I know I exist. I cannot prove this to be invalid because the only possible condition in which I could be wrong, is if I do not exist. If I do not exist then I would not be able to pose the question of my existence in the first place so I necessarily exist if I can pose the question. I can pose the question. I know I exist.
Glad you even made an example, here is the application of that logic in this paragraph, basically it is saying that since you do "not" know of a reason you do not exist, then you can not logically say that you do because you assumed your existence based on some reason.
Can you explain further? I don't understand why this statement is taken to be true. If I'm not mistaken, this is the argument:
Basically, it is saying that for a statement that you have, if you do "not know" a reason that it is false, then you do not know that it is true as well because knowing that it is "true" means that you know that there is not a reason to prove it false "and" that there is a reason proving it true, both at the same time.
I'm not necessarily sure if he means formal logic.
yes, I mean formal logic. Getting this means that you got the logic.
I was confused by this proposition back then and I'm confused by it now. It flatly just does not make sense. You start with premises A and B, and somehow conclude notA. It's just not a valid logical conclusion, plain and simple. It is at best selfcontradictory (you start by assuming A and conclude with notA)
Yes, I have had some problems with people understanding the logic, but once understood, it is really hard to get out of, of course because it is purely reason and logic.
I can try harder at explaining it, the first problem is that it "knows" something at first and then refutes it with the next sentence, but it can also be said in this way that to know something, you have to know of a "reason" for that thing or else it is just making a statement by itself and no "proof". Therefore from this you go on to say that if there is a "reason" that exists that proves it false, then that statement is false because it is "disproved" but since we "do not know" that the counter reason exist or not, but know of its affect that if it exists, then our statement is false, if it does not then our statement is true and if we "do not know" then where do we stand in our first statement.
And yes this statement is selfcontradictory which is the glory of it which by knowing this "one" thing, you know "nothing" which is understandable with this logic even though you should know one thing from this logic.
Let me know if I need to try harder at explaining it.


Bookmarks