To prove this, attempt to define yourself. Go on. Here is a simple example, I am a male human. Brilliant, and not any of that proves I exist. Man? What is man without woman, and if only I (a man) exist, there can be no woman to compare against, therefore I cannot be a man. I am a human, but again, I would only know I am human if there are other humans I can say are like me, but they do not exist if I do not perceive them, so I cannot be human. I am now only defined as not being something, which is not a definition at all, therefore I do not exist. QED.
However, the fallacy here is glaring. Of course I exist, otherwise I would not be able to write this post. So instead, let us say that I only exist based on the things which exist around me, which only exist as I perceive them. So really, I exist if I perceive myself. And I perceive myself based on the things around me.
Example to the above theory: Social classes. The way we see ourselves within society dictates how we act and who we are. Society sets out a place for you, with predetermined values, customs, etc. and all you do is step right in and fill the gap.
Just try looking at an ordinary jigsaw the same way again.
Stop right now and look down at your hand. There you just saw yourself. Now get a microscope, study your cells. Now get an electron scanning microscope, study your DNA. Now get an atomic force microscope, study your atoms. Take some of those atoms and smash them in a super-collider, study the bits that burst out of the collision.
ReplyDeleteEt voila: you exist, just the same as everyone else, made out of the same things that everyone else is.
You CAN see yourself.
(ps - I expect an anti-solipsist 3, keep up the good work)
Exactly, I exists because I can see myself. proof by contradiction.
ReplyDeleteI cannot see myself (statement)
Therefore I cannot exist (conclusion)
I DO exist (evidence)
Therefore I must be able to see myself(proper conclusion)
Also, it was more of a philosophy thing, self-image and all that, but I didn't want to be preachy.
and anti-solipsist 3 is in the works
ReplyDeletebringing back an old friend...
but you can't verify (outside of your perception) that you do exist, or in fact that anyone at all exists. the evidence you have for your existence is within your perception(obviously). so, without objective evidence, how do you know you exist at all beyond a brain in a vat?
ReplyDeleteSimple, I am saying that because I can perceive myself, I exist. Even if I was a brain in a vat, I would still be existent, however my existence presented itself.
ReplyDeleteAlso, off topic but Sophie, you have 3 days left on the tiebreak
ReplyDeletei'm well aware of that. also, either torwch is less intelligent then i give him credit for, or i'm assuming he got full points.
ReplyDeleteand i suppose i phrased that badly. i meant, how do you know anyone else exists beyond yourself, if you can't objectively verify that they exist? your argument is that you exist based on others' perceptions of you, and they exist based on your perception of them. but if you can't verify that they exist, then they don't, and therefore neither do you.
ReplyDeleteI don't exist as they don't exist, and vice versa. I'm saying that whether they exist or not is irrelevant, it is how they exist/don't exist that is important. The world is opposites and equals, so we both exist and don't exist simultaneously, but our existence (and lack thereof)comes about only by our joint perceptions of one another
ReplyDeletebut if they exist because we perceive them to (and vice versa), then what about the particles that only exist in a certain state - or rather a superposition of states - when we're NOT observing or perceiving them? that state exists because it is NOT being perceived.
ReplyDeleteyou can't be serious. not this again...
ReplyDeletebut perceiving and not-perceiving are two sides of the same coin
ReplyDeleteyes, but that isn't your argument. you're saying that things exist because we perceive them to. this exists because we don't perceive it at all. just because it's the opposite of your argument doesn't make it true.
ReplyDeleteor rather, just because it's the opposite of your argument doesn't mean it validates your argument.
ReplyDeletePolar opposites
ReplyDeleteAnd it doesn't validate my argument, it validates itself.
so your argument isn't valid then?
ReplyDeletemy argument validates itself, as does yours. The arguments themselves could care less about their respective opposites, they don;t care about other cases, just themselves, they're selfish like that.
ReplyDeleteTorwch, you should see these two in real life.
ReplyDelete