ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => VCE English Studies => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE English & EAL => Topic started by: gossipglamgirl on March 19, 2014, 10:12:07 pm
-
So for English we are doing Whose Reality? (Context)
And our teacher gave us this prompt "Prove that you exist" in 300-400 words
I thought it was really a fun topic and I would love to know what you guys could come up with!!
So shall we begin the discussion? ;D :P
Mine was fear of oblivion/fear of not existing that proves that I exist.
xx
-
Say that you are a solipsist and that your teacher is actually a figment of your imagination. They love a good contrasting response.
-
I think therefore I am
-
That's actually a pretty deep question for English. Descartes famous formulation, "I think, therefore, i am" comes to mind here. It's a very famous saying and one that has leaked over into the popular consciousness. In basic terms, Descarte realised that the existence of thoughts implied there exists a thinker to think them. If you can have thoughts, it implies we can be at least sure that our mind exists.
We can't be sure we exist as we see in the mirror, we could just be a floating brain or a frog having a nice little dream. We can know (arguably) that via this way our minds exist though.
Whilst im not sure if its appropriate for English, many religions have this idea of an indestructible kind of life-force or soul. In some views, it has always existed, in some views it is created but in most cases it can't be destroyed, its eternal, it just kind of moves around. I suppose that could prove you exist in some way if this soul or life-force is you. There's the familiar Christian notion of the soul of course, even after you die (according to the mainstream view) it continues to exist. So, the fact you have a soul or everything has a soul in some way proves you exist.
If you look at something like Hinduism, there is this idea of atman or eternal soul. It persists throughout all your rebirths (more commonly called reincarnations). In these views its just kind of a factual part of reality that an eternal soul substance that represents you exists.
-
What if you exist within the mind of your teacher only? Woooooaoahahhhhhhhhhh
-
I don't know if this makes sense but, we exist, it's been 17 years or so and you have been going through the same cycle of living, we have evidence of life before us, if we didn't exist, don't you think we would have already woken up, like in a dream? I don't know just a thought. ☺
-
I'd put it to you that it's not likely we will ever be able to "prove" that we exist, not in any truly satisfying sense. Like Slothpomba outlined above, a lot of philosophers have taken some good shots at it, but they've all fallen somewhat short. Descartes, for instance, failed to produce a proof so much as he did assert a first-order truth that needed to be accepted (and was easy to accept) for us to move on with discussion of other things. The argument really falls to pieces when you try to present it in standard form:
P1. I think
P2. ???
C. I am.
Obviously, P2 would be something like "things that think exist", but that's a fairly difficult premise to justify. Maybe you could come up with some conditions for existence, then verify that thinking meets those conditions, but yeah. Additionally, the first premise presumes the existence of an "I", who is thinking, who we are trying to demonstrate exists. That is, we prove it exists by assuming it exists, which is a tautology. It's hard.
What this prompts me to ask, and what I'd probably write about, is whether the question is meaningful. Is the quest for certainty in your reality important? If, say, we demonstrate that we don't exist, but we're still possessed of the same experiences, sensations, wants and futures that we are now, would that really be impactful on your quality of life? And to the contrary, if we can prove that we exist, wouldn't we just continue living as we are currently? This post so far is about 200 words, so I'd probably fill out the rest of the paper talking about how the absence of certainty in life common to all people unifies us in a single, absurd reality.*
* I never did English so I dunno if this is what teachers are going for and accept no responsibility for poor grades
-
Personally, I always thought that the reverse of Descartes' formulation made more sense: "I am, therefore, I think". To me this better encapsulates the idea that the thinker precedes the thought, that the thought could not exist without the thinker, and that thought arises naturally from interaction with surroundings (both internal and external) which themselves must exist for the thought to occur.
Of course, neither "I think, therefore, I am" nor "I am, therefore, I think" stand to reason when examined from a scientific perspective; "I think, therefore, I am" seems to imply that without conscious thought there is no existence, while "I am, therefore, I think" appears to suggest that existence is conditional upon the capacity to exhibit any degree of thought. However logically one might be able to dismiss this simply with a stone - a stone is not capable of conscious thought, yet reasonably it appears to exist without the requirement of recognisation of the stone by a sentient being1, and further that the existence of the stone does not appear to be conditional upon any capacity of said stone to display thought or reason (that would be both logically unsound and invalid).
