the proof for existence: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » the proof for existence » the proof for existence

Page: 1 2

the proof for existence

ebryczek
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 12, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 5

Posted 01/13/07 - 08:14 AM: Subject: the proof for existence	#1
The proof for existence Many philosophers, and many non-philosophers wonder if universe around us exists, or it is just a form of projection, the product of our imagination etc.. so do I. But what is really frustrating me is how to find a proof for it’s existence or, the opposite, how to confirm the fact it does not factually exists. If I ask my friend, he would probably assure “Of course I do exist my dear, how do I know? I feel”. Well maybe, maybe indeed he (they) does exist but I don’t? How to find a proof for my own existence? Does anybody has any suggestions? We're looking for god and a logic argument for his/her eternal presence, what about world itself? Can anybody really prove it is there?

jaybrewer
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 12, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 01/13/07 - 08:31 AM: Subject: proof of existence-reply	#2
I think that one would have to "exist" in order to "prove" anything. It seems to me that experience=existence. To question whether or not "this"(our subjective experience itself)exists seems a bit circular, as to prove the opposite (or to show the opposite condition; i.e. nonexistence)seems either impossible or unjustifiably imposed. (i.e. saying that our experiences do not exist. Thus "not existing"=experience? Jay M. Brewer www.superchristianity.com <a title="280px-Barin_in_a_vat_en.png" href="http://s147.photobucket.com/albums/r312/jbrewerbucket/?action=view¤t=280px-Barin_in_a_vat_en.png" ><img src="http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r312/jbrewerbucket/th_280px-Barin_in_a_vat_en.png" border="0"/></a>

ebryczek
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 12, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 5

Posted 01/13/07 - 09:34 AM: Subject: one has to exist to prove-reply	#3
Thank you for the reply Jay. I do agree the question seems circular, although otherwise wouldn’t be so tough to find the answer. First. Whether existence = experience ,I personally wouldn’t believe that. The experience may be false. Mental diseases create experiences that never existed (i.e. people believing they used to be Napoleon), for sick this experiences since 100 % real, even though nothing like that ever happened. In other words the “experience or it’s resemblance” of being Napoleon doesn’t equal being Napoleon himself. Just one example of “False experience”. ]] Secondly “one has to exist to prove anything” Well let’s picture the situation that one is a book character, and his task in the book (given to him by the author) is to prove certain point. The book character by proving the point doesn’t prove he really exists, he still remains the fiction. The only existing one is the author of the book. You may say the analogy is not very well chosen, since the book character cannot be linked to ourselves; yet maybe what we believe is our own view, opinion, impression, is just the one of our author (as we may be just a part of somebody’s projection – i.e God’s)? From religious point of view that would fit in as we are supposed to exist “in God” and be part of it. So that statement could be even appropriate, what about those who want to exist completely “by themselves” as individuals. Is it possible at all?, Sorry for my broken English Thank you for reply one more time

jaybrewer
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 12, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 01/13/07 - 05:53 PM: Subject: Reply to ebryczek	#4
Ebryczek, Thank you for your response. I must say, I did not think of the "false experience" syndrome suffered by victims of brain dysfunction or trauma. But then again, one might ask: what is the "right" kind of experience to have? In my view, we only perceive a simulation of external reality (if it even exists), and thus come to have a sort of hyper-strong belief that an external reality exists (despite the fact that nature could be so strange that nothing "out there" exists at all, and subjective mentality is the most fundamental substance, as opposed to physical energy. Your analogy of the book character, while appropriate, seems to necessitate some sort of experience in order for it to know that it exists. If the character is incapable of experience (one could say that book, or comic book characters are all actually "zombies"--being nonexistent in the sense that they do not have real experiences, following the philosophy of David Chalmers)then it is hard for the character to prove that a thing exists or is real: we are only seeing blind behaviors on paper (illustrated or in prose). This is why I state that the closest we come to knowing that we exist, and that things exist, is precisely because we experience(with some sort of experience, even if false, at least being an indication that we exist). Any other type of "existence" or what it means to "exist" independent of experience seems inconceivable. As to religous belief, God, being omniscient (knowing past,present, and future)--in order for his omniscience to be omniscience cannot be proven wrong in what he foreknew, so there must (I think) be some sort of causal mechanism that makes darn sure that what God previsions actually comes to pass. Otherwise, God becomes the luckiest guesser in any and all universes. But that's just me, (once again, thanks for your post) Jay M. Brewer www.superchristianity.com

Besimudo
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 28, 2004
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 20

Posted 01/14/07 - 05:11 PM:	#5
Cognito ergo sum ... Existence, I assume is truth. What truth is, however, can be debated. Truth might be scientific, philosophical, mythological ... the point is that the universe is not static. Hence, what you take to be true ... is not necessarily absolute. Absolute knowledge (the forms) preoccupies matter, but not literally, only by a plane of reference. It is our inability to reconcile real and not real that makes existence a perplexing matter. Anyhow, even if I did understand it, the transmission of knowledge would be so inextricable; the human form would be incapacitated or damaged at best. Re: Semele and Zeus; Moses and God.

