The issue of existence:Is thinking a reliable proof of existence even if my mind is not a reliable source?
I would like to transmit my thinking process regarding the issue of existence to this paper. I chose this topic because I could not really relate my existence to Descarte’s famous ‘’I think therefore I am’’ although I found method of doubt very reasonable. First of all,
I want you to understand why, using scepticism as a method of achieving certain epistomologic knowledge, got me thinking. My question is: ‘’Do I really exist as a result of my thinking process?’’ How can I be certain that my ‘’thinking’’ is not a misinterpretation? Is it possible to integrate Berkeley’s and Descartes’ opinions regarding the issue of existence?
I always felt very inconsistent about my perceptions, my feelings and my thoughts. The way I perceive things may depend on the mood that I am in which means that I may misinterpret things when I am very furious or simply in love. Today, as an example, I had a very intense feeling, named anger, regarding the ever-spreading fanaticism in Turkey. The reason why is that my mother lives in Kızıltoprak and I was trying to get back to Hisarüstü via public transportation after the end of the visit. I could not even walk to ‘’Metrobüs’’ as there were too many Fenerbahçe supporters acting irrationally as a result of the happiness that came with victory. I got in the Metrobus and I felt hatred to a little child because he was a son of a fanatic father and was being raised as a fanatic. Hatred? It was not even his fault in the first place. My inappropriate emotion at that very moment was a result of involvement of many accumulated negative feelings which effected my tender point of view. How can I trust anything I say or think when feelings are involved? Back to my main question, how can I even make sure that I am really thinking? Can there be something like involvement of feelings which is making me believe that I am thinking?
Once, I saw a dog and thought that it was very cute and showed it to my friend then I realized it was a sack of coffee beans. There were absolutely no resemblance. I was not hallucinating, there were no involvement of drugs, I am almost sure that I am not mad. I just misinterpreted the visual content I saw. I realized my misperception in five seconds but what if I live it all the time without even realizing it? Descartes says that if senses can deceive us sometimes, they should not be trusted. He thinks that way therefore he exists. What about his thinking? Is thinking a reliable proof of existing?
If I am that inconsistent, how am I going to prove myself that I exist? Descartes asserts that thinking is the only proof of existence of a mind. Well, in that case, I am thinking but I do not necessarily think that I am a reliable source. Myself, as an unreliable source, telling me, a person who is able to misinterpret everything, you think therefore you exist as a mind. Do I? I cannot come up with a refuting example but these questions with no answer I have, prevents me from making my existence definite. That’s why I found it necessary to get a second opinion.
Berkeley’s ‘’to be is to be perceived’’ idea and his conclusion of, God is perceiving us everywhere and all the time therefore we exist, does not relate with my agnostic point of view at all. However my purpose is not ridicule Berkeley’s point of view on existence since I do not think my knowledge regarding Berkeley is sufficient enough. I want to take Berkeley’s point and integrate it with Descartes’s idea of existence. I have an example of a person I know, lying on a hospital bed in coma. A group of friends of our friend in coma perceive our friend in coma who is unconscious therefore he exists due to Berkley’s point of view. I also exist due to Descartes’s point of view as I am thinking about my friend’s situation. I also exist from Berkeley’s perspective since I am being perceived by a conscious friend in the room even I if am an atheist, even if I do not believe in a god who perceives me all the time. What about our friend in coma? Does she exist? From Berkeley’s perspective she exists as she is being perceived by her friends. On the other hand, from Descartes’ perspective she might not exist even though she is perceived by her friends. I cannot be sure since my mind might be delusive anytime. But I am pretty sure that I exist. My friends are pretty sure that they exist as they are thinking and they are being perceived by me. I think that all people in the room exist because they seem so and my mind is the only thing that I can trust but it may also mislead me. Okay. But what about my friend in coma? She does not supposed to exist if she is not able to think. She is not able to think therefore she does not exist. Next day something interesting happens. She gets out of coma. Now she is able think therefore she may exist again. Is it possible for a mind to exist then travelling to non-existence land and coming back to existence? I cannot be sure about her but what if I was the one in coma? I am pretty sure that I exist as a result of my thoughts. When I loose my ability to think I do not stop existing as I came back to existence when I got out of coma from Descartes’ perspective. On the other hand I was always existing from Berkeley’s perspective which makes more sense eventhough I had more in common with Descartes’ ideas.
Of course I cannot conclude my opinions with certain inferences as certainity is a stress factor for me. I wanted to integrate Berkeley’s and Descartes’ ideas because when I first read about Descartes it had an influence on me, on the other hand when I read about Berkeley I kind of ridiculed him. When you uploaded the ‘’Etkileyici bir öğrenci mektubu’’ I realized that I cannot ridicule a scholar eventhough his ideas does not reach me. That’s why I tried to reach him. I hope I achieved my goal.
