Smoke
Done here.
To whom is this question directed?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Prove you Exist.
- Thread starter sandy whitelinger
- Start date
Hume said that when we introspect we are never aware of our self as a substance but merely a collection of perceptions. The we here assumes that thought and perceptions depend for their identity upon the selves who are said to posses them. But neither Hume nor Descartes identified any core substance (using the appellation in its philosophical sense). In fact Hume said that when we talk of a self or substance we must know what we mean by those terms otherwise they are unintelligible. And referring to his Origin of Ideas, where every idea is derived from previous impressions, he says we have no impression of self or substance, as something simple and individual. He wrote in the Enquiries:
When we entertain, therefore, any suspicion that a philosophical term is employed without meaning or idea, we need but enquire from what impression is that supposed idea derived? And if it be impossible to assign any, this will confirm our suspicion.
Hume also likened the view that we have no idea of external substance, distinct from the ideas of particular qualities (Idealism?), to that of the question of mind: ie that we have no notion of it distinct from the particular perceptions. Indeed. A fair point!
Your question How can there be a mind if there is no being/person? assumes the existence of the very thing you want to establish, as does the question How can an idea exist without being owned?
I strongly disagree that the challenge is to think of a way to show there could be no I. That is similar to the believer asking the unbeliever to show there could be no God. To recap, my argument is that the certainty of Descartes first principle, which would allow him to proceed with his epistemological building blocks, was never established. He never proved the existence of Descartes distinct from the thinking. So, instead of presumptively arguing backwards, the challenge for the advocate is to demonstrate the existence of this self, if there is such a thing, by identifying its necessary and independent qualities. Ill now return the challenge to you: show me the way it will work?
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
A) You did not actually read the article I linked you to. On I think page 4 it points out that while it is not intelligible to talk of the self it is nonetheless an impossibility to posit that it does not exist.
B) You have not actually shown how you cannot exist and still have thoughts.
B1) You can claim the challenge is on me to show how it will work. Fine, that's trivially easy:
Premise 1) It is not possible to be and not be at the same time.
Premise 2) Something must exist in order for any qualities other than existence to occur.
Premise 3) There is a mind and the mind is qualitative. (empirically necessary since ideas exist and the mind can do things)
Premise 4; follows from 2 and 3) The mind requires causation. It cannot spring forth from nothing.
Conclusion 1 follows from 4) Thus something must contain any mind.
Premise 5) It is not possible for that which contains the mind to be anything other than the self. This is an axiom. We have established that the mind cannot exist in isolation. The necessary next step is to posit what contains the mind, but since we cannot ever analyze that which is outside the mind with the mind we can only be content with knowing that something exists, but not what it is qualitatively.
Conclusion 2; follows from all previous) The Self contains the mind and therefore Exists.
So now the onus is upon you to show how Premise 5 which is an axiom can possibly be false. No amount of skepticism can save you from this argument short of positing unlimited skepticism in which case all knowledge is impossible.
MTF
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
If "God" is real, then yes it is impossible. Perfection must necessarily be completely indeterminate, which means it cannot technically be either real or non-real.
MTF
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
If I would not exist, then i would not be able to ponder the question of my existence.
Doing something, perceiving something, thinking depends in the end on existence.
"Cognito ergo sum" is the credo.
But perhaps you mean proove to YOU that I exist.
Well here one could argue that since you read what i write obviously "something in existence" must have written it. Hence something exists. You may call that me
logician
Well-Known Member
Why, since you're certain not to accept it.
LittleNipper
Well-Known Member
ManTimeForgot wrote:
A) You did not actually read the article I linked you to. On I think page 4 it points out that while it is not intelligible to talk of the self it is nonetheless an impossibility to posit that it does not exist.
Cottage:
I dont know why you say I didnt read the article (I did, and many of the arguments are familiar to me). Many of the views have a psychological base to them, reasoned arguments from commonsense, and from what is said to be intuitively known, but not intuitively certain.
