> G'day all > > A bit of urban philosophy on a grotty and grimy wall - Hunter St, Newcastle. > > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1370864/PESO/slides/IMGP8892peso.html > > > (*istDS with 16-45 mm DA zoom.) > > > The image is a bit small to read the text so, for those into existentialism, here > it is: > > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1370864/IMGP8892part.jpg
His philosophy tutor should smack his knuckles with a ruler. He claims that we have no proof of our existence*, therefore we do not exist. However, his argument doesn't support any particular conclusion. At best you might say 'we have no proof of our existence, therefore it is possible that we do not exist'. Descartes went through a similar crisis and concluded 'cogito ergo sum', but even then he should only really conclude 'I think therefore thoughts exist'. If thoughts can exist without a thinker, then we ourselves are merely thoughts, and therefore we exist. But if we are merely thoughts, why do we fart and belch and shit? Go back to that wall, and write all this underneath. Bob *even this is not obviously correct. Our existence may be self-proving. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
