Proving the existence of myself

[emericarules_182]

So Im taking my first philosophy class ever it a grade 12 highschool class. my first paper is to prove to my teacher that I myself exist. I was wondering if anyone could help me out with this. Give some ideas and stuff. Thanks a lot.

Matt.

[untermensche]

Have your teacher define "I" for you first.

Until this is clearly defined it is difficult to know what is to be proved.

[kennethamy]

So Im taking my first philosophy class ever it a grade 12 highschool class. my first paper is to prove to my teacher that I myself exist. I was wondering if anyone could help me out with this. Give some ideas and stuff. Thanks a lot.

Matt.

Morris Cohen (a teacher of philosophy) told the story of a student who, the first day of class, demanded that Cohen prove that he (the student) existed. And Cohen reported that he replied, "Who's asking?"

You might point out to your teacher that it would be impossible for you to write a paper proving that you exist unless you did exist. So, the very fact that your paper exists, proves you exist. (By the way, do not let your teacher get away with now asking you to prove that your paper exists. That would not be fair, since that was not, after all, what you were asked to write on. He is shifting the question).

P.S. Unlike untermensche, I don't think the definition of "I" is particularly relevant. I would think that the really relevant question would be, "What would you (the teacher) accept as a proof? What could I possibly do that would satisfy your request?" That might teach your teacher something. For, if it happens that your teacher would accept nothing as a proof that you exist, then why is he/she asking you to do what he/she believes, in advance, you cannot do? Wouldn't that make his request pretty pointless?

[untermensche]

It seems if some proof is to be offered, you need to know exactly what "I" means, and exactly what it means for some thing to exist.

If you are to connect two dots. You have to know what the dots are you are connecting.

Can two undefined dots be connected with a logical proof?

[kennethamy]

It seems if some proof is to be offered, you need to know exactly what "I" means, and exactly what it means for some thing to exist.

If you are to connect two dots. You have to know what the dots are you are connecting.

Can two undefined dots be connected with a logical proof?

But, ordinarily, the term "I" means, "the person who is now speaking (or writing)". Doesn't it? So, if I am to prove that I exist, what I have to prove is that the person who is at the moment trying to prove that he/she exists, exists. What else would I be trying to do? And isn't that the point of Morris Cohen's little anecdote? For, to the question, "who's asking?" the answer should obviously be, "the person who is asking you to prove that he exists is asking".

[RexT]

So Im taking my first philosophy class ever it a grade 12 highschool class. my first paper is to prove to my teacher that I myself exist. I was wondering if anyone could help me out with this. Give some ideas and stuff. Thanks a lot.

Matt.
This is too easy. Just walk up to the teacher and tap him or her on the sholder. When the teacher says "yes, what do you want?" Just say, I have proven my existence since you have just acknowledged it, what would you like me to do next.

If it must be in paper format, just turn in a paper with your name on it that says "I exist", that is all you need to prove your existence. Of course the teacher cannot fail your paper unless you actually exist. Existence is one of those concepts that cannot be proven, rather, it is self-evident.

Rex

[kennethamy]

This is too easy. Just walk up to the teacher and tap him or her on the sholder. When the teacher says "yes, what do you want?" Just say, I have proven my existence since you have just acknowledged it, what would you like me to do next.

If it must be in paper format, just turn in a paper with your name on it that says "I exist", that is all you need to prove your existence. Of course the teacher cannot fail your paper unless you actually exist. Existence is one of those concepts that cannot be proven, rather, it is self-evident.

Rex

You can't prove a concept. You have to prove that some statement or other is true. Concepts (to start off with) are neither true nor false. And they aren't statements.

I don't think that is particularly sage advice, whatever the merits of what you say are. I think that the teacher would tag the OP as just a smart alec.

Existence is not "self-evident". If it were we would not wonder whether there are other intelligences in the universe, nor whether there is a God, or whether there is a Loch Ness monster.

[untermensche]

But, ordinarily, the term "I" means, "the person who is now speaking (or writing)". Doesn't it? So, if I am to prove that I exist, what I have to prove is that the person who is at the moment trying to prove that he/she exists, exists. What else would I be trying to do? And isn't that the point of Morris Cohen's little anecdote? For, to the question, "who's asking?" the answer should obviously be, "the person who is asking you to prove that he exists is asking".
Speaking occurs, writing occurs, but what is behind it? What is it that causes speaking and writing to occur?

