So, how CAN we prove that we exist?

[Whiterain]

To me the true aesthetic of existing is pain, my body ache's, I am writhe with agony, therefore I am.

I never really needed such affirmation. My name is in the books somewhere and I am not even deeply concerned with testament I lived this life, it is full of shame and resentment, unfortunately.

I was never even that obsessed or contrived with the Gods and they intervened in my life.

As far as them, well they seem fine only existing in an occult and myth level right now. However there seems to be some asinine ultimatum between political powers and them.

Raise your glass if you are God, raise your glass.

So, anyway, Jupiter tells me he was poisoned during the Crusade era by the Church. A few of the Saints were deities, there be the skeletons. Numerous Saints were assassinated or murdered.

It's a complete abomination to me. I didn't find the vision enlightening, it was entirely demoralizing.

So the statues weren't enough and the corpse of Gods weren't enough. There's more to the spirit dimension, but Gods in the flesh will not sate anyone's desire and never did.


Anyway, they don't seem to care about proving their existence, or "helping," unfortunately.


To me the Gods were always Arch-types of Heroes and legendary super powers... Like "Hurah! The Gods are here!" now it seems like, "ON NO! THE GODS ARE GOING TO KILL EVERYONE!"


Cheers.

 

[Chakra]

I could be wading into waters well over my head but we can prove we exist physically simply by our effect on the world around us. We leave footprints wherever we go. We leave fingerprints on everything we touch. We shed skin cells over everything we come across, LOL. So, I guess the question is are we JUST physical beings or do we also have a non-physical component?

If I'm being stupid just smack me and I'll pipe down.

Well I suppose that when one lucid dreams, one "leaves footprints" in their own dream world BUT it is ultimately not even physical.

 

[YmirGF]

Well I suppose that when one lucid dreams, one "leaves footprints" in their own dream world BUT it is ultimately not even physical.

Well, I still leave footprints in the snow, so I have a bit of work to do.

I was going to mention out of body excursions, but not too many folks see that as counting for much. Given that I'm still quite aware of being during such endeavors, I'm pretty sure I must have some kind of existential reality.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Yup, I would go with Descartes; thinking presupposes a thinker. By the very action of experiencing (i.e perceiving, desiring and willing), suggest that there is a part of Me that exists.

Although, my philosophy professor disagreed. He said that and simply because "I think" does not mean "I Am", but merely that thoughts exist.

 

[psychoslice]

We have to ask the question, who is it that is asking the question, do we exist ?.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We exist in two realities - as individuals in the perceived world, and as energy in the absolute sense. Pragmatic (Vyavaharika) and Paramarthika (Absolute).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I still don't see a problem with Descarte's 'I think therefor I am'.

Or more accurately, "I think, therefore I think I am."

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So, from the various schools of philosophy out there, have you come across any argument that you believe logically proves that we exist (realism)...

I have never seen a foolproof argument, but it seems like a reasonable assumption.

 

[Willamena]

I could be wading into waters well over my head but we can prove we exist physically simply by our effect on the world around us. We leave footprints wherever we go. We leave fingerprints on everything we touch. We shed skin cells over everything we come across, LOL. So, I guess the question is are we JUST physical beings or do we also have a non-physical component?

If I'm being stupid just smack me and I'll pipe down.

Yes, but significantly, there is only evidence that we exist. There is none to contradict it. So, best case scenario, there should be no possibility to doubt.

Perhaps there is some confusion regarding the existence of illusions, eh? When you place a straw in a glass of water and see it displaced at the surface, that it's not truly broken doesn't impact the illusion, which occurs again and again. The displacement isn't real (which relates to truth) but the illusion exists (existence is independent of truth).

The real problem is a tendency to loosely conflate terms. That's something RF cured me of in my short tenure here.

 

[Willamena]

Yup, I would go with Descartes; thinking presupposes a thinker. By the very action of experiencing (i.e perceiving, desiring and willing), suggest that there is a part of Me that exists.

Just so. It's the sum of experiences that makes a 'being.' Thought is not independent of any THING that is thought (content).

 

[Aiviu]

This is mainly related to arguments that say that "there is no way to prove that we exist" or that "the universe is a projection/illusion". I remember reading somewhere that Descartes had an argument against this notion as he believed that you can't deny your self when your self is doing the denying in the first place. Realist philosophers from India had arguments using specific topics such as Apratak Siddhi etc. While these arguments seem quite logical, I am wondering if there are flaws in them and if there are better arguments.

