Do we exist?



 Religions > Atheism > Do we exist?

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 2

1

 

2

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "ume$h"
Date: 09 Jun 2006 07:00:58 AM
Object: Do we exist?
O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.
.

User: "Uncle Vic"

Title: Re: Do we exist? 09 Jun 2006 02:40:37 PM
"ume$h" <fraternitydisposal@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1149854458.451709.291480@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.


<Looks in mirror>
yup
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
The laws that require me to NOT kill people I don't like REALLY bug
me, or there would be many less of YOUR kind.
-John Weatherly
.

User: "GoDrex"

Title: Re: Do we exist? 09 Jun 2006 10:27:53 PM
"ume$h" <fraternitydisposal@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149854458.451709.291480@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.

I don't think you do
.

User: ","

Title: Re: Do we existamento? 10 Jun 2006 02:16:38 AM
"ume$h" <fraternitydisposal@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149854458.451709.291480@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.

ex-ist meaning from-ist. are we from-ists?
i would see us as to-ists at times or do-ists,
but then again, from-ists-isms may lead to to-ist-isms
or do-ist-isms anyway so what the hell.
.
User: "ume$h"

Title: Re: Do we existamento? 10 Jun 2006 02:29:29 AM
So what is your point now?
,'""-=][^^@-==+ wrote:
"ume$h" <fraternitydisposal@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1149854458.451709.291480@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.


ex-ist meaning from-ist. are we from-ists?
i would see us as to-ists at times or do-ists,
but then again, from-ists-isms may lead to to-ist-isms

or do-ist-isms anyway so what the hell.
.
User: ","

Title: pointedly [ was Re: Do we existamento? 10 Jun 2006 08:36:01 AM
"ume$h" <fraternitydisposal@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149924569.533406.245950@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

So what is your point now?

my point is and always has been that
very thing which makes it virtually
impossible for me to wear most types
of hats
.



User: "Larry Heath"

Title: Re: Do we exist? 09 Jun 2006 06:05:26 PM
"ume$h" <fraternitydisposal@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149854458.451709.291480@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.

Yes "we" do. There seem to be somewhat over about 6 billion examples,
current estimate, of the "we" I assume you allude to. This being a fairly
large number of examples of the "we" it appears exceedingly likely that "we"
exist.
--
Later Larry
aa #2216
Plonked by Fred Stone, 17 March 2006
.
User: "Michelle Malkin"

Title: Re: Do we exist? 09 Jun 2006 11:49:39 PM

"ume$h" <fraternitydisposal@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149854458.451709.291480@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.

No, and that includes you.
.

User: "Daniel T."

Title: Re: Do we exist? 09 Jun 2006 11:10:49 PM
In article <aqqdnUgEc5N4YxTZnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Larry Heath" <lgheath@comcast.net> wrote:

"ume$h" <fraternitydisposal@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149854458.451709.291480@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.


Yes "we" do. There seem to be somewhat over about 6 billion examples,
current estimate, of the "we" I assume you allude to. This being a fairly
large number of examples of the "we" it appears exceedingly likely that "we"
exist.

Naw. There is "me" I know that, then there is "them" but I'm not really
sure if "they" exist. If I exist without them, then "we" don't exist...
.

User: "Bob"

Title: Re: Do we exist? 09 Jun 2006 08:07:14 PM
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 19:05:26 -0400, "Larry Heath" <lgheath@comcast.net>
wrote:

O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.

Yes "we" do. There seem to be somewhat over about 6 billion examples,
current estimate, of the "we" I assume you allude to. This being a fairly
large number of examples of the "we" it appears exceedingly likely that "we"
exist.

Hey, don't leave out my beagle, Artie - or he will get *****. He
exists too.
--
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable."
--Sun Tzu
.


User: "Daniel T."

Title: Re: Do we exist? 09 Jun 2006 07:35:26 AM
In article <1149854458.451709.291480@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"ume$h" <fraternitydisposal@gmail.com> wrote:

O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.

I know I exist. You on the other hand, I'm not so sure of...
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Do we exist? 09 Jun 2006 12:19:26 PM
Daniel T. wrote:

In article <1149854458.451709.291480@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"ume$h" <fraternitydisposal@gmail.com> wrote:

O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.


I know I exist. You on the other hand, I'm not so sure of...