What is this "I"?

I need to know more than what it allegedly does, I need to know what it is, to be certain those things are in fact done by it.

[kennethamy]

Speaking occurs, writing occurs, but what is behind it? What is it that causes speaking and writing to occur?

What is this "I"?

I need to know more than what it allegedly does, I need to know what it is, to be certain those things are in fact done by it.

Are you asking who (not "what") the person who is speaking or writing is. Well, of course, that depends on who it is who is doing the speaking or writing. What causes the speaking or writing to occur is, of course, the person who is doing the speaking or the writing. What makes you think there is some other kind of answer?

Maybe the question you are really asking is, what is a person? That, of course, is an interesting philosophical question.

[untermensche]

Are you asking who (not "what") the person who is speaking or writing is. Well, of course, that depends on who it is who is doing the speaking or writing. What causes the speaking or writing to occur is, of course, the person who is doing the speaking or the writing. What makes you think there is some other kind of answer?

Maybe the question you are really asking is, what is a person? That, of course, is an interesting philosophical question.
Not who. What?

What is a person, or what is an "I"? Same question.

[RexT]

You can't prove a concept. You have to prove that some statement or other is true. Concepts (to start off with) are neither true nor false. And they aren't statements.

I don't think that is particularly sage advice, whatever the merits of what you say are. I think that the teacher would tag the OP as just a smart alec.

Existence is not "self-evident". If it were we would not wonder whether there are other intelligences in the universe, nor whether there is a God, or whether there is a Loch Ness monster.
What can I say - You are wrong.

If existence is not self-evident then nothing is self-evident. Anyway, who said I meant to give sage advice, that is your own attitide towards things, which causes you think the teacher will treat the student as a smartass. I would think him creative, but then that is the difference between you and I. People are different, so what.

Rex

[kennethamy]

What can I say - You are wrong.

If existence is not self-evident then nothing is self-evident. Anyway, who said I meant to give sage advice, that is your own attitide towards things, which causes you think the teacher will treat the student as a smartass. I would think him creative, but then that is the difference between you and I. People are different, so what.

Rex

Well, if I were the teacher, I would simply tell the student not to be such a smart-alec, and do what he was assigned to do.

Well, maybe nothing is self-evident. People have, in the past, thought that a lot of things were self-evidently true (like the parallel postulate in Euclidean geometry) which turned out not to be self-evident since considering it false led to alternate geometries.

But it is obvious that if it were true that "existence is self-evident", then there would be no question about whether or not certain things existed. But, since there is often a question about whether certain things exist (e.g. whether there is life on other bodies in space) it follows that existence is not self-evident.

Maybe I should have said, if is self-evident that existence is not self-evident. But I didn't.

Of course, maybe you want to say that in some cases, whether something exists or not, is self-evident. For, instance, perhaps you are suggesting that the OP should write a paper arguing that it is impossible to prove that he exists, since it is self-evident that he exists, and that it is impossible to prove what is self-evident. Now that might be "creative" but, unfortunately, wrong, since although what is self-evident need not be proved, it doesn't follow that it cannot be proved.

[RexT]

Well, if I were the teacher, I would simply tell the student not to be such a smart-alec, and do what he was assigned to do.
Personal taste, whatever.
Well, maybe nothing is self-evident. People have, in the past, thought that a lot of things were self-evidently true (like the parallel postulate in Euclidean geometry) which turned out not to be self-evident since considering it false led to alternate geometries.

But it is obvious that if it were true that "existence is self-evident", then there would be no question about whether or not certain things existed. But, since there is often a question about whether certain things exist (e.g. whether there is life on other bodies in space) it follows that existence is not self-evident.
This is excactly the nonesense caused by defining existence by the things that exist. When I was a tiny tot, I knew nothing about geomerty or life in space, but I knew I existed. In fact, it gave me great joy knowing that I existed.

Maybe I should have said, if is self-evident that existence is not self-evident. But I didn't.

