Re: [The Existential Society] on Philosophy
- I think Kant made this issue pretty clear: existence isn't a predicate.
It's not an attribute that something has. Once you begin a sentence
with the word I, you have assumed its existence (the fact of existence
is assumed by the subject of the sentence, in other words, not an
attribute described by the predicate of the sentence). So once you
have a speaking I, there's no longer any question of its existence:
proof is moot.
This statement is only tautological if you use it as a proof of
existence: if you begin with the assumption that questions about
existence are already settled beforehand, then it is not. It is then a
claim that any question about the existence of the subject is a
ridiculous question to begin with, just as ridiculous as arguments for
the proof of the subject.
This has nothing to do with the nature or origin of the I, simply the
existence of the I.