There is no universally accepted theory of what the word existence
means. The dominant (though by no means universal) view in
twentieth-century and contemporary Anglo-American philosophy is that
existence is what is asserted by statements of first-order logic of the
form "for some x Fx". This agrees with the simple and commonsensical
view that, in uttering "There is a bridge across the Thames at
Hammersmith", or "A bridge crosses the Thames at Hammersmith", one
asserts the existence of a bridge across the Thames at Hammersmith. The
word "existence", on this view, is simply a way of describing the
logical form of ordinary subject-predicate sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence
Existing seems to be at least as mundane as walking or being hungry.
Yet, when we say 'Tom is hungry' or 'Tom is walking', it may be
news to those not in Tom's vicinity, whereas 'Tom exists' would be
news to no one who knew Tom, and merely puzzling to anyone who did not.
Again, we know what it is like to be hungry or to walk, but what is it
like to exist, what kind of experience is that? Is it perhaps the
experience of being oneself, of being identical with oneself? Yet
again, we can readily indicate what is meant by Tom's walking, but
surely Tom's existing is not something we can indicate to anyone. On
the face of it, there would seem to be no way at all in which we can
explain what existing is.
It may be tempting to think that 'Tom exists' means merely 'Tom
is real'. In fact, this could be distinctly appealing, for 'real'
is what has been called an 'excluder' predicate, meaning thereby
that it attributes nothing positive to Tom, but operates in a purely
negative fashion simply to exclude Tom from being imaginary, mythical,
fictional, and the like. To say that 'exists' meant 'is real'
would be to say inter alia that it attributed nothing positive to Tom;
and that would do much to relieve our frustration at being so fluent in
our use of 'exists' despite having no idea of its attributing
anything positive to Tom. It would be a relief to discover that
'exists' attributes nothing positive to him at all.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/
- Existence is not a property
A bachelor can be defined as an unmarried man. Being unmarried is the
essential defining property of a bachelor. Now, if I were to say
'bachelors exist', I would not be giving a further property of
bachelors. Existence is not the same sort of thing as the property of
being unmarried: for anyone to be unmarried they must first exist,
though the concept of a bachelor remains the same whether or not any
bachelors do happen to exist.
If we apply the same thinking to the Ontological Argument, we see that
the mistake it makes is to treat the existence of God as if it were
simply another property, like omniscience, or omnipotence. But God
could not be omniscient or omnipotent without existing, so by giving a
definition of God at all we are already assuming that he or she exists.
Listing existence as a further essential property of a perfect being is
making the mistake of treating existence as a property rather than as
the precondition of anything having any properties at all.
But what about fictional beings, such as unicorns? Surely we can talk
about the properties of a unicorn, such as having one horn and four
legs, without unicorns actually having to exist. The answer is that
what a sentence like 'Unicorns have one horn' really means is 'If
unicorns were to exist, they would have one horn'. In other words,
'Unicorns have one horn' is really a hypothetical statement. So the
non-existence of unicorns is not a problem for the view that existence
is not a property.
PHILOSOPHY: THE BASICS
Nigel Warburton
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415146941/
In "Section IV. Of the Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the
Existence of God,"[1] drawn from his Critique, Kant addresses the
logical problem of existential import. How do we talk or think about
things without supposing, in some sense at least, that they exist?
Bertrand Russell expressed one aspect of the problem this way: If it's
false that the present King of France is bald, then why doesn't this
fact imply that it's true the present King of France is not bald? When
the existence of the subjects of our statements are in question, the
normal use of logic becomes unreliable. Kant argues that the use of
words (or "predicates") alone does not necessarily imply the existence
of their referents. We can only assume the existence of entities named
by our words; we cannot prove "existence" by means of the use of
language alone.
"Being is evidently not a real predicate, that is, a conception of
something which is added to the conception of some other thing. " -Kant
http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/introbook2.1/c3458.html
http://ghc.ctc.edu/HUMANITIES/DLARSON/kanto.htm
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/existenceisnotapredicate.html
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Do we exist? 09 Jun 2006 12:49:26 PM
wrote:

There is no universally accepted theory of what the word existence
means.

