Doesn't that fail similarly in connecting "I" with "perceiving"? To do so implicitly assumes an "I" that exists in the first place.
Something was perceived by something. We don't even know for sure that they're the same thing wholly. But we all can prove to ourselves that something perceived something. That's all we've got to work with. One of those somethings is me (I). I have no other word for it. I have no other frame of reference.
To do so implicitly assumes an "I" that exists in the first place.
Once again, it is nonsensical to deny the existence of self, as something must exist in order to deny that existence. There exists a concept of self, and whatever it is that possesses that concept is the self. But the self might not even be the thing that you think is aware of the self. As Rym said, there is no other way to refer to it.
Further, to say "I doubt that I exist" still assumes the existence of an "I." So if my statement about "I" is flawed, your statement about denying the existence of "I" is also flawed, for the same reason. In essence, you've said nothing.
We could further expand the statement:
I am a thing that perceives the existence of thought; therefore, I exist.
The first statement defines a term; in essence, it creates from scratch. The second statement follows logically.
Write a book, Pete. You probably could.
Working on it, but it's not at all what you think.
My opinion of loopy-schoopy relativism on this point is that it's just laziness. If your answer to everything is that it's alright depending on what culture you're in if some culture, somewhere, even in the distant past, condoned or tolerated it, you don't have to think too hard about it, do you?
No. People feel the need for an objective morality because they don't feel confident enough to judge someone or something without some higher power supporting them. As far as I'm concerned, slavery is wrong. I don't care whether it's objectively true. Nothing is right. Nothing is wrong. You fight for what you believe in. Isn't that enough?
I am a thing that perceives the existence of thought; therefore, I exist.
The first statement defines a term; in essence, it creates from scratch. The second statement follows logically.
I deny logic. While it seems to my sense of reason that the solipsistic hypothesis is somehow true, how do I know I can trust my sense of reason? Without reason, I cannot establish my ability to reason, and without reason I can know nothing. How can I know that Descartes' demon has not merely tricked me into believing that logic is a way to derive truth, when in fact it is not?
I am a thing that perceives the existence of thought; therefore, I exist.
The first statement defines a term; in essence, it creates from scratch. The second statement follows logically.
I deny logic.h While it seems to my sense of reason that the solipsistic hypothesis is somehow true, how do I know I can trust my sense of reason? Without reason, I cannot establish my ability to reason, and without reason can know nothing. How can I know that Descartes' demon has not merely tricked me into believing that logic is a way to derive truth, when in fact it is not?
I am a thing that perceives the existence of thought; therefore, I exist.
The first statement defines a term; in essence, it creates from scratch. The second statement follows logically.
I deny logic. While it seems to my sense of reason that the solipsistic hypothesis is somehow true, how do I know I can trust my sense of reason? Without reason, I cannot establish my ability to reason, and without reason can know nothing. How can I know that Descartes' demon has not merely tricked me into believing that logic is a way to derive truth, when in fact it is not?
So you know nothing, can't prove anything, and are unsure of even your own existence.
Congratulations on the most pointless argument ever made.
It's no less useful a point than solipsism. In fact, it makes more sense, because if you're going to be skeptical of every vestige of reality, it is simply inconsistent to withhold your skepticism from the foundations of logic, or, indeed, from your own skepticism.
In either case, we build ourselves back up to reality on a pragmatic basis. However, I think the idea of "absolute certainty" is an unneccessary one; indeed, it is an outright harmful one. To assert absolute certainty of something means that you could not possibly change your mind, no matter what information was presented to you.
Do you believe with absolute certainty that 2 is a prime number?
Congratulations on the most pointless argument ever made.
That basically makes me a king among philosophers. Do I get a prize?
Only if you can prove that the prize itself actually exists.
What standard of proof? I don't need to be 100% certain of something to consider it "proven" for pragmatic purposes, just very certain. Evolution is not an 100% certainty, but it is for all intents and purposes "proven". I suspect that none of you are any different when it comes to a pragmatic approach to reality, even if you may tend to assert certainty with respect to some abstract concepts.
While it seems to my sense of reason that the solipsistic hypothesis is somehow true, how do I know I can trust my sense of reason?
What does it mean to "trust" your sense of reason? The mere fact that you doubt your sense of reason means that your sense of reason must exist, or else what would you be doubting?
You can't know whether or not your reason is faulty, but that doesn't stop you from perceiving thoughts. That's the only thing that matters. You still perceive, so therefore, you must exist.
How do I know for sure that I perceive? Even if I did, why would this mean that I exist?
You know that you exist because you are able to create doubt about your existance, therefore you have created somehing that exists. Something cannot be created from something that does not exist, therefore you must exist.
Even if I cannot think of a thing, that does not prove its impossibility.
Yes, but the fact that you have created doubt provides evidence of you, it's creator. In the same way that archeologists take the creations of past cultures as evidence that their creators existed, so to does your doubt indicate that you exist.
Comments
Further, to say "I doubt that I exist" still assumes the existence of an "I." So if my statement about "I" is flawed, your statement about denying the existence of "I" is also flawed, for the same reason. In essence, you've said nothing.
We could further expand the statement:
I am a thing that perceives the existence of thought; therefore, I exist.
The first statement defines a term; in essence, it creates from scratch. The second statement follows logically. Working on it, but it's not at all what you think.
Nothing is right. Nothing is wrong. You fight for what you believe in. Isn't that enough?
While it seems to my sense of reason that the solipsistic hypothesis is somehow true, how do I know I can trust my sense of reason? Without reason, I cannot establish my ability to reason, and without reason I can know nothing.
How can I know that Descartes' demon has not merely tricked me into believing that logic is a way to derive truth, when in fact it is not?
Congratulations on the most pointless argument ever made.
A: "It's the cinnamon sugar swirls in every bite"
B: "Taste you can see"
C: "Delicious"
Where A and B are qualities of D, and D = "Cinnamon Toast Crunch,"
Then D is delicious.
In either case, we build ourselves back up to reality on a pragmatic basis. However, I think the idea of "absolute certainty" is an unneccessary one; indeed, it is an outright harmful one. To assert absolute certainty of something means that you could not possibly change your mind, no matter what information was presented to you.
Do you believe with absolute certainty that 2 is a prime number?
You can't know whether or not your reason is faulty, but that doesn't stop you from perceiving thoughts. That's the only thing that matters. You still perceive, so therefore, you must exist.
Even if I did, why would this mean that I exist?