The philosopher who claims he doesn't exist

feralranger said:I follow your logic, but while Descartes' axiom stands independent of sensory input, this "I breathe, therefore I am" concept relies heavily on it, which makes it utterly nonsensical...

I struggle to imagine a scenario where I could think without existing, yet, conversely, I cannot say with any absolute certainty that I even possess lungs capable of breathing.

Sure, exactly. If you follow Descartes' logic to its natural conclusion, you realize that if you argue that thought is the bare minimum requirement for existence, you're essentially admitting that thought itself is actually (at its most basic level) just a form of being.

feralranger said:I follow your logic, but while Descartes' axiom stands independent of sensory input, this "I breathe, therefore I am" concept relies heavily on it, which makes it utterly nonsensical...

I struggle to imagine a scenario where I could think without existing, yet, conversely, I cannot say with any absolute certainty that I even possess lungs capable of breathing.

Ahhhhhh.... (that’s just me exhaling, briefly, not a permanent departure 🙂) .... It’s true that you couldn't think without existing, but perhaps you couldn't exist either if you weren't breathing (whether through gills, lungs, or whatever mechanism you happen to utilize).
If you're genuinely feeling uncertain about whether you have functional lungs, maybe you should check in with the Mayo Clinic or some other medical institution so they can confirm it for you.
Unless, of course, you're a Canadian. "No air flows through a Canadian."

feralranger said:It strikes me as a rather nonsensical sentiment. If one intends to establish existence simply by noting that they are breathing, one first has to rely on sensory perception to make that observation—which stands in stark contrast to the Cartesian formulation that avoids such sensory dependency entirely—and, as we all know, our senses are notoriously prone to deception.

Yes, it certainly can sound like nonsense. But yours definitely don't sound like anything at all. :P

Sam Thomas said:Ahhhhhh.... (that’s just me exhaling, briefly, not a permanent departure 🙂) .... It’s true that you couldn't think without existing, but perhaps you couldn't exist either if you weren't breathing (whether through gills, lungs, or whatever mechanism you happen to utilize).
If you're genuinely feeling uncertain about whether you have functional lungs, maybe you should check in with the Mayo Clinic or some other medical institution so they can confirm it for you.
Unless, of course, you're a Canadian. "No air flows through a Canadian."

Yes, it certainly can sound like nonsense. But yours definitely don't sound like anything at all. :P

Just as you cannot know with absolute certainty that you actually possess lungs, you cannot know for sure that other people exist either—and by extension, you cannot be certain that those medical institutions you mentioned even exist for you to report to. You perceive the entire external world through your senses, and the senses are notoriously prone to deception... (for instance, take the classic phenomenon of phantom limb pain, where one might still 'feel' fingers on an amputated foot).

...which is why the phrase "I breathe, therefore I am" is utterly absurd, whereas "I think, therefore I am" remains independent of sensory input and carries significantly more weight...

Since you asked, here is a beautiful poem by Enes Kišević:

BROTHER SISYPHUS

I know I exist, yet all my efforts to hold my place in this world feel utterly futile.
I know I am a lost point, drifting outside the circle of being; I know I will never sing through my lifetime, nor will I ever sleep with an ideal resting beside me.
All my hopes and my searching are consumed by hungry paths of futility, where every dead end leads back to my goal, brother Sisyphus, and once again, my own newborn thoughts deceive me.
You exist.

Amanda Jackson5 said:It’s actually a pretty broad claim—even if they rarely say it out loud—that you see popping up among radical skeptics and positivists. Their whole deal is arguing that since they can't make genuine decisions, they aren't held morally accountable for anything, mostly because they believe everything is predetermined. When you tack on their other favorite talking point—that consciousness is just some kind of illusion—you end up at the logical conclusion that you don't even exist.

As a being, you don't change; rather, everything derived from that being changes. Feelings, ideas, desires, values... they all shift. But I was always me—whether I was good, bad, thin, heavy, patient, or impatient... "time" is just a category we derive. Since all those things fluctuate within your consciousness, there has to be a witness to it all. Your perception of the world is constantly shifting, so I don't see why that shouldn't be called an illusion. What exists in your mind is reality to you, yet a moment later, that reality is gone. To judge whether something is real or an illusion, you need someone there to make the judgment. Saying "I don't exist" is just an absurd claim.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Since there isn't one single, definitive answer to the question "who am I?", the very nature of our existence—or whether we even truly *exist* at all—hinges entirely on how one chooses to answer that query.