What that nonsenscial regurgitated diatribe means in reality is, that,
extropy1's POC (primacy of consciousness) indoctrinated *non-thinking*
mental process, has indoctrinated him to deny a meaning for a *thing*
that even his dopey ideas could not be even concidered, let alone
originated, without.
Existence exists is an axiom which states that there is something, as
opposed to nothing. At the core of every thought is the observation
that "I am aware of something". The very fact that one is aware of
something is the proof that something in some form exists -- that
existence exists -- existence being all that which exists. Also, to
grasp the thought, "I am aware of something," you must be conscious.
Existence is axiomatic because it is necessary for all knowledge and it
cannot be denied without conceding its truth. To deny existence is to
say that something doesn't exist. A denial of something is only
possible if existence exists.
Michael Gordge
.

User: "Bob"

Title: Re: Do we exist? 09 Jun 2006 12:38:01 PM
On 9 Jun 2006 10:19:26 -0700,
wrote:

O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.

I know I exist. You on the other hand, I'm not so sure of...

There is no universally accepted theory of what the word existence
means.

After a while people get tired of 13 year olds like you pontificating.
There is a universallly accepted theory of what the word existence
means, but you have to be rational to understand it.
--
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable."
--Sun Tzu
.



User: "William Wingstedt"

Title: Re: Do we exist? 09 Jun 2006 07:44:00 AM
On 9 Jun 2006 05:00:58 -0700, "ume$h" <fraternitydisposal@gmail.com>
wrote:

O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.

It is possible that we do.
.

User: "Bob"

Title: Re: Do we exist? 09 Jun 2006 10:15:27 AM
On 9 Jun 2006 05:00:58 -0700, "ume$h" <fraternitydisposal@gmail.com>
wrote:

Please answer if you have any answer.

Rene Descarte attempted to shed some light on this with his famous
"Cogito ergo sum" ("Je pense, donc je suis"), which has been butchered
by pseudo-philosophers like psychobabbleologists who want to read
their sophist ideologies into it.
Cogito means "I am aware of my own existence, therefore I exist." It
is self-awareness that confirms existence, for it would be absurd to
be self-aware and not exist. Even if you adamantly claim that you do
not exist, there is still your self awareness that permits you to make
that claim in the first place, so you do exist after all.
However, this certainty regarding your own existence is subjective and
cannot be rationally proven to anyone else. For all you know, you are
the only being that exists and all the rest is an illusion, like with
Neo inside The Matrix.
From Wikipedia:
+++
In his [Descarte] belief in his own existence he finds it: it is
impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving
god, his belief in his own existence would be secure, for how could he
be deceived unless he existed in order to be deceived?
"But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in
the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow
that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something [or
thought anything at all] then I certainly existed. But there is a
deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and
constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he
is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will
never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am
something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must
finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily
true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." (AT
VII 25; CSM II 16-17)
There are two important notes to keep in mind here. First, he only
claims the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point
of view - he has not proved the existence of other minds at this
point. This is something that has to be thought through by each of us
for ourselves, as we follow the course of the meditations. Secondly,
he is not saying that his existence is necessary; he is saying that if
he's thinking, then he necessarily exists (see the instantiation
principle).
Descartes does not use this first certainty, the cogito, as a
foundation upon which to build further knowledge; rather, it is the
firm ground upon which he can stand as he works to restore his
beliefs. As he puts it:
"Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in
order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if
I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and
unshakeable." (AT VII 24; CSM II 16)
Perhaps what Descartes meant, simply put is "I am vividly aware of my
existence".
+++
--
1. The Hill
WHERE are Elmer, Herman, Bert, Tom and Charley,
The weak of will, the strong of arm, the clown, the boozer, the fighter?
All, all, are sleeping on the hill.

One passed in a fever,
One was burned in a mine,
One was killed in a brawl,
One died in a jail,
One fell from a bridge toiling for children and wife
All, all are sleeping, sleeping, sleeping on the hill.

Where are Ella, Kate, Mag, Lizzie and Edith,
The tender heart, the simple soul, the loud, the proud, the happy one?
All, all, are sleeping on the hill.

One died in shameful child-birth,
One of a thwarted love,
One at the hands of a brute in a brothel,
One of a broken pride, in the search for heart’s desire,
One after life in far-away London and Paris
Was brought to her little space by Ella and Kate and Mag
All, all are sleeping, sleeping, sleeping on the hill.

Where are Uncle Isaac and Aunt Emily,
And old Towny Kincaid and Sevigne Houghton,
And Major Walker who had talked
With venerable men of the revolution?
All, all, are sleeping on the hill.

They brought them dead sons from the war,
And daughters whom life had crushed,
And their children fatherless, crying
All, all are sleeping, sleeping, sleeping on the hill.

Where is Old Fiddler Jones
Who played with life all his ninety years,
Braving the sleet with bared breast,
Drinking, rioting, thinking neither of wife nor kin,
Nor gold, nor love, nor heaven?
Lo! he babbles of the fish-frys of long ago,
Of the horse-races of long ago at Clary’s Grove,
Of what Abe Lincoln said
One time at Springfield.
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Do we exist? 09 Jun 2006 12:08:26 PM
Bob wrote:

On 9 Jun 2006 05:00:58 -0700, "ume$h" <fraternitydisposal@gmail.com>
wrote:

Please answer if you have any answer.


Rene Descarte attempted to shed some light on this with his famous
"Cogito ergo sum" ("Je pense, donc je suis"), which has been butchered
by pseudo-philosophers like psychobabbleologists who want to read
their sophist ideologies into it.

You were doing very weel up to "Descartes attempted to shed some light
on..." but then you destroyed your explaination of Descartes inductive
argument by lambasting any criticism of the "cogito" therefore let me
stick it in further;
The experience of existing is not an argument. Something is added to "a
concept" which refers to a moment of that existence. The interaction of
these two "rerepresentations" in the brain along with the "experience"
is a complex argument, and is (inductive) and is hence a theory. You
cannot determine either way whether you know that you exist or not by
simply refering to a memory of a moment of existence a moment ago and
combining it with a theory about such events.
-------------------------------
Descartes attempts to create a foundationalist philosophy based on a
single, undeniable truth which he knows to be "fixed and assured". He
takes "I think, therefore I am" "as the first principle of the
philosophy I was seeking", believing that this is the only truth which
is necessary to found a philosophy. His logical structure , however,
relies on a second postulate. He claims that "the capacity to judge
correctly and to distinguish the true from the false is naturally equal
in all men". This postulate is more fundamental to his logical
structure than the cogito because without it, he cannot escape the
skepticism of his foundationalist structure.
------------------------------
"It must be possible," as Kant put it in a key paragraph, "for the 'I
think' to accompany all my representations; for otherwise something
would be represented in me which could not be thought at all, and that
is equivalent to saying that the representation would be impossible, or
at least would be nothing to me." (In one of the grander
understatements of his whole oeuvre, Kant concludes that paragraph by
simply noting: "From this original combination, many consequences
follow.'") Kant's point about the way in which the "I think" must be
able, in his words, to "accompany" any representation was that unless
it were possible for me to become aware of a representation as a
representation - to become aware of my experience of the stone as an
experience of the stone - then that representation would be as nothing
for me; and that any representation must therefore meet the conditions
under which it could become an object of such reflective awareness.
That particular move, of course, meant that the condition for any
representation's being a representation (having some cognitive content,
being experienced as a representation (of something) had to do with the
conditions of self-consciousness itself.
Kant's term for the kind of self-consciousness involved in such a
thought is apperception, the awareness of something as an awareness
(which itself is a condition of being able to separate the object from
the representation of the object). The question then was: what is the
nature of this apperception?
Any representation of a multiplicity as a multiplicity involves not
merely the receptivity of experience; experiencing it as one
experiential multiplicity requires the possibility of there being a
single complex thought of the experience. The unity of the multiplicity
of experience is therefore in Kant's words a "synthetic unity of
representations." A single complex thought, however, requires a single
complex subject to think it since a single complex thought could not be
distributed among different thinking subjects. (A single complex
thought might be something like, "The large black stone is lying on the
ground" - different subjects could think different elements of the
complex, such as "large," "black," etc., but that would not add up to a
single thought; it would only be a series of different thoughts.) Thus,
we need one complex thinking subject to have a single complex thought.
On Kant's picture therefore, we have on the one hand the identity of
the thinking subject, and on the other hand the multiplicity of the
representations which it has. The same complex thinking subject - as
the same subject of different experiences - is correlated therefore to
the "synthetic" unity of the multiplicity of experience. On the basis
of this, Kant drew his most basic conclusion: a condition of both the
synthetic unity of the multiplicity of representations (and what he
called the analytic unity of apperception) is the synthetic unity of
apperception.* That the "I that experiences or thinks about X" is the
same "I that experiences or thinks about Y" is, after all, not an
analytic truth. (From "somebody thought of Kant" and "somebody thought
of Hume," it does not follow that it was the same person who thought of
both Kant and Hume.) On the other hand, it is absolutely necessary that
all the different experiences be ascribed to the same thinking subject,
that they be capable of being "accompanied" by the same "I think."
Since it is both necessary (and therefore only know-able a priori), and
also synthetic (not a self-contradiction to deny), the judgment that I
have a unity of self-consciousness is, odd as it sounds, a synthetic a
priori judgment.
*I am here following Beatrice Longuenesse in taking the analytic unity
of apperception to be that consciousness in which the synthetic unity
is "reflected," that is, "thought" or judged by means of concepts. See
Longuenesse, Kant and the Capacity to Judge, p. 73. On her account,
synthesizing "by means of analytic unity" is bringing several intuitive
representations under one concept or bringing several concepts under a
concept of greater universality. See Kant and the Capacity to Judge, p.
81.
What follows from that? Whatever is necessary for my being able to
comprehend myself as the same thinking subject over a series of
temporally extended experiences is also necessary for representations
in general to be representations, that is, to have cognitive content,
to be not merely internal, subjective occurrences within one's mental
life but to be about something - which brings Kant around to another
version of his original question: how can a representation be about
anything at all?
If there is any way in which the intuitive representations in our
consciousness must be combined, then that "must" embodies the
conditions under which anything can be a "representation" at all; and
the key to understanding what might be further implied by that move,
Kant noted, lay in the very idea of judgment itself, the topic with
which he had begun the Critique. To make a judgment - to assert
