Okay, my original question has been transformed into something thats more of a lecture, and probably is now inappropriate for this forum. Maybe I can be helped anyway.
My question had to do with an informal fallacy known as begging the question. Begging the question means to assume as evidence the things that trying to be proved. Which is saying something like "These shoes are expensive because they cost alot." or "your smart because your intelligent". The conclusion is thus the same as the premise making it the fallacy begging the question.
To my understanding a person can not maintain a cogent argument by committing an informal fallacy. How would this statement below work, if its not begging the question.
I exist because I am here.
I am in existence because I...
My understanding of I indicates that a person would refer to him self as being in existence.
How would one go about proving his own existence logically.
Would an Axiom be appropriate in this situation or would using my self as evidence to prove that I exist just not be possible, where I would just have to use faith that I just do exist.
In this case I could conclude that a person can not exist by himself and needs another being to verify that existence.
I am because you heard me.
Your existence acknowledged my existence,Thus I now exist on a logical basis.
This might help explain humans need for companionship because our minds cant comprehend the state of non existence, which alone we can not provide the convincing reason to prove that we do exist. This would be on an instinctive level.
Didn't Dr Johnson reckon that kicking a lamppost was enough for the proof of your own existence. It may sound glib, but I think there are other ways of defining yourself or (slightly) understanding your own existence.
I'm sure your right, lots of ways exists to prove a persons self existence, but can it be done logically with out breaking one of the informal fallacy guidelines. Will one way make more sense then another way?
The whole reason why the lamp existed to kick was because someone was able to recognize it as a lamp. Without the person the lamp would have been nothing.
Interesting though, I was just thinking about why a person or child would kick a lamp over, it would most likely be an attempt to gain attention. Not attention from the lamp attention from someone near by just to confirm that the child is something more then what he is.
I would except kicking a lamp over as proof of existence, but through first person perspective kicking a lamp over wouldn't be anything more then kicking a lamp over. Its the same as throwing a ball, walking on a side walk.
He was referring to a street light and meant that it would hurt, which can help us define ourselves instantly.
lol oops...overlooked the pain part and substituted a different conclusion for it.
I think the object being kicked is irrelevant in this matter and its more about the action and the results of the action.
Unless I'm mistaken
I think that would imply that the result of pain and the result of a lamp falling over are not equal, and the result of pain was more meaningful then the kick to the lamppost. Since the results would not have taken place without an act it would be logical to conclude that both the kick, and the pain received would play equal rolls in this matter. Thus the whole sentence, the kick and the pain, would be required to prove an existence in ones self and not just the pain received.
But thats only if the result is what defines ones existence. If the act would define ones existence, then it would be the kick it self that would prove ones existence. Hence you are then begging the question.
I am because I acted(kicked).
I still don't know for sure if that really is begging the question. I need professional help to confirm.
If It is begging the question then the only possible solution I can think of is to introduce another being to define the one known as I as you.