kennethamy

All right. Here goes. Do I exist? Yes. Why? Because if I can either ask or answer the question I do. Anything else?

Blueskyboris

Just because something asks the question does not mean that "you" exist.

Blueskyboris

[QUOTE] I follow Russell on this point: A finer understanding of the physics and metaphysics underlying the idea of "I" is a practical asset, because it allows us to better see our limits.


I don't see how this follows. As the Idealists pointed out centuries ago, the "I" you speak of could be nothing more than a projection of mind, with no independent existence whatsoever.

A la Heidegger: you don't know what "is" and "exists" mean.

kennethamy

Since I am asking the question, namely, the person who is speaking, it is the person who is speaking who exists. And, since, if I am asking the question, and since I am the person who is speaking, and since I cannot speak unless I exist, it follows that I exist.

Blueskyboris

Yes, but there is nothing that allows you to conclude that you are actually a person in the first place. Not that I believe this, but it is an argument one could take..

kennethamy

If it is a person who is speaking, then I=the person who is speaking. All right?

"I" is an indexical expression (like "today" or "here" (see thread, "You are always here") "now", whose meanings remain the same while their referents systematically shift depending on the occasion of their use. Thus, "today" means "this present time span of 24 hours" . But what "this present time span of 24 hours" refers to changes each 24 hours. So, the meaning of "I" is, "the person who is now speaking" and, of course, the referent of the phrase shifts as the "person who is now speaking" shifts. All indexicals are univocal in meaning, but (systematically) ambiguous in reference. "Here" always means "the present place", but, of course, what the present place is, shifts with the occasion of the use of that phrase.

gkokm21

good question.

it is like asking whether philosophy is part of science or asking science is part of philosophy. Or is it that they are two sides of the same coin.

Philosophy and science are words so maybe they are under linguistics.

There are still tons of things to undiscover and i guess both philo and science are needed. I think philo is needed so that we can come up with hypotheis which we try to research using science.

philo expands our limit of knowledge and thus increase our intelligence. so its rather important.

kennethamy

Eh, the words "philosophy" and "science" are words. But philosophy and science aren't words. Just as the words, "cat" and "dog" are words, but cats and dog are not words, they are animals.

Clutch

No. Its existence might be knowable by that self a priori, but is not necessary, since (barring further extraordinary information) it could have failed to exist.

Perhaps what you meant was: Necessarily, if there is an "I" to question its existence, it exists.

That seems plausible, being just a slightly inelegant instance of [](p-->p).

kennethamy

I think that what you mean is that it is a necessary condition for anyone to ask whether he exists, that the answer to that question be, yes, since if the answer were no, the question could not be asked.* (I don't know in what context you are saying that "is" is synonymous with "exists").So the question, "Do I exist?" is self-answering. Well, it might be important to ask the question so that someone can point that out.

*Here, I assume that the question do I exist? is not synonymous with, "Am I alive".