The Existence Myth
Do we exist? Why we must stop pretending that we do.
One night, I had an epiphany. I don’t exist. At that moment, I was liberated from the brutal prison of my mind. For the first time in my life, everything made sense, and I found true peace. Becoming a sort of philosophical apostate, I let go of the myth of existence that had burdened me for so long.
It began with the introspection of my heart. What is my motive? That’s when it occurred to me. We all have an innate drive to defend the “self” at all costs. This selfishness has prevented us from exploring the possibility that our “self” does not exist- or at least not in the way we think. Consequently, many philosophers have only sought to defend the existence of that “self.” I could no longer allow my emotions or intuition to dictate my beliefs. It was time to analyze the arguments.
I think, therefore, I am
This contention is attributed to French philosopher René Descartes. Descartes sought to find certain truths, meaning that these truths were necessarily provable beyond any possible doubt. To that end, Descartes created a system in which he classified any argument that failed to meet that threshold as “dubitable.”
In his writings, he established two main doubts that prove that the entirety of knowledge derived from experience is "dubitable” under his system. First, Descartes argues that there is no certainty that he isn’t dreaming right now. Further, he argues that there is no way to know whether or not every memory from his life was a dream.
Every sensory experience I have ever thought I was having while awake I can also think of myself as sometimes having while asleep.
Second, Descartes argues that there might be an evil genius, or demon, who manipulates his perception, rendering it invalid. This idea is reminiscent of the more modern Simulation Theory. For Descartes, all knowledge derived from experience was not certain. Therefore, any certain knowledge in the face of his doubts must be a priori.
Descartes found that the only knowledge that met the threshold of absolute certainty found in his method was that he was doubting. How could one doubt that they are doubting? How, he argued, could any demon deceive him if he did not exist? Thus, Descartes concluded that his existence is the only candidate to be “indubitable” knowledge.
Failure of Descartes’ “proof.”
Descartes, though making a valiant effort to prove his existence, committed multiple fallacies. He presupposes numerous conditions which could only be proven true through experience, thus utilizing circular reasoning. Many of his failures were not entirely his fault, not having the advantage of the scientific and psychological discoveries we enjoy in the 21st century.
The argument is an enthymeme, also known as a truncated(shortened) syllogism. This type of logic has a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. For example, all men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. With that said, “I think. Therefore I am” is not the only iteration of Descartes’ attempt(s) to prove one’s existence. However, the assumptions that it makes are the same that invalidate all arguments that “prove” existence.
Putting the argument in a similar format exposes its inherent weaknesses and assumptions. All things that think exist. I think. Therefore, I exist. First, it commits the fallacy known as begging the question because the first premise is dependent on the conclusion being true. If you do not exist, then your notion that for something to think it must exist can not be proven. You can not validly intuit that this notion is true either because intuition is developed through experience. More on that process later.
The minor premise makes two demonstrably incorrect assumptions. First, that the actor of the thought is “I” or the “self.” There is no corroborative reason to believe that you are thinking. Second, in making that assumption, the argument also assumes the nature of the “self.” Why do we think that the “self” is capable of thought? To continue, we must analyze our construct of “self,” what it means to exist, and the nature of thought.
The brain’s imaginary friend
To assess existence, one must first establish what it means. To exist is defined as to “Have objective reality or being.” Interestingly enough, the definition of being objective is to be “Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.” Of course, one could contend that this is an argument rooted purely in semantics that contextually doesn’t apply to questioning the existence of the “self”- but doesn’t it?
Anything not characterized as being objective is a direct product of the mind—for example, thoughts. Let’s say that that thought is that the weather is lovely today. One cannot say that that thought is objective, nor would it be said to exist. That thought is nothing more than a construct- it’s imaginary. Imaginary things exist only in the imagination. If I have many thoughts about what kind of person someone is, that also does not exist. No matter how “accurate” my assessment of someone is, it can never be real.
