Do you think the statement: "I think therefore I am" is a valid way to define existence? I think it satisfactorily defines that we exist. What do you think?
Didn't allow me to edit it. Adding a little Wikipedia love to spice up the convo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum The simple meaning of the phrase is that if someone is wondering whether or not he exists, that is in and of itself proof that he does exist (because, at the very least, there is an "I" who is doing the thinking). Descartes makes a lot of sense here. I am thinking, for that to happen there has to be a conjecture of the I involved in the thinking. The question I have is this. Does something exist because it is what I imagine it to look like in my head? I know my desk is a desk because I imagine the desk in the same way. I am giving validity to this desk because when I hit it it hurts me. I know it exists because I exist and I have a physical shape, does it exist because it affects me? This line of thought extinguishes the thought that imaginary items are real because they are not physical manifestations of an item which hurts me when I hit it. Is this faulty logic? Thanks! (sorry for the ramble)
My philosophy teacher once asked me what Cogito ergo sum means. A lazy, sleepy college student that I was then, I answered: I think therefore I can think. Lol!