So, from the various schools of philosophy out there, have you come across any argument that you believe logically proves that we exist (realism) and have kept your sanity at check? I would also be interested in hearing the opposite side of the argument as well.

Thank you!

Illusion or not doesnt really matter. You exists to the world you are put into. This is the actual realm you are logged into. Hammer a nail into the wall, "At least that you did it was not an illusion." The nail is still there even if you are long gone. To whom the nail in the wall should be illusioned to? Or take the iead for a picture on the wall. The nail is the meaning of reality and the holder for the canvas at once. Illusion? Illusion is if you over-think reality. Illusion is if you keep on thinking. You keep all your lifetime in an actless thoughtful illusion. And only this makes life an illusion.

 

[Acim]

This is mainly related to arguments that say that "there is no way to prove that we exist" or that "the universe is a projection/illusion". I remember reading somewhere that Descartes had an argument against this notion as he believed that you can't deny your self when your self is doing the denying in the first place. Realist philosophers from India had arguments using specific topics such as Apratak Siddhi etc. While these arguments seem quite logical, I am wondering if there are flaws in them and if there are better arguments.

So, from the various schools of philosophy out there, have you come across any argument that you believe logically proves that we exist (realism) and have kept your sanity at check? I would also be interested in hearing the opposite side of the argument as well.

Thank you!

I am one that uses this argument often. I believe it not plausible to prove we exist (physically) as anything but a projection of mind, or illusion. I like to think it possible that a Creator would establish it, but realize that is debatable. Or imagine if you created animated beings, and they became self aware, wondering if they exist or are an illusion. You then step in and say you are their Creator, but how would that prove they exist as not illusion? And/or that the Creator (you) are also not an illusion?

Proving existence is tricky stuff and ultimately not sure what it's for. Whereas "know they self" provides, I think, meaningful direction.

 

[Ana.J]

The thing is that we can't prove that we exist...

 

[Willamena]

The thing is that we can't prove that we exist...

We can, if terms are properly defined.

 

[DanielR]

one reason why I finally gave up Advaita

 

[Sunstone]

The thing is that we can't prove that we exist...

That would seem to depend on what one meant by "we", etc. For instance, it is simple enough to observe that thoughts exist because the very observance of that fact is itself thinking. So if by "we", one means thoughts, then one can reasonably assert that we exist.

 

[ThorirTheHound]

This is mainly related to arguments that say that "there is no way to prove that we exist" or that "the universe is a projection/illusion". I remember reading somewhere that Descartes had an argument against this notion as he believed that you can't deny your self when your self is doing the denying in the first place. Realist philosophers from India had arguments using specific topics such as Apratak Siddhi etc. While these arguments seem quite logical, I am wondering if there are flaws in them and if there are better arguments.

So, from the various schools of philosophy out there, have you come across any argument that you believe logically proves that we exist (realism) and have kept your sanity at check? I would also be interested in hearing the opposite side of the argument as well.

Thank you!

I feel like this is a question a 10 year old would ask after he finds out what "exist" means.. It's such a pointless debate.

 

[Sunstone]

I feel like this is a question a 10 year old would ask after he finds out what "exist" means.. It's such a pointless debate.

Funny. I was just yesterday reading an article on physicists who were asking much the same question. i.e. how do we know anything is real, or in what sense does the universe exist.

 

[idav]

This is mainly related to arguments that say that "there is no way to prove that we exist" or that "the universe is a projection/illusion". I remember reading somewhere that Descartes had an argument against this notion as he believed that you can't deny your self when your self is doing the denying in the first place. Realist philosophers from India had arguments using specific topics such as Apratak Siddhi etc. While these arguments seem quite logical, I am wondering if there are flaws in them and if there are better arguments.

So, from the various schools of philosophy out there, have you come across any argument that you believe logically proves that we exist (realism) and have kept your sanity at check? I would also be interested in hearing the opposite side of the argument as well.

Thank you!

Reality is such a solid foundation, it proves itself beyond reasonable doubt. We can always unreasonably presume all sorts of imaginary things that have no evidence, like being in a dream within a dream or the matrix or what have you.

 

[Willamena]

Funny. I was just yesterday reading an article on physicists who were asking much the same question. i.e. how do we know anything is real.

'Real' and 'exists' are not the same thing.