I think that discussing contrasting ideas of existence based on both Descartes a reversal of his formulation might be a fun approach to this!
N.B. Never studied philosophy so I am, of course, talking out of my arse.
1 Some quantum physicists might argue that the stone either does, does not or both does AND does not exist if not observed nor consciously recognised. I don't know enough to comment or contradict :P
-
Read up about Nihilism and Existentialism on wikipedia. May be able to draw a bunch of ideas out of there.
-
Read up about Nihilism and Existentialism on wikipedia. May be able to draw a bunch of ideas out of there.
Nihilists believe in nothing, so not that helpful.
-
Getting much deeper than OP probably needs for VCE but i cant resist. "I think", in my view, is probably better actually replaced by "This thought exists" or "A thought exists", in my opinion anyway. (Shameless plug, there is the philosophy thread in my signature down there, check it out, it's currently hibernating but i think ill kickstart it soon).
It also raises many other questions of what exactly we call ourselves or what makes us ourselves. If you ask a buddhist, they would say we don't really exist as a person. They don't deny we have a continuous address or phone number. They don't deny if i stand in-front of you, i will be present. However, the idea we're one constant person, according to them, simply isn't true. We're always in flux and change in every moment to the next. Therefore, in every moment to the next, we are different people. Past kingpomba was a different guy in some sense of the word "different", he wasn't me. Future kingpomba isn't either, so, that's also worth thinking about.
Personally, I always thought that the reverse of Descartes' formulation made more sense: "I am, therefore, I think".
(Before i say anymore, i think descartes little line has been massively blown out of proportion and most people just kind of accept we exist ipso facto and don't really worry or attempt to prove it).
It works in some ways but it other ways it kind of doesn't imo. It implies that if you exist, you must think or that thinking is a necessarily outcome of existing. There are people who are in coma's who exist (i suppose you could argue they don't but people do sometimes wake up) but do not think. My lamp exists for instance but does not think. So, what i think you're really saying here is that humans exist and this follows they think, this doesn't really give to us any new information about whether we exist though, all it really shows us is that humans apparently think.
If you lay it out in the way often used in teaching (more expanded than it should be):
P1: I exist
P2: If i exist i must think
C: I think
All that formulation really concludes is that we think. It takes for granted or just blindly states that we exist as one of the premises, when of course, OP is trying to determine whether we exist and it isn't taken for granted. If you reformulate Descartes version in a similar way:
P1: I think (or, this thought exists)
P2: The existence of a thought implies the existence of a thinker
C: I exist
Hopefully laying it out this way kind of illustrates the crucial difference. One assumes we exist and concludes we think (that is its discovery or outcome), the other assumes thoughts exist and concludes we exist. In the Descarte version, P1 (I think/This Thought exists) seems kind of axomatic, it must just simply be true, it's very hard to reject this and conversely, very easy to accept this as an uncontroversial premise. In the alternative version, P1 (I exist), is very far from axiomatic or granted, so, it jerpodises the conclusion. Say i make an argument proving Jesus is divine with the Christian God existing as one of my premises, most people would simply just reject that premise and consequentially, the entire argument is invalid in there eyes. There's a danger in using controversial items as premises (not that it's necessarily wrong or bad of course, happens all the time in philosophy of religion and often ethics).
In the case of the stone, i imagine descarte would likely reply we can't actually be sure the stone exists. His phrase was authored in the context of radical doubt, not so much attempting to prove that he exists or anything exists but rather to show we can be sure there is at least one thing that doesn't not exist (i know this wording may be confusing). He pointed out we could doubt leaves, socks or stones exist, we could doubt our friends or even other people exist. There is almost nothing we can be sure of but it seems we can be sure of the fact that our minds exist. So, it was not so much an exercise in proving we exist as in proving that we can be sure something doesn't not exist.
-
First off I want to say that I'd love to write a context piece revolving around this statement haha!
Well existence is pretty much determined by memory. Memory is arguably made from senses, visual memory, emotional memory, auditory memory, sensations, the sense of time etc.
For some memories you can argue that different lens, lighting and surroundings affects one's perception, so you can say that the person them self is not the only variable affecting the perception of their existence. As from day to day life the (arguable) independent variables may alter certain aspects of dependent variables within you. This proves that a person's perception of existence is of input from things. But there is also another argument, what if memory is implanted to your brain??? So what you think you have experienced of your existence may not be correct.