Of course, maybe you want to say that in some cases, whether something exists or not, is self-evident. For, instance, perhaps you are suggesting that the OP should write a paper arguing that it is impossible to prove that he exists, since it is self-evident that he exists, and that it is impossible to prove what is self-evident. Now that might be "creative" but, unfortunately, wrong, since although what is self-evident need not be proved, it doesn't follow that it cannot be proved.
Fine, then write us a paper proving you exist. I expect it no later than Monday, but I do not expect you will convince us that you exist.

Rex

[kennethamy]

Personal taste, whatever.

This is excactly the nonesense caused by defining existence by the things that exist. When I was a tiny tot, I knew nothing about geomerty or life in space, but I knew I existed. In fact, it gave me great joy knowing that I existed.

Fine, then write us a paper proving you exist. I expect it no later than Monday, but I do not expect you will convince us that you exist.

Rex

I did not say that I could write such a paper. I just pointed to the obvious fact (self-evident fact?) that to say of something that it is self-evident does not imply that it cannot be proved, only that it need not be proved. But, as I said earlier, I would be reluctant to write such a paper for a person who obviously thought that what a person might ordinarily do to prove he existed to present evidence would be no good. For example, when Dr. Stanley searched for Dr. Livingstone in Africa, and finally found him, Stanley famously said, "Dr. Livingstone, I presume." But suppose Stanley was suspicious and asked Livingstone to prove he existed, namely that he was the famous Dr. Livingstone. Lovingstone might have pulled out his wallet and showed Stanley his driver's license. But would the teacher accept the OP's drivers license? I doubt it. The teacher would be too tough a customer.

Seriously. What would you expect as a proof that so and so exists if so and so were right in front of you? Obviously if the teacher isn't going to accept "the evidence of his own eyes" there is nothing much else that the OP can do that would be better. That doesn't mean that the OP cannot prove he exists. It shows only that the teacher will not accept any such proof. It shows, in other words, that the OP cannot persuade or prove to the teacher that he (the OP) exists. But there is a difference between proving and "proving to" or "persuading", and the fact that someone will not be persuaded of something by a proof doesn't show there need be anything wrong with the proof. It may show there is something wrong with the person who refused to be persuaded by the proof. Proof is a matter of logic. Persuasion is a matter of psychology. There are still (I think) members of the Flat Earth Society who will accept to evidence at all that the Earth is round. So what. Does that mean that it cannot be proved that the Earth is round? I think it show rather something about the members of the Flat Earth Society. Why should the criterion of whether a proof that something is true is correct, be that it persuades the person to whom it is directed?

[MisterChase]

So Im taking my first philosophy class ever it a grade 12 highschool class. my first paper is to prove to my teacher that I myself exist. I was wondering if anyone could help me out with this. Give some ideas and stuff. Thanks a lot.

Matt.

Here's a good start:

1.) Proof presupposes existence.

2.) An attempt to prove something, presupposes a consciousness with a complex chain of knowledge and the ability to distinguish between the proved and the unproved.

3.) Existence is characterized by the Law of Identity: All existents have a specific identity, i.e., nature. All actions proceeding from the existant, are governed by the Law of Causality. The Law of Causality is a corollary of Identity. Without existence, there would be no actions, no causality, no identity from which any actions or interactions could occur - there wouldn't be any logic, there wouldn't be any person [such as yourself] that would be trying to prove they exist, all of which are moot points, because nothing would exist anyway!

[kennethamy]

Here's a good start:

1.) Proof presupposes existence.

2.) An attempt to prove something, presupposes a consciousness with a complex chain of knowledge and the ability to distinguish between the proved and the unproved.

3.) Existence is characterized by the Law of Identity: All existents have a specific identity, i.e., nature. All actions proceeding from the existant, are governed by the Law of Causality. The Law of Causality is a corollary of Identity. Without existence, there would be no actions, no causality, no identity from which any actions or interactions could occur - there wouldn't be any logic, there wouldn't be any person [such as yourself] that would be trying to prove they exist, all of which are moot points, because nothing would exist anyway!


Why not just stop with (1)? So the full argument would go:

1. If I can construct a proof, then I must exist.
2. I am now constructing a proof.

Therefore, I must exist.

[JGL53]

All this advice has some merit, but getting bogged down in logical debate is old school - all the other kids will take that approach. What you want to do to get “one up” on the teach is to employ some intellectual jujitsu.

