The philosopher who claims he doesn't exist
in Philosophy ·
Sam Thomas said:It’s hardly surprising that Sisyphus was giving me a hard time in another thread with all those proofs regarding free will, given the state of things here.
First off, saying "I think, therefore I am" is really an observation about self-awareness—that specific awareness a human has of their own existence, unlike, say, a houseplant which exists but isn't consciously aware of its own being (at least, not in the way a human is, though I can't know for sure).
To claim that thinking doesn't prove existence—arguing, rather, that one can only think if one already exists—is just another way of looking at the same problem. It's as circular as saying that the mere existence of a creature doesn't prove its essence; those are two entirely different concepts.
Then we have Ayer essentially contradicting himself when he proposes replacing "I think" with "there are thoughts," under the assumption that thoughts might exist independently of a thinker.
Might?!!
Where is the actual PROOF in that? How does one go about proving the mere possibility of such a thing? And yet, Ayer treats this possibility as a more credible path toward proving—what, exactly?—absolutely nothing. At least not within the context of his critique of Descartes.
And the logic doesn't stop there. Even if we grant that thoughts could exist without a thinker, how does that ever answer the question of what *I* am? Because that is precisely the gap where he challenges the validity of Descartes' reasoning.
There are thoughts, therefore I exist?
Thanks for the critique of Descartes and Ayer. I'm curious, though—do you actually have a solution to the problem?
What did you mean by "how things are playing out here"? I wasn't criticizing anyone or pushing my own views... I simply offered a possible answer and the title of a work, which is what this topic is about, that's all.🙂