Do you really think there is some sort of moment at which we are unsure whether other people exist, but then on the basis of some sort of data set we infer the existence of others? Want to add to the discussion?
All other comments are off-topic and will be removed. When I look at my best friend, I can see him there, but how do I know he exists somewhere other than in my mind?
A deduction is speech, in which certain things having been supposed, something different from those supposed results from neccessity because of their being so Prior Analytics I.
Ask questions and learn, but don't speak unless you have more experience and knowledge than just spending a day on Descartes in an intro philosophy class 5 years ago. Mozibur Ullah Mozibur Ullah 32k 9 52 154. Also, everybody else owns the idea of what you are since they can perceive you from "another" and we are always seeking the idea of self that others have.
Trending Latest Video Free. Follow-up questions related to the OP's question Follow-up questions to a particular answer Discussion of the accuracy of a particular answer Thanks, gratitude, etc. To confirm it exists, I'd ask my friends if they too see water. I don't see how you came to the assumption that I'm unfamiliar with the concepts just because I don't remember the author of a particular reading I read 5 years ago".
You can point to Chrysippus and say he existed at some point where you use a tensed notion of existence.
What if in your whole life you will never know what it means to be? I'm am not being rude to ask for quality in a subreddit that strives to give useful and correct answers regarding philosophy, and if I was I'd be justified.
Uhh thanks for clearing that up and I apologize for commenting on your subreddit. I can not prove I am is the absolute truth. What do you think? His idea was that we should first agree on a protocol of accepted proofs or principles of reasoning or experience, then following on from this to extract from it an ontological commitment to the mathematical or metaphysical structure necessary for such proofs or principles to be accepted.
You should ask "Tell me the set of testable conditions that are required to prove existence". Also go suck a dick.
Heidegger uses this analogy to provoke another question. What do you think? Level of involvement: The word 'prove' suggests that formal reasoning must be deployed; thus he is implicitly disallowing you to point to the jar of biscuits and say 'that exists'. Anu Ojha: What you don't seem to understand however is the concept of an Internet forum.
I think the precise reason that we might conceivably not make such an inference would be the failure to recognize the evidence as evidence; namely the failure to recognize behavioral and structural similarity as evidence of causal similarity. I want to believe: