WayoftheBastard on the physical world

your argument for the physical world is circular in an unconventional way; it places the circularity in your proof of the self, and builds upon that by trying to (fallaciously) derive the physical world's existence from the proof of the self. the dillemma is sort of like this: either we argue the physical world exists through a posteriori or a priori reasoning. if it's the former, then our knowledge is circular. with the latter, a priori intuitions seem irrelevant in trying to know the physical world.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• wayofthebastard
• physical world
• epistemic circularity

[WayOfTheBastard]

lol ok, I admit it, my argument fails. New rule: Never compose a syllogism and share it publicly on the same day. good stuff here lego man.

[legodesi]

@WayOfTheBastard

lol thanks dude. btw, are you a rationalist?

[mcdoogs87]

good stuff!

[legodesi]

@mcdoogs87

thanks!

[goldeneye007662]

You're a philosophy major, right? You should be.

[SirContraMundum]

Well said.

[floydstinkyboy]

i think proof the physical world exists comes from the fact that two physical bodies cannot exist in the same place at the same time - knowledge impressed on me at age 10, when a baseball smashed out all my front teeth and broke my nose.

[WayOfTheBastard]

@legodesi No, but I've formally studied the rationalist (along w/ Kant) far more than anything else in philosophy, not by choice I might, so it's often hard not to think like one.

[wimsweden]

So, an improvement on Descartes would be:

I think therefore something exists?

[wilfredthebold]

Good call. When someone asks me to prove that the physical world exists, I skip argumentation and just stub my toe.