something that can be true or false - is different in kind from merely
associating some idea with some other idea. To make a judgment is to
submit oneself to the norms that govern such judgments. It is, however,
simply a matter of fact and not of norms whether I associate, for
example, "Kant" with Prussia or Germany or long walks in the afternoon,
or, for that matter, with disquisitions on the proper way to throw
dinner parties. To make a judgment is to do something that is subject
to standards of correctness, whereas to associate something with
something else is neither to be correct nor incorrect - it is simply a
fact about one's psychic life.
Judgments themselves, as normative matters, are combinations therefore
of two different types of representations into a unity according to the
rules of right judgment. This, in turn, showed that concepts could not
simply be abstractions from intuitions: a concept is a rule for
synthesis in judgments; in Kant's words, a concept is a "unity of the
act of bringing various representations under one common
representation." Since intuitions cannot produce the unity of such
combination themselves, they cannot combine themselves into judgments;
only concepts can combine (that is, "synthesize") such experiential
items. To have a concept, Kant argued, is be in possession of a norm, a
rule of "synthesis" for a judgment. Having a concept is more like
having an ability - an ability to combine representations according to
certain norms - than it is like having any kind of internal mental
state.
All this finally comes together, Kant argued, when we think about the
conditions under which we could become apperceptively self-conscious as
thinking subjects. For me to be aware of myself as a thinking being is
to be aware of myself as a unity of experience - as a kind of unified
viewpoint on the world - and that unity must be brought about by myself
in the activity of combining representations into judgmental form. In
combining the multiplicity of sensuous intuitions into a "synthetic
unity" (in seeing my experience as more than a series of subjective,
psychic events, but instead as a connected series of representations of
things), I combine the elements of that experience (intuitions)
according to the rules that are necessary for such combinations.
Establishing the necessity of these rules thus must consist in looking
at how sensuous intuitions must be combined if we are to make judgments
about them - if we are to be able to say even mundane things like, "Oh,
it looks green in that light, but really it's blue." The most basic of
those concepts would therefore be the basic concepts necessary in
experience in general, or, to use Kant's reinvention of Aristotle's
classical term, would be the necessary categories of all possible
experience. (Kant defined a category as a "concept of an object in
general, by means of which the intuition of an object is regarded as
determined in respect of one of the logical functions of judgment.")
Indeed, without such categories, we could not see our intuitions as
representations at all. They would be merely psychic occurrences,
things that were either there or not, happened or did not happen, not
be items that could be said to be adequate or inadequate, correct or
incorrect, true or false.
To see them as representations, moreover, is to see them as
representations of an object. Kant says: "An object is that in the
concept of which the multiplicity of a given intuition is united." We
combine various intuitive occurrences - such as black, oblong shaped,
and so forth -into the notion of their all being perspectival
representations of a single object (the stone). The intuitions
themselves cannot, as it were, tell us of what they are intuitions; we
make them into intuitions of something, into representations by
actively combining them according to the rules of judgment, of
conceptual representation in general. For me to be apperceptively
self-aware of my experiences as representations, I must be able to take
them as combined in certain basic ways, namely, those that correspond
to the possible forms of judgment, and if there are only so many forms
of judgment, there will be only so many categories.*
*Note that Kant does not say: I must be able to see them combined, or
even that I do see them that way; I must be able to see them as
combined. As people like Hume had pointed out, we can imaginatively
recombine our experiences in all kinds of fantastic ways.
The basic categories themselves thus have to do with the way in which
we order and structure our sensory experience into that of a unified
experience that represents a single world which consists of objects in
space and time interacting with each other according to deterministic
causal laws. Kant's own derivations of those categories were and
remained quite controversial, since they were, in his terms, only the
"logical forms of judgment" required by our capacity of
self-consciousness (that is, ultimately by our capacity to represent
within our experience the distinction between the experience of an
object and the object itself, to represent ourselves "taking" our
experience in certain ways, which presupposes our capacity to bring the
logical forms of judgment in normative play in our own experience). The
categories of experience (such as those of causality and of enduring
substances taking on different properties at different times) emerge as
required for us to self-consciously make judgments about our own
experiences.*
*As is immediately apparent to any Kant scholar, this last sentence is
only a shorthand for a very controversial interpretation of the nature
of the categories. It rejects the view of the categories as concepts
prior to experience that we then "apply" to experience by acts of
synthesis. It also rejects the view that they are generated from the
combination of the pure forms of judgment (concepts) with the pure
forms of intuition (space and time). For example, on that latter view,
the form of hypothetical judgment (if p, then q) combined with the
notion of necessary succession in time yields the category of
causality, that is, of one event (q) necessarily succeeding another
(p); the form of categorical judgment (S is P) combined with
temporality gave one the notion of an enduring identical substance with
changing attributes, that is, of something (S) remaining the same while
it took on the attributes of P and then later Q. To justify the
interpretation I present here in anything like the detail required
would take up far more space than is possible. Instead, it is probably
best simply to note that this line of thought is defended in different
ways by Beatrice Longuenesse (Kant and the Capacity to Judge), Henry E.
Allison (Kant's Transcendental Idealism), and Robert Pippin, Kant's
Theory of Form: An Essay on the Critique of Pure Reason (New Haven,
Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982). The most sophisticated and
detailed statement of the view opposed to this interpretation is Paul
Guyer, Kant and the Claims of Knowledge (Cambridge University Press,
1987)-
German Philosophy 1760-1860 : The Legacy of Idealism
by Terry Pinkard (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521663814/