Let's talk about time now, time is measured by experience, while contemporaneously, experience is also measured by time (which is also arguable by the idea of implanted memories but let's go with the flow here). Time is measured by units, seconds and minutes, with a clock but who is to say that a clock is right? I read somewhere that Einstein says time is relative to emotions. If you are touching a stove for 5 seconds it will feel longer than that, if you are sitting on an attractive woman (this is from the book okay) for 30 minutes it can feel shorter.
So time is not a valid thing to determine existence too since it can be so subjective. And does time actually pass? Moreover, time's length is basically impossible to measure. I read Murakami's 1Q84 that time can be viewed as a straight line (I thought that was a lovely idea) but what if it is not a straight line but something much more complex than that, with different widths along the line, or a line that isn't straight at all, or maybe it's just a dot.
I don't know if I make sense here LOL.
-
My memories prove that I have existed.
-
I do not think memories prove you exist (if you need said proof for this kind of thing, especially more proof than you'd require for the existence of bees or something, unless of course, you also doubt the existence of bees). It probably wouldn't stand up in a philosophy class but i think long as you can make a decent case justifying it, it should be OK for English (although i can't say for sure, i did english language). The ability to have memories i suppose does prove at least your mind exists but every single one of those memories could be false at the same time and it would be arguable whether "you" really exist if you were given a set of someone elses memories, you wouldn't be the person you thought you were, arguably, you might be a totally different person and the person you thought you were might not exist.
There's also the idea (in hinduism) that time is one big circle. Worth thinking about as well. That said, i don't think time really proves we exist, all you can show by proving time is (or isn't) a thing is that time is or isn't a thing. I suppose if you could illustrate you continue to exist through time, then, you obviously exist but thats a bit circular too.
-
A more productive exercise, I believe, is to prove that you aren't a 5-dimensional coconut.
Solipsism leaves much to be desired. If you cannot assume that the universe exists and we can learn things about it through empiricism, then the discussion is entirely academic but also totally moot and never able to find a resolution of any kind.
Proving that you exist merely stems from those two fundamental assumptions about the universe. Without them, it is just as productive to argue that my table is in fact a unicorn.
-
Solipsism leaves much to be desired. If you cannot assume that the universe exists and we can learn things about it through empiricism, then the discussion is entirely academic but also totally moot and never able to find a resolution of any kind.
This doesn't prove solipsism true or false though, it simply drags it to another issue, "It's not useful so we should ignore it" kind of thing. The pragmatism is admirable of course but it does nothing towards answering the question of solipsism or more important for the OP's homework question, whether we exist. I think it is possible to either resolve the question or build a large case justifying your belief on the issue. Historically (much like in the sciences) there have been unsolved problems in philosophy or dynamite arguments/movements that appeared to be made of stone that have since been resolved or answered. That said, the fact that no great philosopher has ever been a solipsist (to the best of my knowledge) tells you something about the idea.
I don't think science should feel any threat from solipsism. It's largely confined to philosophy journals and classrooms, there aren't solipsist marching in the streets demanding an end to science or anything like that. Even if you believe in solipsism, doesn't necessarily mean you can't do science or useful work either. All science (except maybe mathematics) has a degree of uncertainty about its conclusions (which is why we have things like P values), i think it would nicely fit into a solipsist frame of mind (i doubt many people do live a solipsist lifestyle though..).
Likewise, to take a page out of the absurdist movement, the very existence of ourselves may be absurd and beyond meaningless. One solution is obviously just to jump off a bridge but none of the people in this philosophical movement advocated this. They advocated carrying on in the face of the absurd and things like that. Much like the debate about solipism, just because one holds the believe the universe or life may be a certain way, does not prevent one from still doing useful work.
-
I do not think memories prove you exist (if you need said proof for this kind of thing, especially more proof than you'd require for the existence of bees or something, unless of course, you also doubt the existence of bees). It probably wouldn't stand up in a philosophy class but i think long as you can make a decent case justifying it, it should be OK for English (although i can't say for sure, i did english language).
-------
There's also the idea (in hinduism) that time is one big circle. Worth thinking about as well. That said, i don't think time really proves we exist, all you can show by proving time is (or isn't) a thing is that time is or isn't a thing. I suppose if you could illustrate you continue to exist through time, then, you obviously exist but thats a bit circular too.
I agree with the first bit, memory is not solid proof, but it is the closet to assure us to *feel* that we existed.
And the idea about time being circular is really interesting.