Take mereological nihilism, for instance—a rather extreme flavor of atomism... it essentially denies the reality of anything that can be broken down into more fundamental components. Under this view, "I" don't actually exist; there are merely the most basic subatomic particles that happen to make up my structure.

Then there is eliminativism, which suggests that things like consciousness, beliefs, and desires should be stripped away from any serious discussion of existence—viewing them as nothing more than mental constructs we use to obscure the blunt fact that everything is just purely physical processes occurring within the brain.

Or, we could look at existential monism, which posits that there is only one indivisible, absolute reality... implying that anything more granular or elementary than that single entity simply does not exist.

The answer is simply: I am who I am.🙂

Kenneth Sullivan2 said:Language, Truth, and Logic
Alfred Jules Ayer criticized Descartes' Cogito... though I wouldn't say he proves I don't exist, since he isn't really proving *what* I am, right? Just the things that are thinking...
The flaw lies in the fact that the argument doesn't even align with a standard skeptical approach...
Instead, he suggests that rather than saying I think, we should say there are thoughts, because perhaps thoughts can exist independently of a thinker.
The error is in the very structure of our language—the way I could be functionally identical to it, where that "it" carries no actual meaning, much like I think / it is raining.
🤷

But that thinking thing is enough to prove existence, there's no other way. The "I" is a metaphysical entity and you can't attribute anything else to it besides what it is, which is me. Within that "I," there isn't a plurality; rather, plurality arises from that "I."
Thinking requires a thinker, so you can't just skip over the foundation of the "I."
It’s like if I started counting 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.......
"I think" = a thought. It won't work because a thought is derived by itself; as such, it's projected, so it must have a source in something that isn't a thought. "Thoughts exist" isn't enough because a thought is triggered by something rather than nothing, whereas the "I" is the foundation from which everything originates—a foundation that isn't part of causality itself.
Therefore, the "I" isn't "nothing," but rather "I" signifies a spiritual substance; we grasp it through intuition. The word "it" is uselessly inserted here. It's not the linguistic structure that guides us, but our sequence of thoughts. The "I" isn't an object, but something we reach via intuition. No one ever actually "imagined" the "I."

brighteagle26 said:I think the philosopher you're looking for was basically just arguing that he himself didn't exist, rather than claiming everyone else was a figment of his imagination or some other thing like that.

The Philosopher doesn't exist.

Philosopher = concept, person, word = something, not nothing, which means existence.
"Doesn't exist" = exists. Incorrect.
"Doesn't exist" = doesn't exist. Correct.

1. Philosopher = existence
2. Doesn't exist = doesn't exist.

Existence cannot be equal to non-existence, therefore the philosopher exists. The second point is just useless filler because non-existence isn't a thing.

..............can lock this😁

amberpilot said:The answer is simply: I am who I am.🙂

The problem with using "who" in this context is that it acts as a heavy assumption—it predetermines far more than we actually comprehend. And frankly, even the definition of what it means to "be"... that remains entirely elusive...

Jonathan Brooks8 said:The problem with using "who" in this context is that it acts as a heavy assumption—it predetermines far more than we actually comprehend. And frankly, even the definition of what it means to "be"... that remains entirely elusive...

It’s perfectly logical for existence to be confusing. It feels unnatural for anything to emerge from nothingness. Since we operate on the premise that the universe sprang from nothing, we lose our footing. We can't be certain what preceded "nothing" or "something," and that uncertainty bleeds into our own sense of being.

The solution is simple. You just factor Absolute into the equation, and everything clicks. People aren't actually confused by the fact that they exist—only a fool would doubt that. No, the confusion stems from this:

How can we exist if the Absolute isn't behind it? But wait, who decided the Absolute isn't there? You might ask, "What exactly is the Absolute?" Well, it is Eternal Existence. How do you visualize eternal existence? You don't. You can't. It is simply the necessary destination of our logical and philosophical journey. It is the undeniable Necessity that serves as the prerequisite for your wonder regarding our existence. And honestly, it is so fascinating that it’s only natural to question whether your own existence is even real.