Cogito means "I am aware of my own existence, therefore I exist." It
is self-awareness that confirms existence, for it would be absurd to
be self-aware and not exist. Even if you adamantly claim that you do
not exist, there is still your self awareness that permits you to make
that claim in the first place, so you do exist after all.

However, this certainty regarding your own existence is subjective and
cannot be rationally proven to anyone else. For all you know, you are
the only being that exists and all the rest is an illusion, like with
Neo inside The Matrix.

From Wikipedia:
+++
In his [Descarte] belief in his own existence he finds it: it is
impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving
god, his belief in his own existence would be secure, for how could he
be deceived unless he existed in order to be deceived?

"But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in
the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow
that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something [or
thought anything at all] then I certainly existed. But there is a
deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and
constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he
is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will
never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am
something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must
finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily
true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." (AT
VII 25; CSM II 16-17)

There are two important notes to keep in mind here. First, he only
claims the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point
of view - he has not proved the existence of other minds at this
point. This is something that has to be thought through by each of us
for ourselves, as we follow the course of the meditations. Secondly,
he is not saying that his existence is necessary; he is saying that if
he's thinking, then he necessarily exists (see the instantiation
principle).

Descartes does not use this first certainty, the cogito, as a
foundation upon which to build further knowledge; rather, it is the
firm ground upon which he can stand as he works to restore his
beliefs. As he puts it:

"Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in
order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if
I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and
unshakeable." (AT VII 24; CSM II 16)

Perhaps what Descartes meant, simply put is "I am vividly aware of my
existence".
+++


--

1. The Hill


WHERE are Elmer, Herman, Bert, Tom and Charley,
The weak of will, the strong of arm, the clown, the boozer, the fighter?
All, all, are sleeping on the hill.

