What must a person do to prove they exsist/ed, must one be known and remembered to have truly exsisted, if so then no one exsists since with time memories fade as do we, in the end we will not be remembered.
one could build a legacy but again that too would fade with time so no lasting impression is ever made, with ones children and decendants there will come a time where what you are genetically will only be a few passive traits within the human genome, can that truly be exsistance.
There are people who beleive in the final proof of your exsistance in the afterlife but on such a fickle whim it seems little more than grasping for air.
There are those who seek to lengthen their lives, to the dream of immortality, but even they know within their hearts that they will one day die.
Is it simply that there is no proof or is so simple that we must simply exsist to exsist, regardless of future conceptions, to me I have lived and because of this I exsist, what else is needed?
Matter is’nt destroyed or created so the parts of everyone and things that have existed, are existing and will exist and allways have since the beggining, there will be no more or less existance than there is or has ever been (unless black holes and the like can destroy matter and you count them )
How’s that for proving the existince of everything that’s existed in this realty ?
being remembered after you die doesnt really matter because after your dead you don’t care and while your living what kind of a senseless wish is that ?
As i siaid, the universe proves it to you that you always have and will exist be it living or in small peices.
The most famous answer to this question is Descartes’ cogito: “I think, therefore I am.” I would guess that could be extended to, “I thought, therefore I was.”
I think some of your ideas are on the money. Legacies fade, memories fade, and in short time no one will be around to say that you were ever here. But it seems to me that you’re putting undue emphasis on these things. The concept of existence can be easily separated out from concepts of remembrance and legacy.
An example? No one remembers the back side of the moon. A pebble you find washed up on the beach has only the most abstract “legacy,” but the back of the moon exists, just like the pebble.
The whole molecules-making-up-you thing can be comforting, but I have a problem with it because I recently read that there is no single molecule in your body that’s older than maybe ten or twelve. Your atoms are recycled and shuffled that quickly. Looking at it this way you can say that this you-that-exists doesn’t have solidity, which may be troublesome but only until you realize that nothing does. It has a slightly different reality than you might imagine, but a fluid reality is still real by definition.
And, again, just because the things that make you up are fluid doesn’t mean that you-the-person doesn’t exist. Water exists, even though it travels far and deep, and it loses none of its qualities because it’s slippery.
Is that any help, or do you see something flawed here? I’m interested to know.
No each point is valid and well met, I simply felt a great frustration over legacys and such things. My own exsistance seems th have been filled with dobut and so I seek truth beyond. saddly truth is diffacult to see beyod ones frustrations.
thank you all. peace. (BTW I’m tired right now so I probably sound weird as hell)
If you make proof, you make reality into an experience. As an experience, it becomes temporal. As it is temporal, it also perspectively becomes a passing phase. Thusly one should never expect anything experienced to fit within a static eternalism.
Sentience is a phase experiencing and internally creating a phase.
ive been thinking about this for quite a while now and if you think about it, in a way noone exists. The reason for this is because people say things like time dont exist because they are man made, but this would mean that man doesnt exist because man is man made(a man and a women must conceive baby[man] in order for more men/women to exist). So if something cant exist because it is man made then humans cant exist because we are man made.
The Empire State Building is man made. My house was man made. Baseballs are man made. Beethoven’s 5th was manmade. Yet, people say these exist. So it doesn’t seem being Man Made and Existence are contradictory.
I know that but ive been trying to prove a point to someone, after the first male and female human all others are man made, i used this to try to prove that just because man created a way to measure something doesnt mean that it doesnt really exist. sorry for not explaining it completely i was in school and had to get off because class was ending. If you want to know morry about this theory then pm me.
To ask simply whether we exist I think is a pretty silly question, as our asking the question presupposes something their (ie existing) in the first place! Rather I think the real problem is discovering the nature of what exists (you, me, everything!). When Descartes came to the conclusion of existing because he thought, he was right to claim to have the experience of thinking (whatever that may be) but to then postulate the (additional?) existence of a separate “I” which does the thinking opens up loads of probably unsolvable problems. Whatever thinking may be the effect of, we can never get to it because we need to think to do it! Introspection can only take us so far, as people like Hume and Nietzsche have told us.
So perhaps instead of trying to prove whether we exist we should think about what kind of “thing” we could be - and of these which would make us feel unique, real, free, etc., and which would undermine what we previously took existence to be? For example we may be happy to find that we are Descartes’ distinct, free, independent ego. But if one day we found out that we were, say, mere remnant strands of “thought” from a higher reality comprised of other more “real” things (things more resembling what we hoped to be)? We’d surely still exist, but our ontological status would be relegated - a huge problem which will impact upon our feelings towards our value or meaning. We could be as objective as matter itself (whatever that is), or as ontologically ambiguous as the feeling of pain.