However, I was unable to find any argument that shows the impossibility that the self does not exist. (I have to say I find the idea of something being declared impossible not to exist to be a rather grand pronouncement and the very antithesis of Western analytical philosophy.)
And may I remind you it is not, and has never been my argument that such a thing does not exist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot wrote:
B) You have not actually shown how you cannot exist and still have thoughts.
Cottage:
I dont have to! But once again, you are presupposing the thing you hope to prove exists! The object isnt to show how a non-existent thing can have thoughts (an example of absurd question begging), but to show how thinking establishes a supposed Self. It happens to be my view is that there is no evidence for the existence of an essential self; I agree with Bertrand Russell who said it doesnt follow that a simple self doesnt exist but only that we cannot know whether it exists or not, and the the Self except as a collection of perceptions, cannot enter into any part of our knowledge.* So I reiterate, it isnt for me to nonsensically prove the non-existence of the concept; rather it is for you to show that it exists. *History of Western Philosophy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot wrote:
Premise 2) Something must exist in order for any qualities other than existence to occur.
Cottage:
Not quite sure what it is you are saying here. If you mean that when we speak of existence we must be referring to something other than the fact of existence itself, then yes, of course! And in that case what exists quite simply are the ideas. But if you mean something external to the something, a causal agent, then I have more to say on that matter shortly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot wrote:
Premise 3) There is a mind and the mind is qualitative. (empirically necessary since ideas exist and the mind can do things)
Cottage:
Mind isnt an entity distinct from the ideas; it is simply the collective noun.
Mind is the ideas. No ideas, then no mind! Mind doesnt do things, but is comprised in the ideas.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot wrote:
Premise 4; follows from 2 and 3) The mind requires causation. It cannot spring forth from nothing.
Cottage:
The argument here is contingent upon all things being in want of a cause, and unless we want to argue to an infinite regress we must accept the notion of a first cause. But if mind requires a cause then it is answerable only to this first cause. By what argument is the self, as a metaphysical intermediary lacking any necessity, slotted in between a first cause and the ideas, other than to make it fit with what we want to believe? It is a completely arbitrary notion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot wrote:
Conclusion 1 follows from 4) Thus something must contain any mind.
Premise 5) It is not possible for that which contains the mind to be anything other than the self. This is an axiom. We have established that the mind cannot exist in isolation.
Cottage:
If mind is caused, as it may be, then by definition it doesnt exist in isolation. But you are arguing that mind is caused and then stating that a particular metaphysical explanation, the self, must be its cause. On that account any metaphysical concept can also be used as a causal bridge, for example a further collection of ideas and even a yet further collection etc, etc until we arrive at the first cause.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot wrote:
The necessary next step is to posit what contains the mind, but since we cannot ever analyze that which is outside the mind with the mind we can only be content with knowing that something exists, but not what it is qualitatively.
Conclusion 2; follows from all previous) The Self contains the mind and therefore Exists.
So now the onus is upon you to show how Premise 5 which is an axiom can possibly be false. No amount of skepticism can save you from this argument short of positing unlimited skepticism in which case all knowledge is impossible.
Cottage:
Premise 5 is not axiomatic, and the conclusion is therefore unsound. There is nothing self-evident or logically certain in the statement: It is not possible for that which contains the mind to be anything other than the self. The proposition presumes to inform us that mind is only explicable in terms of a self. This is plainly false. Consider the Cosmological Argument, which says whatever begins to exist is caused to exist. If we mount up from that principle we must accept that whatever exists owes that potential to exist to something that has potential to do but not the potential to be, since its existence is actual and necessary. You can call this what you like: Pure Actuality; a First Cause; Necessary Being; ens realissimum, in Kants words - or God if you are so inclined. Everything, ideas and ideas of mind not excepted, necessarily inheres in that cause. Now Im sure that even the ardent advocate for the self would not claim self-creation; therefore that which contains mind is inherent in the first or uncaused cause. Quite simply, then, the concept of self is not self-evident and is shown to have no necessary existence.