One passed in a fever,
One was burned in a mine,
One was killed in a brawl,
One died in a jail,
One fell from a bridge toiling for children and wife
All, all are sleeping, sleeping, sleeping on the hill.

Where are Ella, Kate, Mag, Lizzie and Edith,
The tender heart, the simple soul, the loud, the proud, the happy one?
All, all, are sleeping on the hill.

One died in shameful child-birth,
One of a thwarted love,
One at the hands of a brute in a brothel,
One of a broken pride, in the search for heart's desire,
One after life in far-away London and Paris
Was brought to her little space by Ella and Kate and Mag
All, all are sleeping, sleeping, sleeping on the hill.

Where are Uncle Isaac and Aunt Emily,
And old Towny Kincaid and Sevigne Houghton,
And Major Walker who had talked
With venerable men of the revolution?
All, all, are sleeping on the hill.

They brought them dead sons from the war,
And daughters whom life had crushed,
And their children fatherless, crying
All, all are sleeping, sleeping, sleeping on the hill.

Where is Old Fiddler Jones
Who played with life all his ninety years,
Braving the sleet with bared breast,
Drinking, rioting, thinking neither of wife nor kin,
Nor gold, nor love, nor heaven?
Lo! he babbles of the fish-frys of long ago,
Of the horse-races of long ago at Clary's Grove,
Of what Abe Lincoln said
One time at Springfield.

.
User: "Bob"

Title: Re: Do we exist? 09 Jun 2006 12:36:05 PM
On 9 Jun 2006 10:08:26 -0700,
wrote:

You were doing very weel up to "Descartes attempted to shed some light
on..." but then you destroyed your explaination of Descartes inductive
argument by lambasting any criticism of the "cogito" therefore let me
stick it in further;

I stated MY interpretation of Cogito, and I backed it up with an
article in Wikipedia. If you don't like it, stick it in your own
further.
--
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable."
--Sun Tzu
.
User: "Immortalist"

Title: Re: Do we exist? 09 Jun 2006 01:27:09 PM
Bob wrote:

On 9 Jun 2006 10:08:26 -0700,

wrote:

You were doing very weel up to "Descartes attempted to shed some light
on..." but then you destroyed your explaination of Descartes inductive
argument by lambasting any criticism of the "cogito" therefore let me
stick it in further;


I stated MY interpretation of Cogito, and I backed it up with an
article in Wikipedia. If you don't like it, stick it in your own
further.

extropy here, I used up my google today and am immortalist now, (google
sucks, penny-anie chumps)
I stated my interpretation of Cogito and I backed it up with more
articles than you, therefore I win accourding to your rule-set?
What you say is Cogito a memory or a present experience? Did you mean
the word cogito or the one you had a moment ago? (Descartes rollin in
his grave bloke!)


--

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable."
--Sun Tzu

.



User: "Michael"

Title: Re: Do we exist? 11 Jun 2006 08:31:19 AM
Bob wrote:
Cogito means "I am aware of my own existence, therefore I exist." It
is self-awareness that confirms existence, for it would be absurd to
be self-aware and not exist. Even if you adamantly claim that you do
not exist, there is still your self awareness that permits you to make
that claim in the first place, so you do exist after all.
**************
I snipped the rest of it, but great post, Bob. An excellent
explanation of the classic, "I think, therefore I am."
Thanks, Michael
.

User: "Duncan Patton"

Title: Re: Do we exist? 24 Jun 2006 12:27:42 AM
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:15:27 GMT
spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote:


Rene Descarte attempted to shed some light on this with his famous
"Cogito ergo sum" ("Je pense, donc je suis"), which has been butchered
by pseudo-philosophers like psychobabbleologists who want to read
their sophist ideologies into it.

Cogito means "I am aware of my own existence, therefore I exist." It
is self-awareness that confirms existence, for it would be absurd to

Shakespear provided a much stronger proof of existence using communications
theory. The clowns at Ophelia's grave say something like "an act hath tree
parts, to act, to do, and to pr/eform." The pun is on perform/preform, because
an act of communication requires enactment in mind, action and reception that
is a modulation back of what was originally intended.
So, if I tell you something and then I hear you tell me something back that
is an *unpredicted* modification of what I intended, then I have strong
proof that we *both* exist.
Dhu
--
???????????????????????????????????????
Open Systems Integration
Contact Fubar the Hack: fubar AT neotext.ca
Area code seven eight zero, Exchange four six six, Local zero one zero nine
Highland terms, Canadian workmanship.
All persons named herein are purely fictional victims
of the Canidian Bagle Breeder's Association.
Save the Bagle!
Sun Dhu
???????????????????????????????????????
.
User: "Bob"

Title: Re: Do we exist? 24 Jun 2006 09:11:47 AM
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 05:27:42 GMT, Duncan Patton <campbell@neotext.ca>
wrote:

So, if I tell you something and then I hear you tell me something back that
is an *unpredicted* modification of what I intended, then I have strong
proof that we *both* exist.

