Readers Day - Philosophy problem
Today I’m going to put your mind to work with a very simple problem.
Prove me that this blog doesn’t exist.
Put your thinking cap on and get to work. Let’s see your answer in the comments.
If you're new here and have found useful information, please subscribe to my RSS feed or sign up for free Email updates. There are daily updates and you should stay tuned. Thanks for visiting!
If you liked this article, you should
subscribe to the RSS feed
(What's RSS?)
or
Subscribe to e-mail updates:
or
Subscribe to e-mail updates:
I have no idea, I had a really long answer writen out but it made no sence, any clues?
Clues… Hmm… The only clue that I can give is that the best correct answer is really simple (can be sinthesized in two words).
Anyhow, don’t feel discouraged about your long answer, let’s see it! It might be good.
HAH! 2 words! What blog?
Hey Louis, congratulations! “What blog?” was the correct answer.
There is a similar story floating around the internet. Some of you may know it (it’s about a professor who gave his students a one-question test, pretty much like this one).
Congratulations again Louis!
Out of curiosity, could you share your initial long answer with us?
I’ve forgoten what it was, it got into the existance of man etc then I got a headache and gave up. I’ve always wanted to take philosophy
Wow, sounds like you really went deep with your first answer.
If you enjoy philosophy you should stick around, I’ll post more articles related to philosophy in the future.
Cant prove a negative.
etc
Spawnie, could you elaborate on “Can’t prove a negative”?
Its usually held that it is all but impossible, or at least, furstrating, to prove a negative. Especially when working with something -actual- (like this blog, assuming it exists in the “real” world.)
The difficulty arises in having to put together a framework or description and then show that there is in fact -nothing there-. You might come across the statement (popular with theists) that “you cant say something doesnt exist until you have searched the entire universe, all at the same time, for it.” Which, as you can imagine, is pretty annoying. So we switch the burden of proof, as is done in the scientific method. Instead of asking me to prove that some object or entity -isnt- there, -you- prove that it is. Kind of ties in with the cartesian universal doubt. Doubt is easy. As Descartes showed, we can doubt just about everything.
So your question would rightly be turned on you and asked “prove that this blog exists” and you would have to work out how. The usual method isnt perfect, but it does stop endless epistemelogical arguments about the nature of knowledge - you would ask us to accept, for the purpose of your argument, certain premises, for example that our senses can be trusted to some extent, that there is a real world which our words describe, etc. Then, if we accepted them, you could make a statement along the lines of “this blog exists because i can perceive it with several of my senses” or whatever.
Sorry if this is over brief or comes across as somewhat rude. Im typing quick because i have to go out soon.
Come to think of it I dont think “what blog?” is right. You asked for proof, i mearly denied its existance. The whole point of proof is that it cant lie. This blog clearly exists.
Louis, belief is an essential aspect of our lives and everything we do is influenced by it.
Asking “what blog?” implies that you don’t believe in it’s existence, so, for you, it does not exist. Your belief is proof enough for me, until proven the contrary.
The simple solutions are always the best.
“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein
Spawnie, I don’t know if this is a correct philosophical proof that this blog exists, but if you do a google search for armannd.com (which is this blog), it would show you evidence of it’s existence. Also, you’ve just written ideas on it’s space, so that could be another proof that it exists.
Again, I don’t know if these are correct proofs in the context, but they are proof.