I am not sure that personal ridicule will prove much beyond that I heard of this thing called ad hominem in Latin class. But if the implications of what you say require personal ridicule I am sure a little Latin won’t stop ya. Maybe, during a break between bouts of ridiculing people so they can understand the implications of what you say you could peruse the site I originally mentioned and accept that my argument was drafted in response to a challenge which grants a rather a considerable amount as being true (for the sake of the argument) and asks for a narrow range of replies, which, silly me, is based on assumptions I do not have to prove as absolute truth to satisfy the conditions of the competition. Merely something more reasonable in comparison to what has been given.

I have been honest in admitting my ignorance, as I have also been more than willing to consider points that might not necessarily share anything with what I am trying to accomplish. But if you truly believe that personal ridicule is required, by all means go ahead. Understand that you gain nothing from it, as it is more natural for human beings to react to attacks rather then sit around and ponder the “implications”.