A) You did not actually read the article I linked you to. On I think page 4 it points out that while it is not intelligible to talk of the self it is nonetheless an impossibility to posit that it does not exist.
Cottage:
I dont know why you say I didnt read the article (I did, and many of the arguments are familiar to me). Many of the views have a psychological base to them, reasoned arguments from commonsense, and from what is said to be intuitively known, but not intuitively certain.
However, I was unable to find any argument that shows the impossibility that the self does not exist. (I have to say I find the idea of something being declared impossible not to exist to be a rather grand pronouncement and the very antithesis of Western analytical philosophy.)
And may I remind you it is not, and has never been my argument that such a thing does not exist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot wrote:
B) You have not actually shown how you cannot exist and still have thoughts.
Cottage:
I dont have to! But once again, you are presupposing the thing you hope to prove exists! The object isnt to show how a non-existent thing can have thoughts (an example of absurd question begging), but to show how thinking establishes a supposed Self. It happens to be my view is that there is no evidence for the existence of an essential self; I agree with Bertrand Russell who said it doesnt follow that a simple self doesnt exist but only that we cannot know whether it exists or not, and the the Self except as a collection of perceptions, cannot enter into any part of our knowledge.* So I reiterate, it isnt for me to nonsensically prove the non-existence of the concept; rather it is for you to show that it exists. *History of Western Philosophy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot wrote:
Premise 2) Something must exist in order for any qualities other than existence to occur.
Cottage:
Not quite sure what it is you are saying here. If you mean that when we speak of existence we must be referring to something other than the fact of existence itself, then yes, of course! And in that case what exists quite simply are the ideas. But if you mean something external to the something, a causal agent, then I have more to say on that matter shortly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot wrote:
Premise 3) There is a mind and the mind is qualitative. (empirically necessary since ideas exist and the mind can do things)
Cottage:
Mind isnt an entity distinct from the ideas; it is simply the collective noun.
Mind is the ideas. No ideas, then no mind! Mind doesnt do things, but is comprised in the ideas.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot wrote:
Premise 4; follows from 2 and 3) The mind requires causation. It cannot spring forth from nothing.
Cottage:
The argument here is contingent upon all things being in want of a cause, and unless we want to argue to an infinite regress we must accept the notion of a first cause. But if mind requires a cause then it is answerable only to this first cause. By what argument is the self, as a metaphysical intermediary lacking any necessity, slotted in between a first cause and the ideas, other than to make it fit with what we want to believe? It is a completely arbitrary notion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot wrote:
Conclusion 1 follows from 4) Thus something must contain any mind.
Premise 5) It is not possible for that which contains the mind to be anything other than the self. This is an axiom. We have established that the mind cannot exist in isolation.
Cottage:
If mind is caused, as it may be, then by definition it doesnt exist in isolation. But you are arguing that mind is caused and then stating that a particular metaphysical explanation, the self, must be its cause. On that account any metaphysical concept can also be used as a causal bridge, for example a further collection of ideas and even a yet further collection etc, etc until we arrive at the first cause.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot wrote:
The necessary next step is to posit what contains the mind, but since we cannot ever analyze that which is outside the mind with the mind we can only be content with knowing that something exists, but not what it is qualitatively.
Conclusion 2; follows from all previous) The Self contains the mind and therefore Exists.
So now the onus is upon you to show how Premise 5 which is an axiom can possibly be false. No amount of skepticism can save you from this argument short of positing unlimited skepticism in which case all knowledge is impossible.