Read "The Book - On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are" (1966) by Alan Watts and write a synopsis of Watt's understanding of the nature of the ego-self (the "I").

Your teacher may give you and A, or she may give you an F, I don't know - I'm guessing the former if you do a good job - or if she or he is a Hindu or Buddhist. One thing I can guarantee you - she will never forget you. :)

[kennethamy]

All this advice has some merit, but getting bogged down in logical debate is old school - all the other kids will take that approach. What you want to do to get “one up” on the teach is to employ some intellectual jujitsu.

Read "The Book - On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are" (1966) by Alan Watts and write a synopsis of Watt's understanding of the nature of the ego-self (the "I").

Your teacher may give you and A, or she may give you an F, I don't know - I'm guessing the former if you do a good job - or if she or he is a Hindu or Buddhist. One thing I can guarantee you - she will never forget you. :)

Why not do what the assignment calls for? What you call, "getting bogged down in logical debate" is what many, including me, would call, philosophizing. Which is, after all, what the OP is supposed to do. If I were the teacher, and if the OP did what you suggest, I would toss the paper back at him/her, and tell him to do the assignment. There are lots of interesting ways of doing that, besides just not doing that, as you suggest. One way I have suggested is to examine the question of whether it makes sense to prove something, when it is obvious that what would be a proof, is not going to be accepted as one. No one would ask anyone to prove that he existed who would accept any proof. And that raises the other question of whether it is necessary for a proof to be accepted for it to be a sound proof? Does a proof, in order to be a good proof, have to persuade?

[JGL53]

Why not do what the assignment calls for? What you call, "getting bogged down in logical debate" is what many, including me, would call, philosophizing. Which is, after all, what the OP is supposed to do. If I were the teacher, and if the OP did what you suggest, I would toss the paper back at him/her, and tell him to do the assignment. There are lots of interesting ways of doing that, besides just not doing that, as you suggest. One way I have suggested is to examine the question of whether it makes sense to prove something, when it is obvious that what would be a proof, is not going to be accepted as one. No one would ask anyone to prove that he existed who would accept any proof. And that raises the other question of whether it is necessary for a proof to be accepted for it to be a sound proof? Does a proof, in order to be a good proof, have to persuade?

All of which means you have no idea what I am talking about. That's OK - no judgment here - just making an observation.

Philosophizing and offering "proofs" is good enough if you still buy into the illusion as real, but I am talking about this - if one understands and agrees with the Watts view, then case closed. There is no argument needed (i.e., the self is a fiction. What is there to philosophize about? The burden is on those who say there is a self. They have no proof whatsoever. Occam's Razor. Case closed.).

[David B]

There's the Sam Johnson refutation of Berkely approach.

Kick the fucker in the shins. Hard.

David B

[thegagan]

Why not just stop with (1)? So the full argument would go:

1. If I can construct a proof, then I must exist.
2. I am now constructing a proof.

Therefore, I must exist.

Tell your teacher to watch intently and write this infront of her. That way she knows you wrote it and you exist, and that somebody else didnt write it and suppose your name to it. :Cheeky:

[Kingreaper]

What degree of "proof" is required? What assumptions are given to work from?

If the answers are "absolute" and "the axioms of logic" tell them it is impossible. If not, work from there.

[kennethamy]

All of which means you have no idea what I am talking about. That's OK - no judgment here - just making an observation.

Philosophizing and offering "proofs" is good enough if you still buy into the illusion as real, but I am talking about this - if one understands and agrees with the Watts view, then case closed. There is no argument needed (i.e., the self is a fiction. What is there to philosophize about? The burden is on those who say there is a self. They have no proof whatsoever. Occam's Razor. Case closed.).

No. I just think you are wrong. Is it your view that if someone disagrees, he doesn't understand you, so that anyone who understands you will agree? I don't think there is a self either. I just think that I exist. Why should that mean I think that something called "the self" exists? You were the one who mentioned "the self", I didn't.

I would think that the burden would fall on those who, while referring to me, questioned whether I exist.

[JGL53]

...I don't think there is a self either. I just think that I exist. Why should that mean I think that something called "the self" exists? You were the one who mentioned "the self", I didn't.....

When someone says "I", this is interpreted by "me" as implying a "self" that is separate and distinct in some absolute way in a universe of separate and distinct things. That is a fiction. But, sorry for my misunderstanding.