If you are anything like me, you may have had an imaginary friend while growing up. Often, these “friends” have entirely imagined opinions, personalities, tendencies, etc. But, regardless of how complex imaginary friends are, they, of course, don’t exist. Similarly, even though they may have thought-out opinions, they do not think. Instead, their existence is merely a series of thoughts about them- their likes, dislikes, beliefs, loves, hates, fears, traits, etc. Thus, their identity is a construct. Constructs are thoughts. Thoughts do not think.
Thus, I pose the question that sparked my paradigm-shifting epiphany: What more is there to your sense of “self” other than thoughts about yourself? If the personalities, tendencies, opinions, and identity of imaginary friends don’t mean that they exist, there’s no reason to believe that yours mean you exist either. Ultimately, your sense of “self” is just a series of thoughts about yourself. The very fact that “your” existence is limited to your mind makes you necessarily imaginary.
“You” are merely your brain’s first-person imaginary friend.
Perhaps the nail in the coffin of our existence, research has shown that self-awareness, one of the pillars of consciousness, is not entirely innate. Instead, it is gradually developed through experience. Further, our knowledge of ourselves relative to others is not intrinsic. It changes over time. For example, in false-belief task tests, when shown that a candy box is filled with pennies and asked what someone else would think is in the box, children younger than three years old generally say pennies. This is because they cannot infer that others do not possess the same knowledge that they do. We presuppose that a “self” is a prerequisite to thought because we have no memory of the time before the brain constructed our “self.” Because the construct of “self” is not innate, it is not inherent to thought. Nothing is a priori.
The “self,” for many creatures, is an evolutionary advantage. These organisms would certainly not pass their genes on to the next generation by disregarding their safety and well-being. It must be the ultimate priority- second to none. However, we are no longer the endangered species we once were. Caring about the “self” has its merits. However, extreme regard for the “self,” to the extent that our species generally has, is a vestigial structure's psychological equivalent. It’s time to evolve.
Pride is the Devil
Think it got a hold on me
Pride is the Devil
It left so many R.I.P.
An indictment of “self”
We are guilty of a great transgression against rational thought. This transgression has spread like cancer since the dawn of our species. The only cure is the sacrifice of what we hold most dear on the altar of logic- the mythology of “self.” Our transgression is selfishness, defined as the extreme regard for the “self” which exists only as a construct in a manner detrimental to our species and life on our planet.
Grotesque violence, cruelty, and atrocities carried out at the behest of selfishness irreparably stain the history of Humanity. We have brutally murdered each other over imaginary lines in the dirt, enslaved each other, hated people for who they loved, murdered them for who they didn’t hate- or just whistling at someone. And over what? Something that doesn’t even exist.
The root of much of this evil is the same thing that held me back from reconsidering my existence my entire life: selfishness. We all instinctually consider ourselves before others—we all desire importance, validity, superiority, etc. We don’t want to be a construct. However, logic allows us to see beyond that. Those desires, we feel, are remnants of a bygone era. Selfishness is not the only example. Many of us struggle with anger, happiness, anxiety, or other constructs. In the same way, the majority of our species struggle with “self.”
If you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to.
Optimistic Outlook
I used to believe that humans were driven by self-interest adamantly. Now I realize that one day that will be our past. Humanity, like all species, is evolving. Every day brings new acts of kindness, selflessness, and love. Our cooperation has brought us so much far. The best of us have long realized the folly of “self.” The life of an individual is but a dot in the whole of humanity. Like a cell in a body, the ultimate end of that individual ought to be the betterment of the whole.
“Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless”No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them
The realization that I was imaginary lifted a massive burden from my shoulders. I had been trying to force my existence to be some intrinsic truth for my entire life- it’s not. Bending over backward to believe something that didn’t make sense for the sake of not hurting my pride was exhausting. I didn’t lose meaning when I lost myself- I gained it. The next step in human evolution is towards selflessness. Logic demands the ultimate sacrifice- ourselves.