Can you prove I exist?

ahaaa good news...crummyrummy you are.....

 

you think therefore you are. to post this thread you would have to have gained somekind of conciusness(sp) and self awareness to post it. human or not, you still exist. even if you are part of some kind of computer system you still posted the topic and you thought about it. and since you made this question you arent being programmed so you exist. in short im trying to say that if you are aware then you exist in some way

 

Who the hell cares. You could also NOT be a bot.

 

To take the matter one step farther,Fichte argues that "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I exist) is okay, but the ethic of existing as humans (with this "sacred" gift) "requires" that we shall enhance our existing by acting. Fichte, talks more of the moral aspects of existence. But in archaeology we take the case as Culture.

"What is culture ?" is the reverted form of the question "what has existed?"

Culture is whatever man produces. Even the feces gives clues about his living if the german proverb is correct: Der Mann ist was er ißt. (The man is what he eats) not to mention our tool making capacity.

As for Derrida: I agree with post-modern man's problems with the past and the readings he has done so far. But I dont think Derrida's "de-construction" is a path. Because otherwise we would end up claiming the end of the sciences, giving the idealistic school an undeserved victory (although I dont take this struggle as the prime drive for our inquiries). I agree with Feyerabend's objection to science as science's positivism itself is becoming a dogma like the religions. But still I "believe" in the ultimate quest, not in the tools we conduct it:

I think Derrida's deconstruction is not smthng to deconstruct the heaps of knowledge we have gathered (or constructed into a building called the "sciences" so far). But it is a very handy tool in our ever increasing curiosity against all that is unknown to us. The most spectacular part of Derrida’s ideas is firstly his reminding us the ever changing state of change and that we should keep up with it. And secondly but most importantly (i think) he has shown us that phenomena don’t have 2 states as unknown and to-be-known

But they also have an interstate where they keep their validity till new knowledge comes.

In this process, we use the gathered and suspiciously accepted piece of knowledge to relate things and get to other dimentions. I reject the uselessness of “false” knowledge for it is the “fact” that we place opposite to “truth”. Therefore I conclude; no truth can be freed from false.