It exists. It really does. Yet, as Jonathan Brooks8 points out, "it is unknown what it means to 'exist'."
We don't truly know what love is, either. Neither is music or humor. But people claim those things are real. They even claim that sites like Reddit exist, where you can stumble upon deep thoughts that make your head spin. That's just how it goes. Give a man a computer, and you'll see just how brilliant he can be.

brightdrifter18 said:It’s perfectly logical for existence to be confusing. It feels unnatural for anything to emerge from nothingness. Since we operate on the premise that the universe sprang from nothing, we lose our footing. We can't be certain what preceded "nothing" or "something," and that uncertainty bleeds into our own sense of being.

The solution is simple. You just factor Absolute into the equation, and everything clicks. People aren't actually confused by the fact that they exist—only a fool would doubt that. No, the confusion stems from this:

How can we exist if the Absolute isn't behind it? But wait, who decided the Absolute isn't there? You might ask, "What exactly is the Absolute?" Well, it is Eternal Existence. How do you visualize eternal existence? You don't. You can't. It is simply the necessary destination of our logical and philosophical journey. It is the undeniable Necessity that serves as the prerequisite for your wonder regarding our existence. And honestly, it is so fascinating that it’s only natural to question whether your own existence is even real.

It exists. It really does. Yet, as Jonathan Brooks8 points out, "it is unknown what it means to 'exist'."
We don't truly know what love is, either. Neither is music or humor. But people claim those things are real. They even claim that sites like Reddit exist, where you can stumble upon deep thoughts that make your head spin. That's just how it goes. Give a man a computer, and you'll see just how brilliant he can be.

My intention here is simply to open up the question—to point out that we often use phrases that imply everything is understood and settled when, in reality, it isn't. We tend to settle for any convenient answer, which doesn't necessarily mean we lack intelligence; it just means we fail to see the vast landscape opening up before us.

For instance, I could open up an entire spectrum of existence right now—when I say "I exist," I am actually referring to several different layers. For example, "I am" or "I think, therefore I am" ties existence to consciousness, yet we also exist through our subconscious. And who else exists through me, considering my subconscious contains both collective memory and the collective unconscious?

Furthermore, there is the matter of collective consciousness, which in turn shapes my own existence—my being is manifested through the consciousness of others, specifically yours, in this very moment. We are talking about various dimensions of being, and it is impossible to truly grasp what existence is if we don't examine all these different levels...

Jonathan Brooks8 said:My intention here is simply to open up the question—to point out that we often use phrases that imply everything is understood and settled when, in reality, it isn't. We tend to settle for any convenient answer, which doesn't necessarily mean we lack intelligence; it just means we fail to see the vast landscape opening up before us.

For instance, I could open up an entire spectrum of existence right now—when I say "I exist," I am actually referring to several different layers. For example, "I am" or "I think, therefore I am" ties existence to consciousness, yet we also exist through our subconscious. And who else exists through me, considering my subconscious contains both collective memory and the collective unconscious?

Furthermore, there is the matter of collective consciousness, which in turn shapes my own existence—my being is manifested through the consciousness of others, specifically yours, in this very moment. We are talking about various dimensions of being, and it is impossible to truly grasp what existence is if we don't examine all these different levels...

That’s my point. You care about the definition of existence, not whether existence itself is a thing that happens, right?

That said, any philosopher claiming nothing exists isn't making a profound point. They're either dealing with a serious mental breakdown or they're just pulling a stunt for attention. It's pure self-promotion. Honestly, it makes sense. When you have absolutely nothing intelligent to contribute to a conversation, there's always one last resort: say something incredibly stupid and completely anti-philosophical.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:My intention here is simply to open up the question—to point out that we often use phrases that imply everything is understood and settled when, in reality, it isn't. We tend to settle for any convenient answer, which doesn't necessarily mean we lack intelligence; it just means we fail to see the vast landscape opening up before us.

For instance, I could open up an entire spectrum of existence right now—when I say "I exist," I am actually referring to several different layers. For example, "I am" or "I think, therefore I am" ties existence to consciousness, yet we also exist through our subconscious. And who else exists through me, considering my subconscious contains both collective memory and the collective unconscious?

Furthermore, there is the matter of collective consciousness, which in turn shapes my own existence—my being is manifested through the consciousness of others, specifically yours, in this very moment. We are talking about various dimensions of being, and it is impossible to truly grasp what existence is if we don't examine all these different levels...

.. I suspect this might be the most accessible concept of them all, wouldn't you agree? What I mean is, for anyone who isn't a career philosopher, this is perhaps the closest thing we have to an explanation... it is the act of seeing ourselves reflected in others, embedding our work and our essence into the world around us, and understanding ourselves through the impact we leave on those we encounter...

