Hello. I wrote this to Cecil, but I got an email back suggesting that, since he probably wouldn’t be able to tackle it, that I should post it on the message board. So here it is, in all it’s long, rambling glory. Let me know what you think.
Dear Cecil:
Could you please help settle a gentleman’s disagreement I have with a co-worker? My position (which he disputes) is this: If you really think about it, the only thing you truly know is that you exist. My reasoning starts with Plato’s shadow analogy - that we can’t trust the information about the world we receive through our senses because our senses could be deceiving us (a la the Matrix movies).
My co-worker argues that you know causality is correct, as in “the glass broke because you dropped it.” Bunk says I! How can you test causality if you don’t know whether the glass really exists?
“But what about mathematics?” he replies. “You don’t need the external world to know that 2+2 always equals 4.” Double-bunk says I! Isn’t it possible to dream that 2+2=5? If so, how do you know you’re not just dreaming that 2+2=4 and that, when you wake, the answer will actually be 5?
He then argues that maybe you don’t really exist. It’s possible, I say, but look at my premise: If you think about it, all you know is that you exist. Logically speaking, if I don’t exist, there’s no one to think about the question.
“Aha!” he says. “Since you’re speaking logically, logic must exist!” Bunk-cubed says I! Logic doesn’t “exist” since logic is an activity and not an object. You can’t say you know logic must be correct because, like causality, there’s nothing to test it out on. You can say that you know you are thinking logically, but thinking logically only leads you to the conclusion that you exist (i.e. you’re just saying the same thing with extra words).
He still disagrees, so I ask, can you sort this out, Cecil? Is my premise correct? Or should I just cut back on the weed?
-Your pal Mike