That sounds a lot like the Turing Test.
You speak and my computer responds. How does that convince you that I
exist?
--
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable."
--Sun Tzu
.

User: "turtoni"

Title: Re: Do we exist? 24 Jun 2006 12:30:42 AM
no.
.
User: "turtoni"

Title: Average brain weights 24 Jun 2006 12:53:26 AM
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html#brain
sperm whale = approx 5.5 human brains.
goldfish = approx 14,432 human brains..
.
User: "Uncle Clover"

Title: Re: Average brain weights 24 Jun 2006 11:47:09 AM
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:53:26 -0400, "turtoni" <turtoni@fastmail.net> wrote:

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html#brain

sperm whale = approx 5.5 human brains.

goldfish = approx 14,432 human brains..

Damn. Where do these goldfish grow? I'd like to see one. :-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Clover
************************************************
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
************************************************
"A disappearance is when someone has vanished.
A tragedy is when they were photogenic."
- a.t-c's Bo Raxo, paraphrased.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If you look at the whole life of the planet,
man has only been around for a few blinks of an
eye. So if the infection wipes us all out,
that _is_ a return to normality..."
- Sergeant Farrell, "28 Days Later"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
.
User: "Gospel Bretts"

Title: Re: Average brain weights 24 Jun 2006 12:32:01 PM
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:47:09 -0400, Uncle Clover
<UncleClover@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:53:26 -0400, "turtoni" <turtoni@fastmail.net> wrote:

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html#brain

sperm whale = approx 5.5 human brains.

goldfish = approx 14,432 human brains..


Damn. Where do these goldfish grow? I'd like to see one. :-)

He meant to say "approx 14,432 fundy brains"
.


User: "turtoni"

Title: Re: Average brain weights 24 Jun 2006 12:58:20 AM
| http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html#brain
|
| sperm whale = approx 5.5 human brains.
|
| goldfish = approx 14,432 human brains.
| Correction:
|
| human brain = approx 14,432 goldfish brains.|
.
User: "Uncle Clover"

Title: Re: Average brain weights 24 Jun 2006 11:47:19 AM
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:58:20 -0400, "turtoni" <turtoni@fastmail.net> wrote:

| http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html#brain
|
| sperm whale = approx 5.5 human brains.
|
| goldfish = approx 14,432 human brains.

| Correction:
|
| human brain = approx 14,432 goldfish brains.|

D'oh!... ;-)
--
L8r,
Uncle Clover
************************************************
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
************************************************
"A disappearance is when someone has vanished.
A tragedy is when they were photogenic."
- a.t-c's Bo Raxo, paraphrased.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If you look at the whole life of the planet,
man has only been around for a few blinks of an
eye. So if the infection wipes us all out,
that _is_ a return to normality..."
- Sergeant Farrell, "28 Days Later"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
.






User: "Sir Frederick"

Title: Re: Do we exist? 09 Jun 2006 03:42:46 PM
On 9 Jun 2006 05:00:58 -0700, "ume$h" <fraternitydisposal@gmail.com> wrote:

O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.

Does the situation depicted in a charade exist?
.

User: "Smith W"

Title: Re: Do we exist? 10 Jun 2006 09:45:20 PM
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 05:00:58 -0700, ume$h wrote:

O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.

You do not exist.
"1984" by George Orwell (O'Brien to Winston Smith).
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: Do we exist? 09 Jun 2006 01:24:03 PM
Previously, on alt.atheism, ume$h in episode
<1149854458.451709.291480@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...

O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.

Can't. We don't exist. Sorry.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.

User: "Bretts Ghost"

Title: Re: Do we exist? 09 Jun 2006 07:12:03 AM
To do is to be. -Descartes
To be is to do. -Voltaire
Do be do be do. -Frank Sinatra
.


  Page 1 of 2

1

 

2

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.3585     pg.2749     pg.2106     pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER