Philosophy Discussion Forums

Do I exist? Does empiricism say I exist?

To exist is to have properties
To perceive is a property
I perceive therefore I exist

Are there problems with this?

You are the proof of your own existence. That is what it means to exist intrinsically. There is no need for external validation.

I cannot exist intrinsically, as that would exclude any relation to anything else.

To say I exist intrinsically is to say only I exist, which cannot be the case as my identity is derived from what is around me. I call myself a person, because others that I perceive to be like me are called people.

Maxcady10001 wrote: ↑January 26th, 2018, 8:36 pm To say I exist intrinsically is to say only I exist, which cannot be the case

Why can't it be the case? All you can know for sure is that you can think, which is about as intrinsic as you can get.

I only know I can think because my thoughts are of the world around me, my thoughts describe the relationship between me and the world, so how could it be the case that I exist intrinsically?

Maxcady10001 wrote: ↑January 27th, 2018, 10:02 am I only know I can think because my thoughts are of the world around me,

For all you know, the thing you call you may consist solely of thought. How can you be sure that your body and the world around you are not just intrinsic constructions within your thoughts? Actually, it is I who should be asking myself this question, you and your post could well be a mere invention of my thoughts.

Exactly my point. How do I prove my existence?
Thats why I asked if there were any problems with:

To exist is to have properties
To perceive is a property
I perceive therefore I must exist

Here, even if someone were to say I perceive falsely, I am still perceiving, so I exist. I could not think of any problems, so I posted it here.

Maxcady10001 wrote: ↑January 27th, 2018, 10:36 am I perceive therefore I must exist

Not necessarily, I could be imagining you.

I believe I've proved my existence to me, and in proving my existence, i've proved my relation to the world around me, so i've proved my existence to you.

Maxcady10001 wrote: ↑January 27th, 2018, 11:06 am I believe I've proved my existence to me, and in proving my existence, i've proved my relation to the world around me, so i've proved my existence to you.

Okay, if you are convinced that you exist, who am I to argue?

Ok i'll come up with something better

This is probably very lazy but here's another try

Whatever exists has properties
The universe has properties
The universe exists
or
Whatever exists has properties
We have properties
Therefore we must exist
or
Nothing is the absence of existence
For existence to be absent is for absence to exist
Absence exists therefore something exists

Does that one make any sense?

I believe if you substitute yourself for I, in the first one of these I made, you prove your existence and the existence of the relationship between you and the world. Because if you perceive, you exist because you possess a property, and what you perceive exists because your perception of it exists and even if you perceive falsely, you still perceive, so you still possess properties.

The mistake is imagining that you can intellectually answer this question or offer a formal proof. To be is to know. The proof is found in your very being.

Being does not require knowledge of being, as evidenced by a rock. To be is not to also know, as ontologically there is a rock but what is a rock to a rock epistemically.