Hopeing for the Road
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 14, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 01/14/07 - 08:06 PM:	#6
well what if someone from the moment they were born or created, was deprived of all sense of the physical world ie.sight, smell all that good stuff would they still have thoughts even if they dont have any experience to base these thoughts on? If that person has no concious experience they themselves dont exist at all, of course we think they exist because of our expierence but what would he think or would he even think?

Canis
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 14, 2007
Location: Maryland
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 01/14/07 - 11:46 PM:	#7
The easy way to prove existence is just cogito ergo sum, like Besimudo said. Something has to exist for it to even consider the possibility of existence. That said, I agree to some extent with Plato's theory of the Forms because I see it as an amenable compromise between idealism and empiricism. I think that following Berkeley and saying that all existence is perception leaves open the question of what is being perceived, while taking the empiricist stance ignores the fact that the only way we even experience the world is through our senses, which are inherently subjective. The difficulty with existence is this: how can we reconcile the fact that we are clearly biased beings who only experience the world through our senses, which routinely lie to us, with the fact that there are or at least appear to us to be higher, universal constants- things like justice and good. I think the only way to match the two is through the Forms. Now, one can simply refute that justice and good exist, of course, but the fact that all human beings seem to have some concept of both makes it difficult to do so.
"In the very long run we are all dead." ~John Maynard Keynes

Alex Bazil
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2007
Location: Not quite sure
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 01/16/07 - 08:15 AM:	#8
The only proof in favor of our very existence is perception. We perceive ourselves as real beings, just as we perceive the universe around us as being real. However perception is purely subjective and is not necessarily true. And through this process every single ounce of knowledge of our surrounding reality we believe we have, can be proven as being a mere perspective on things. Absolute certainty over any subject for that matter is impossible, as it gets stuck in the nasty problem of perception. However...we can assume based on our same perception that we exist...we cannot say we are right...but we cannot say we are wrong.

ebryczek
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 12, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 5

Posted 01/16/07 - 10:31 AM:	#9
“Hopeing for the road” That’s a very good point. What if someone would be deprived of smell, touch, sight, etc..etc… what if someone would actually be in comma since he/she was born .. that person would have no experience, no perception, so would she he really exist? (I just repeated your point, since it is really great question) Also thanks for comments everybody, gave me a looooot to think about, although I still only know that I don’t know..

ebryczek
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 12, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 5

Posted 01/16/07 - 11:27 AM:	#10
I completely agree with most of you comments, but still have thousand questions, and cannot believe there is no answer to them!!! All I believe, in order to find those answers we have to go past beyond traditional “logic and understanding”. How? I do not know that…Alex Bazil (read comment above) said we perceive ourselves as real , however perception is purely subjective.. Yes mostly we do perceive ourselves as real, but… some of us , minority, still wonder if we are actually real. Does wondering about our own “reality , or real existence” equals perceiving ourselves being real. Wouldn’t say that… I wonder if I am pale, I wonder if I am smart, I wonder if I am sensitive doesn’t equal “I am pale, smart and sensitive”. It only means, I wonder… For that reason if some of us “wonder” if they exist, doesn’t equal perceiving ourselves as existing ones!!! As for the rest, the ones who do perceive so called reality, …. Well I’ve been told I’m “not the brightest bulb in the tree”, and that’s how I do perceive myself, although it is not necessarily true. That’s how the reality that’s been introduced to us can be only y possible version of what the truth is. I know I know I know it was already told thousand times. Also Canis (comment above) says here “Cogito Ergo sum”, I wonder if I exist equals I do exist. Should repeat again I wonder if I am white tall girl (well actually I am pink and short ) - one doesn’t equal the other. Although my example may look more like logic or semantic game here, I hope I made my point clear. Canis also noticed a very interesting fact, that each of us has some sense of values (good and justice), so we shall be more likely to believe they (values)“exist” , but still no proof for ourselves to exist. Maybe the question links more to the definition of existence? Let’s say Mr. Programmer writes a computer game, program, code. The programmer (person) exists, the program (coded in a proper language) in a way exists, the game sort of exists (I guess many of us won’t argue computer games exists although they have no experience or sense of perception to base their existence on), consequently.. Computer game characters….what about the.. do they exist? We are likely to say the game itself exist, but the characters in the game? Tough question isn’t it? We are no more so likely to say those heroes exist , we would rather call them being plain fiction, although same as us they have sense of values (common game code, 01 values, rules of the game in each of them); they also posses some objective experience, why then are we so likely to say we (human beings) do exist and they don’t? Why does the game exist itself, but they (being part of it) do not? Where does the border of existence lie and what is the best definition for it? Thank you everybody for your comments again. And sorry for my language limitation

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.