Cottage:
Premise 5 is not axiomatic, and the conclusion is therefore unsound. There is nothing self-evident or logically certain in the statement: It is not possible for that which contains the mind to be anything other than the self. The proposition presumes to inform us that mind is only explicable in terms of a self. This is plainly false. Consider the Cosmological Argument, which says whatever begins to exist is caused to exist. If we mount up from that principle we must accept that whatever exists owes that potential to exist to something that has potential to do but not the potential to be, since its existence is actual and necessary. You can call this what you like: Pure Actuality; a First Cause; Necessary Being; ens realissimum, in Kants words - or God if you are so inclined. Everything, ideas and ideas of mind not excepted, necessarily inheres in that cause. Now Im sure that even the ardent advocate for the self would not claim self-creation; therefore that which contains mind is inherent in the first or uncaused cause. Quite simply, then, the concept of self is not self-evident and is shown to have no necessary existence.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
Hello.
imaginaryme
Active Member
I don't exist. Simple. Now, if we can only explain all those portraits of Gwyneth Paltrow floating around with my signature on them...
DarkSun
:eltiT
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
If the self did not exist why is there any thing occurring? Why are there ideas? You see I leave off the "within" in the first question, because I guess technically that assumes "the self." But the simple fact is in nature nothing exists which is not contained by something else; some rule set some exigent agency/circumstances which is responsible for it being at all.
Not it is not possible to know about the self, not that it cannot be shown to exist. It is a necessary feature. If you cannot show a possible way (as in it is impossible to do so) in which the self does not exist, then it must necessarily follow that the self exists.
Premise 2 means that in order to have any qualities at all something must exist; it must be real. Non-real things cannot have any other qualities.
Mind is just the ideas? What allows the ideas to exist? Why are they even able to exist in the first place? Sensation? Why is sensation possible? In order to have stimuli there needs to be something receiving the information. What is receiving the information? There is a framework of existence which is necessary to allow for ideas, memories, and sensations to even occur. What is that framework of existence?
Not arbitrary, necessary. Something is responsible. There must indeed be an end, but it need not be "First Cause." Reality could be eternal and infinite and thus there is no "First Cause." But causality is inviolate. So something is responsible. We have no idea what, but something must be responsible. It could be the essential pasta bowl, but whatever "it" is it is still there.
What is a collection of ideas without agency? If these ideas cannot do anything, act in anyway, possess any capability, then they are defunct as explanatory devices. My argument is that something must exist, and whatever you call it, whatever it may be its reality approximates our notion of the self to the point that it is impractical to refer to it as anything else.
Um... Axiom just means something that must be taken as true in order for the system as a whole to be true. The parallel postulate in Euclidean geometry is axiomatic. The system cannot show it to be true, but the system fails if the parallel postulate is anything but true. So yes premise 5 is an axiom. The conclusion is not "unsound." The conclusion is valid period, and sound so long as premise 5 is taken as true axiomatically. The onus is upon you to show how premise 5 can possibly EVER be anything but true (mind you anything which approaches the self in definition counts). If you can show how it is EVER possible for the self to not exist, then I will gladly admit that the self does not exist.
MTF
Last edited:
Evandr
Stripling Warrior
I had this same debate with a friend of mine throughout my entire senior year in High school, it is a classic exercise in debate forum because there can be no definitive proof one way or the other. I took the side of the uncreated while he endeavored to prove that perception validated reality. It was my argument that nothing really existes except pure intelligence which created this whole concept of physical reality out of a intense need to give reason for its own existence. In other words, I dont even exist as I perceive myself to be, only as a portal through which to experience my surroundings, surroundings created on an purly intellectual plain and then sustained by suppressing the reality of its unreality.
One must simply acknowledge their own ability to feel and accept the reality that those feelings will translate into a metamorphosis of their surroundings, real or not. What does it matter if my surroundings are real or not, and for that matter how does one define real in the first place, to me it is real and affects my conscious level of happiness or misery. That is all that really matters.
One must simply acknowledge their own ability to feel and accept the reality that those feelings will translate into a metamorphosis of their surroundings, real or not. What does it matter if my surroundings are real or not, and for that matter how does one define real in the first place, to me it is real and affects my conscious level of happiness or misery. That is all that really matters.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
You've missed the point.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
To anyone who exists.To whom is this question directed?
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Are you always this misinformed?