Guest kyle8921 Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 if you can prove that you exist (some of my friends talk about this kinda stuff.) Anyway, I was thinking, and it's really simple to prove that you exist. Ok, can you prove that you DON'T exist? If you can't prove that you don't exist, then obviously, you must exist. Am I right, or is this wrong? Or, is it possible to prove that you don't exist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 If you can't prove that you don't exist, then obviously, you must exist.Nope. Being unable to prove something doesn't imply the opposite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kyle8921 Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Nope. Being unable to prove something doesn't imply the opposite. Why not? Hm... Ok, let's say that "object A" is either an apple or a lemon. If you can prove that "object A" is not a lemon, then it must be an apple, being that it has to be one of those two, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geokker Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 I can't prove you've got a bomb in your pocket - doesn't mean you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 Even better, Geokker: I can't prove that you don't have a bomb in your pocket..............Ok, let's say that "object A" is either an apple or a lemon. If you can prove that "object A" is not a lemon, then it must be an apple, being that it has to be one of those two, right?Correct, providing the aut-aut is certain, but you were talking about being unable to prove and not about having proven one of two complementary asserts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 The short version is that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything because of limitations in the scientific model. We can only assume that things don't exist, we can't prove it. Say for example I can imagine that a certain compound exists, but chemically it is not possible. Yet I can only show that, according to this and that law, it cannot exist. But it is not empirically possible to prove that it cannot exist *under every circumstance*. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 ... like the man said: "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumab Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 As for proving you exist, Descartes "I think... therefore I exist" statements is one of the most well defended statements in philosophy, from Meditations on First Philosophy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclogite Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 I heard an amusing variant of Descartes famous dictum on the radio earlier in the week. (For the majority of you not resident in or familiar with the UK, you need to know that Tesco is a very large chain of supermarkets.)It was suggested that the correct philosophical take on existence was not Descartes' Cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am; but rather Tesco ergo sum, I shop therfore I am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 As for proving you exist, Descartes "I think... therefore I exist" statements is one of the most well defended statements in philosophy, from Meditations on First Philosophy This is from the nitpicking department...but how would that help me prove that *you* exist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teleman21 Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 Well to answer the one who is being knit-picky, Descartes wasn't interested about proving anyone else existed. In fact, the purpose of the Meditations were to silence the global skeptic who said that nothing can be known. According Descartes he did so with Cogito. However, where Descartes is most often attacked is how he arrived at the conclusion or his two other proofs that he supposedly came up with (the existence of God and the existence of the External World). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumab Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 This is from the nitpicking department...but how would that help me prove that *you* exist? I've often wondered that myself... I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumab Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 However, where Descartes is most often attacked is how he arrived at the conclusion or his two other proofs that he supposedly came up with (the existence of God and the existence of the External World). Definitly true. His proof that he exists is extrodonarily well supported, the other two- less so. but interesting, none the less. But when starting quite from scratch, you've got to give the guy some credit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted July 21, 2005 Report Share Posted July 21, 2005 ... Tesco ergo sum, I shop therfore I am.i LOVE it!!!they should make it a bumper sticker.but to the topic...I love the nitpicking, and I think the answers have been very well thought out. I also think Descartes was full of crap, but that's just MHO. The whole thing just seems so circular, and rather pointless to me. Do I exist? Do you exist? Why bother with these questions, when there are so many ways to make our mutual existence more beneficial to the rest of the world? If you really are worried that you don't exist, then send me your checkbook and credit cards, ok? I'll take care of the mundane details of the existence of your bank account while you worry if you're really here or not. :shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teleman21 Posted July 22, 2005 Report Share Posted July 22, 2005 well, I am not saying that Descartes proof isn't important. If we dont really exist then morality goes out the window along with other things. In regards to the argument being circular, one has to remember what Descartes was against. He was combating global skepticism which doubt everything, so Descartes had to think like a skeptic. And as for the circular fallacy I doubt it can ever apply to any philosopher because everyone writes with a purpose, so they start out with their conclusion in mind... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.