Bruckner once wrote about how beauty ceases to be beautiful if it fails to find its reflection in the eyes of others. One could certainly interpret this as a statement on existence itself—that true being cannot exist in total isolation.. 🤷

brightdrifter18 said:That’s my point. You care about the definition of existence, not whether existence itself is a thing that happens, right?

That said, any philosopher claiming nothing exists isn't making a profound point. They're either dealing with a serious mental breakdown or they're just pulling a stunt for attention. It's pure self-promotion. Honestly, it makes sense. When you have absolutely nothing intelligent to contribute to a conversation, there's always one last resort: say something incredibly stupid and completely anti-philosophical.

He wasn't denying existence in the abstract, though—he was specifically denying his own. I'd leave that distinction to him... at least he didn't claim his own void applied to the rest of us. As for his motivations? One could speculate, certainly, but at the end of the day, it's nothing more than a historical curiosity, really...

Jonathan Brooks8 said:The problem with using "who" in this context is that it acts as a heavy assumption—it predetermines far more than we actually comprehend. And frankly, even the definition of what it means to "be"... that remains entirely elusive...

It isn't an assumption. It’s a fact—the only thing you can be 100% certain exists. It is the prerequisite for any existence we find within consciousness. "That One" belongs to the realm of intuition, not empirical knowledge. We aren't talking about objects we can just visualize and assign traits to.
You can't doubt the one who is doing the doubting. Therefore, it can't be an assumption.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:My intention here is simply to open up the question—to point out that we often use phrases that imply everything is understood and settled when, in reality, it isn't. We tend to settle for any convenient answer, which doesn't necessarily mean we lack intelligence; it just means we fail to see the vast landscape opening up before us.

For instance, I could open up an entire spectrum of existence right now—when I say "I exist," I am actually referring to several different layers. For example, "I am" or "I think, therefore I am" ties existence to consciousness, yet we also exist through our subconscious. And who else exists through me, considering my subconscious contains both collective memory and the collective unconscious?

Furthermore, there is the matter of collective consciousness, which in turn shapes my own existence—my being is manifested through the consciousness of others, specifically yours, in this very moment. We are talking about various dimensions of being, and it is impossible to truly grasp what existence is if we don't examine all these different levels...

Existence simply is. It doesn't have an opposite like non-existence. There is no opposition. Existence just is. What's the issue? If you're already thinking in terms of the "I," then that is the substance of the entire manifest world. The "I" isn't part of some causal chain, nor is it tied to space or time. It is eternal, static, and unchanging. Now, you're trying to explain this "I" by attaching qualities to it taken from the world of objects. There are no multiples here, no such categories... it's purely metaphysical. The "I" exists outside of cause and effect.

amberpilot, how old are you exactly?

brighteagle26 said:So, I heard a while back about this philosopher who supposedly wrote a book or an article where he makes this really intense, well-reasoned argument claiming that he doesn't actually exist. Not that the world is some illusion or anything like that, but specifically that *he* isn't there. The catch is I can't for the life of me remember his name or what the piece was called. Anyone have a clue who I'm thinking of?

Well, I just stumbled upon this interesting philosopher. Since he successfully argued his own non-existence, I have to admit that hunting for his name feels a bit like chasing ghosts or looking for imaginary bicycles.😍I wish I could meet him and get his take on how existence definitely starts with consciousness and then moves into physical form...

Jonathan Brooks8 said:amberpilot, how old are you exactly?

23... why? You're still young. You'll figure some things out as time goes by...🙄

amberpilot said:23... why? You're still young. You'll figure some things out as time goes by...🙄

No, of course—it wasn’t your age I was questioning, but rather how you chose to respond. My apologies if my approach felt a bit too blunt... But you answered with "you"—as a mode of existence. And that isn't some timeless, spaceless abstraction (to borrow your critique from earlier), but rather something with a very distinct beginning and end in both time and space. You could have responded differently—which would have been just as truthful and sincere, I suppose—but it would have pointed toward an entirely different level of consciousness...

When you look at the word "that one"—it’s more than just a pointer—it implies a specific gendered identity anchored within a particular slice of time and space. So, when you say, "that one who I am," you aren't just talking; you're actually bridging several different layers of consciousness and existence...