A person "exists" as a temporal explicit manifestation of an implicit unity - and thus is a fiction. Does that count for what the teacher is asking - is that "existence"? Well, if so, then the proof is as others have said - tapping on the shoulder, kicking in the shins, having the teacher respond in any way to the student. And if the teacher then brings up solipsism, then I suppose one could go ahead and pound him or her with a baseball bat. That generally cures appeals to solipsism. :)

[kennethamy]

When someone says "I", this is interpreted by "me" as implying a "self" that is separate and distinct in some absolute way in a universe of separate and distinct things. That is a fiction. But, sorry for my misunderstanding.

A person "exists" as a temporal explicit manifestation of an implicit unity - and thus is a fiction. Does that count for what the teacher is asking - is that "existence"? Well, if so, then the proof is as others have said - tapping on the shoulder, kicking in the shins, having the teacher respond in any way to the student. And if the teacher then brings up solipsism, then I suppose one could go ahead and pound him or her with a baseball bat. That generally cures appeals to solipsism. :)

When I (there I go, using that personal pronoun) say, "I am going to dig into that steak and fries on my plate" the furthest thing from my mind is that something called the "self" (I know not what) is going to dig into the steak and fries. What I think I mean is, "The person who is now speaking is going to dig into that steak and fries". Wouldn't that be what you mean?

But I see nothing wrong with the question, "prove that you exist" since I take it to mean, "prove that the person I am speaking to, exists" There is no need to analyse the notion of person, to answer that question, since if the person is Sam Shaminsky, the question is, "prove that Sam Shaminsky exists".

The question is an interesting one, I think, because it has nothing much to do with selves or persons, and has everything to do with the notion of proof. It is really a question in logic, and not in metaphysics, as you seem to be understanding it.

[JGL53]

...The question is an interesting one, I think, because it has nothing much to do with selves or persons, and has everything to do with the notion of proof. It is really a question in logic, and not in metaphysics, as you seem to be understanding it.

OK, I believe I got it. My problem is that when I hear the word "exist", I think we are speaking of metaphysics, as you say. Logic, to me, is the simple analysis and measurement of relationships between patterns (a train leaves Chicago at 50 miles an hour...,etc.) AFTER one has assumed a metaphysics.

So - backtracking, I think the interaction with the teacher, up to and possibly including some sort of minor assault, will suffice as proof, as several other posters have advised and as I mentioned in the last paragraph of my previous post. (This technique is actually a time-honored approach of Buddhist teachers, who assume a natural metaphysics and may sometimes whack their students who ask smart-ass metaphysically-based questions.)

I've said enough here now - I'm off to crap in someone else's soup.) :)

[spindozes]

Is the "I" a metaphysical construct, is it a substance or is it a property of a wider concept called the "self"? In other words, can the existence of "I" be shown as an event or a substance or via properties? When the teacher shouts my name in class, it is "I" that he is refering to. When I say "I feel a pain in my left leg", I am refering to myself as a substance. And when I say that "It was I that is wearing the lime green shirt with the cowboy hat in the photograph", I am describing a property of Me.

The obsession with proving a concept as a "thing" is a form of fetishness which wants to eliminate the possibility of uncertainty. To avoid this fetishness the existence of the "I" can be approached metaphysically as being ascertained with reference to being an event, or a substance or a property.

[kennethamy]

Is the "I" a metaphysical construct, is it a substance or is it a property of a wider concept called the "self"? In other words, can the existence of "I" be shown as an event or a substance or via properties? When the teacher shouts my name in class, it is "I" that he is refering to. When I say "I feel a pain in my left leg", I am refering to myself as a substance. And when I say that "It was I that is wearing the lime green shirt with the cowboy hat in the photograph", I am describing a property of Me.

The obsession with proving a concept as a "thing" is a form of fetishness which wants to eliminate the possibility of uncertainty. To avoid this fetishness the existence of the "I" can be approached metaphysically as being ascertained with reference to being an event, or a substance or a property.


When the teacher calls on me in class, he is calling on a particular person, me. "Me" (or "I") are not names of anything. So "I" doesn't seem to me to be the name of anything, either a substance or a self. These are invented to provide a referent for what is supposed to be a name. But the term "I" is not a name of anything (to repeat). Rather, it means, "the person who is now speaking" so that when I say, that I have a pain, I am saying, "the person who is now speaking has a pain". The question, what is a person is the interesting question.

[Wabitfwee]

So Im taking my first philosophy class ever it a grade 12 highschool class. my first paper is to prove to my teacher that I myself exist. I was wondering if anyone could help me out with this. Give some ideas and stuff. Thanks a lot.

Matt.

Can't be done. Can't PROVE anything to anyone else. 'Course if there IS no one else ..... ? Suggest reading Gullible's Travels.

[Witt]

So Im taking my first philosophy class ever it a grade 12 highschool class. my first paper is to prove to my teacher that I myself exist. I was wondering if anyone could help me out with this. Give some ideas and stuff. Thanks a lot.

Matt.

If you show your teacher that it is true that you participate in some fact (situation) then it follows that you do exist.

To exist is to have a confimable property.

emericarules is a member of your teachers class, is proof that you exist.
emericarules talks, is proof that you exist.
emericarules pees, is proof that you exist.
If there is anything that you do, then that is proof that you exist.

Descartes: I think therefore I am.

If there is any property that can be confirmed about you, then you exist!

That you doubt your own existence, proves that you do exist, etc..

Nobody can assert that they do not exist.

[Guttersnipe]

So Im taking my first philosophy class ever it a grade 12 highschool class. my first paper is to prove to my teacher that I myself exist. I was wondering if anyone could help me out with this. Give some ideas and stuff. Thanks a lot.

Matt.
Someone probably already mentioned this, but you can argue the following:
Premise 1) Existence is a necessary precondition of writing a paper.
Premise 2) I am writing a paper.
Conclusion) I exist.

Now, you'll probably want to include this caveat: Premise 2 may be false, there may be an evil demon tricking me into thinking I'm writing a paper when I'm not. However, if there is an evil demon that is deceiving me, then I have a defeater for my belief that I was assigned the task of writing a paper by my philosophy teacher. For that may have been trickery as well.

[kennethamy]

Can't be done. Can't PROVE anything to anyone else. 'Course if there IS no one else ..... ? Suggest reading Gullible's Travels.

I don't know whether or not you can prove anything to anyone else, although I am pretty sure I have done that.

But, whether or not it is possible to prove any statement to someone else, it is clearly possible to prove some statements.

For instance:

All dogs are mammals
Fido is a dog.

So, Fido is a mammal.

Now, whether or not I can persuade anyone that Fido is a mammal by this argument (prove it to him), has nothing to do with whether I have proved that Fido is a mammal with this argument. And I have certainly done that.

The point: whether anyone is persuaded by your argument has nothing to do with the merits of your argument.

[spindozes]

When the teacher calls on me in class, he is calling on a particular person, me. "Me" (or "I") are not names of anything. So "I" doesn't seem to me to be the name of anything, either a substance or a self. These are invented to provide a referent for what is supposed to be a name. But the term "I" is not a name of anything (to repeat). Rather, it means, "the person who is now speaking" so that when I say, that I have a pain, I am saying, "the person who is now speaking has a pain". The question, what is a person is the interesting question.

The "I" is a reference to an "ego". A person is more general than an ego. This ego in terms of a person is a psychological continuity that enables us to look at our past history and project ourselves in the future.

[Wabitfwee]

... The point: whether anyone is persuaded by your argument has nothing to do with the merits of your argument.
True. However, I believe contained in the OP's post was "prove to my teacher". The teacher could prove to him/herself based on a stated argument I suppose.

[kennethamy]

True. However, I believe contained in the OP's post was "prove to my teacher". The teacher could prove to him/herself based on a stated argument I suppose.

I guess the teacher might be able to persuade herself that the student existed by repeating the proof. Or, the student might be able to persuade, or "prove to" his teacher that he exists with the argument, "You are so very beautiful, therefore, I exist". The teacher might even be able to take some drug to be persuaded that he exists, too. An argument (or "proof") may or may not persuade this or that person of the conclusion. But whether or not it does hasn't much to do with whether the argument is a cogent argument or not.

[Guttersnipe]

So Im taking my first philosophy class ever it a grade 12 highschool class. my first paper is to prove to my teacher that I myself exist. I was wondering if anyone could help me out with this. Give some ideas and stuff. Thanks a lot.
Matt.
Oops, didn't notice that you have to prove your existence to your teacher. The difficulty is with the problem of solipsism -- your teacher is not in a position to have absolute certainty that anyone but himself exists. My recommendation is to stipulate a clear definition of 'proof' that does not require absolute certainty, but rather something like sufficient reason. You could then go about constructing an inductive (argument from liklihood) or abductive (argument from the best explanation) argument for the existence of external minds (or you could do a 'reductio ad absurdum' (reduction to absurdity) on the thesis of solipsism). I think the abductive argument is the easiest.

P1) Between two conflicting beliefs, the one with the greatest explanatory proficiency is the most likely to be true. (abductive assumption)
P2) The belief that there are external minds offers a better explanation of observed phenomenon than does the belief that there aren't external minds.
.:3) So, the belief that there are external minds has greater explanatory proficiency than does the belief that there aren't.
.:4) So, the belief that there are external minds is more likely to be true than the belief that there aren't external minds.

You then would need to offer support for (P2) -- premise 2. This could include the fact that solipsists are obliged to disbelieve in the majority of modern science and history -- e.g. evolution, big bang cosmology, the existence of radio waves, WWII, etc.. Since solipsists believe that everything is a creation of their mind, they disbelieve in anything they didn't personally observe. But there is vast evidence for the existence of evolution, radio waves, and a universe that is older than a couple decades. So, solipsists must conceed (to themselves, since they disbelieve in other minds) that their mind deceives them for whatever reason, by creating a reality that strongly suggests the existence of an objective reality.

Of course, simply establishing the existence of external minds doesn't prove that you exist -- so that is when you follow up with a Cartesian argument like the one in my previous post.

[kennethamy]

Somehow, I don't think that the teacher had to be persuaded that emericarules_182 existed. I think he/she already believed that. Rather, I would imagine that the teacher was trying to find out whether emericarules_182 could present a cogent argument which had the conclusion that he, emericarules_182 exists.

[Guttersnipe]

Yeah, I'm sure the teacher isn't a solipsist -- few people over 16 are. I'm sure its an exercise -- but if the teacher asked for the students to prove to him that they exist, then they need to do more than google Descartes.

[kennethamy]

Yeah, I'm sure the teacher isn't a solipsist -- few people over 16 are. I'm sure its an exercise -- but if the teacher asked for the students to prove to him that they exist, then they need to do more than google Descartes.

Why would the teacher ask the student to persuade him that the student exists when the teacher is already persuaded that the student exists? Descartes' argument that he exists is not an exercise in psychology. or, more accurately, in rhetoric. It is an exercise in logic (broadly speaking).

[Guttersnipe]

He didn't ask the students to persuade him, he asked them to provide an argument proving to him that they exist. It's an exercise -- though he's probably not expecting much since its a high school class. I didn't say the cogito is a psychology exercise. It formed the foundation of Descartes' 'mathematical' argument for external world realism.

[kennethamy]

He didn't ask the students to persuade him, he asked them to provide an argument proving to him that they exist. It's an exercise -- though he's probably not expecting much since its a high school class. I didn't say the cogito is a psychology exercise. It formed the foundation of Descartes' 'mathematical' argument for external world realism.

Well if I ask someone to provide an argument "proving to me" that something exists, I take it that means, "provide an argument that will persuade me that you exist". That is what "prove to me" means. "Persuade me". I may prove something, but it I do not persuade the audience, I did not prove it "to them". It is certainly nice when a proof also is a proof "to" someone. But, of course, it is not necessary for the correctness of the proof that it prove anything to anyone.

[Thomas II]

So Im taking my first philosophy class ever it a grade 12 highschool class. my first paper is to prove to my teacher that I myself exist. I was wondering if anyone could help me out with this. Give some ideas and stuff. Thanks a lot.

Matt.

I am not telling you to do what David said, because that would hurt the teacher,and you don't want that, but he makes a good point...It will certainly get your point across...as well as get you expelled from your school

You could also ask: "Am I expelled?"

They would say "YES!"

Which would, again, confirm your existence...though not as a student anymore...

