From: Dan Fabulich (daniel.fabulich@yale.edu)
Date: Sat May 09 1998 - 14:53:42 MDT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
John K Clark wrote:
>On Wed, 06 May 1998 Dan Fabulich <daniel.fabulich@yale.edu> Wrote:
>
> >Surely, if I did not exist, I would not know it.
>
>
>If the above is true then it logically follows that if I know I exist then I
>do exist. I know I exist.
Of course, if you know, then you do exist... but my question was asking
HOW you know.
> >Wouldn't it be possible that I do NOT exist and that I have not
> >formulated these questions at all?
>
>
>Descartes wrote the most famous phrase in philosophy "I think therefore I
am"
>and it's famous for good reason, it's true. Some have criticized him and
>insisted that it should be "I think therefore thoughts exist", but Descartes
>got it right the first time. I don't have thoughts I am thoughts.
Yes, and this is the crux of my problem. "How do you know that you think?"
is another way of asking "how do you know that you exist?"
"Cognito ergo sum" uses "cognito" as its underlying premise. If I exist, I
would certainly agree that I do think. If I exist, I am thoughts. But how
is it that this proof simply glosses over the question of whether a person
actually thinks, and therefore whether a person actually exists?
> >"How does a person know that they exist?"
>
>
>By something so powerful it puts logic to shame, direct unmeditated
>experience.
This assumes that you directly experience you own existence, a premise
which I would certainly agree with, IF you exist. However, since it was
the individual's existence which we set out to prove in the first place,
this logic seems circular. So I don't really feel like this has answered
my question. How do you know that you have direct unmediated experience of
your own existence?
Wouldn't it be more logically sound to simply accept the individual's
existence as the premise for further proofs? That is, rather than claiming
that the individual's existence is true beyond logic, claiming that it is
an axiom, like so many others, that we leave unproven?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3
iQEVAwUBNVTCVPJQm6Y3yAfNAQE1SQf/ViQvmd7CntzNwGN22LgQrbChGuE9PAKC
BsaTAF0Fyeah2lgec7TqdIXd8DIVtHQWpUA/dYnxsL4Ik1ykMZYylEO2T7PHXhbm
beZbM28p/DTuKVYjwCFilxcAc/XKtm19R5iqeTFmjQe0YXq3kbD4Mz4pbTyjQ/41
SJBCUfOJUzMOXir8WT3mzsr9qk5mmfqvXim0AdTDIVagF4mC/H4wgwtSO6p9O/Bw
CXKgMFF+2ckqbqTLVZxjH5O3wrVOrXKJdl1wL+ElWKUsHDcJLWOT75T+cbZDj1JJ
vgM/I/dlAUnqjosAekEFtTYBE6tTyIfNBPOe5gQ7IoWEL7hz8RV88w==
=UJRq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-TODAY IS A GOOD DAY TO LIVE-
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:04 MST