I want you to understand why, using scepticism as a method of achieving certain epistomologic knowledge, got me thinking. My question is: ‘’Do I really exist as a result of my thinking process?’’ How can I be certain that my ‘’thinking’’ is not a misinterpretation? Is it possible to integrate Berkeley’s and Descartes’ opinions regarding the issue of existence?
I always felt very inconsistent about my perceptions, my feelings and my thoughts. The way I perceive things may depend on the mood that I am in which means that I may misinterpret things when I am very furious or simply in love. Today, as an example, I had a very intense feeling, named anger, regarding the ever-spreading fanaticism in Turkey. The reason why is that my mother lives in Kızıltoprak and I was trying to get back to Hisarüstü via public transportation after the end of the visit. I could not even walk to ‘’Metrobüs’’ as there were too many Fenerbahçe supporters acting irrationally as a result of the happiness that came with victory. I got in the Metrobus and I felt hatred to a little child because he was a son of a fanatic father and was being raised as a fanatic. Hatred? It was not even his fault in the first place. My inappropriate emotion at that very moment was a result of involvement of many accumulated negative feelings which effected my tender point of view. How can I trust anything I say or think when feelings are involved? Back to my main question, how can I even make sure that I am really thinking? Can there be something like involvement of feelings which is making me believe that I am thinking?
Once, I saw a dog and thought that it was very cute and showed it to my friend then I realized it was a sack of coffee beans. There were absolutely no resemblance. I was not hallucinating, there were no involvement of drugs, I am almost sure that I am not mad. I just misinterpreted the visual content I saw. I realized my misperception in five seconds but what if I live it all the time without even realizing it? Descartes says that if senses can deceive us sometimes, they should not be trusted. He thinks that way therefore he exists. What about his thinking? Is thinking a reliable proof of existing?
If I am that inconsistent, how am I going to prove myself that I exist? Descartes asserts that thinking is the only proof of existence of a mind. Well, in that case, I am thinking but I do not necessarily think that I am a reliable source. Myself, as an unreliable source, telling me, a person who is able to misinterpret everything, you think therefore you exist as a mind. Do I? I cannot come up with a refuting example but these questions with no answer I have, prevents me from making my existence definite. That’s why I found it necessary to get a second opinion.
Berkeley’s ‘’to be is to be perceived’’ idea and his conclusion of, God is perceiving us everywhere and all the time therefore we exist, does not relate with my agnostic point of view at all. However my purpose is not ridicule Berkeley’s point of view on existence since I do not think my knowledge regarding Berkeley is sufficient enough. I want to take Berkeley’s point and integrate it with Descartes’s idea of existence. I have an example of a person I know, lying on a hospital bed in coma. A group of friends of our friend in coma perceive our friend in coma who is unconscious therefore he exists due to Berkley’s point of view. I also exist due to Descartes’s point of view as I am thinking about my friend’s situation. I also exist from Berkeley’s perspective since I am being perceived by a conscious friend in the room even I if am an atheist, even if I do not believe in a god who perceives me all the time. What about our friend in coma? Does she exist? From Berkeley’s perspective she exists as she is being perceived by her friends. On the other hand, from Descartes’ perspective she might not exist even though she is perceived by her friends. I cannot be sure since my mind might be delusive anytime. But I am pretty sure that I exist. My friends are pretty sure that they exist as they are thinking and they are being perceived by me. I think that all people in the room exist because they seem so and my mind is the only thing that I can trust but it may also mislead me. Okay. But what about my friend in coma? She does not supposed to exist if she is not able to think. She is not able to think therefore she does not exist. Next day something interesting happens. She gets out of coma. Now she is able think therefore she may exist again. Is it possible for a mind to exist then travelling to non-existence land and coming back to existence? I cannot be sure about her but what if I was the one in coma? I am pretty sure that I exist as a result of my thoughts. When I loose my ability to think I do not stop existing as I came back to existence when I got out of coma from Descartes’ perspective. On the other hand I was always existing from Berkeley’s perspective which makes more sense eventhough I had more in common with Descartes’ ideas.
Of course I cannot conclude my opinions with certain inferences as certainity is a stress factor for me. I wanted to integrate Berkeley’s and Descartes’ ideas because when I first read about Descartes it had an influence on me, on the other hand when I read about Berkeley I kind of ridiculed him. When you uploaded the ‘’Etkileyici bir öğrenci mektubu’’ I realized that I cannot ridicule a scholar eventhough his ideas does not reach me. That’s why I tried to reach him. I hope I achieved my goal.