[Guttersnipe]

Well if I ask someone to provide an argument "proving to me" that something exists, I take it that means, "provide an argument that will persuade me that you exist". That is what "prove to me" means. "Persuade me". I may prove something, but it I do not persuade the audience, I did not prove it "to them". It is certainly nice when a proof also is a proof "to" someone. But, of course, it is not necessary for the correctness of the proof that it prove anything to anyone.
While the def. of 'proof' might be vague -- in philosophy it certainly isn't simply persuasion. People are persuaded by all sorts of non-truth conducive garbage. I would take a proof to mean a rational argument substanciating the truth of a proposition with anything from sufficient reason to absolute certainty. This debate is utterly frivolous. Who the fuck cares? You interpreted the OP in one way and I in another. Let's leave it at that.

[kennethamy]

While the def. of 'proof' might be vague -- in philosophy it certainly isn't simply persuasion. People are persuaded by all sorts of non-truth conducive garbage. I would take a proof to mean a rational argument substanciating the truth of a proposition with anything from sufficient reason to absolute certainty. This debate is utterly frivolous. Who the fuck cares? You interpreted the OP in one way and I in another. Let's leave it at that.

I thought that the term we were talking about was "prove to" not, "prove". Am I mistaken? I said that to prove something to someone was to try to persuade them by presenting an argument (or, if you like, a proof). I didn't say that to prove is to try to persuade.

By the way, from your tone, you seem to care, more than I do.

[555]

In the bible it says: I AM -god-

[da_raven]

In the bible it says: I AM -god-
So would that prove that emericarules_182 is god? C'mon, let's not disturb this thread with theist mumbo jumbo.

The teacher asked you to write a paper where you logically prove your existence - to her, to the audience, whatever. ken, you make a good point with the persuasion element, but leave it at that - so she probably expects you to research Decartes' cogito ergo sum to first prove to yourself that you exist, and then come up with an argument to combat solipsism. Samuel Johnson kicked the wooden floor or a rock or smth and said "I refute it thus". Now here may lie a problem. Is Sam Johnson begging the question or not?

[TruthPrevails]

So Im taking my first philosophy class ever it a grade 12 highschool class. my first paper is to prove to my teacher that I myself exist. I was wondering if anyone could help me out with this. Give some ideas and stuff. Thanks a lot.If you are focussing on getting good grades, be a smart student. Find out what is your teachers inclinations/bias on these and from her lectures you would have gather what it is. If her philosophy of 'i exists' is towards that of Descarte's, give her Descartes and arguments around that. Don't waste precious time needed for completion of other assignments.

Later when you have obtained the necessary grades and if you are interested in more 'refined' wisdoms, come back here to discuss the meaning of what is "I exists".

[kennethamy]

The "I" is a reference to an "ego". A person is more general than an ego. This ego in terms of a person is a psychological continuity that enables us to look at our past history and project ourselves in the future.

But when the student replies, "I am here" (or just raises his hand) what makes you think he is referring to something called "the ego". and not simply indicating that the person whose name the teacher called out is present? The "ego" interpretation seems to me far-fetched and certainly contrary to what either the student, or the teacher, or, for that matter, I, believe. Have you any argument for it?

[kennethamy]

So would that prove that emericarules_182 is god? C'mon, let's not disturb this thread with theist mumbo jumbo.

The teacher asked you to write a paper where you logically prove your existence - to her, to the audience, whatever. ken, you make a good point with the persuasion element, but leave it at that - so she probably expects you to research Decartes' cogito ergo sum to first prove to yourself that you exist, and then come up with an argument to combat solipsism. Samuel Johnson kicked the wooden floor or a rock or smth and said "I refute it thus". Now here may lie a problem. Is Sam Johnson begging the question or not?

I think that all the teacher expects in that the student come up with something that plausibly can be taken as an argument to show that he exists. She may be even looking for some indication that the student knows what an argument is. If he does both of those things, I am sure she'll be happy. At least, if I were the teacher, I would be overjoyed by a 12th grade student who could do those things, and not pad his paper with issues clearly irrelevant to the question posed. I doubt that the intention was for the student to do a reseach paper on the Cogito, about which he (nor probably the teacher) never heard.

The cogito, solipsism and the Johnson bits are about 12 streets in the distance. It was a stone Johnson (reportedly) kicked to refute Berkeley.