do we exist?
a question centuries old and centuries evasive.
many have had a lot to say. many smarter than i.
however my recent thoughts are as follows:
the question is invalid in its current form. a definition cannot contain that term which it strives to define. thus to define a being we must ask: what is a being? ( a being used as something which exists) however the “is” in that question corrupts the whole concept as we are using the term for existense in our quest to determine what existence is.
we all know what existence is we are doing it. if i said to you, that there tree exists you would know what i was trying to convey to you. yet we must remember that concepts exist in the same way as you or i. 2 + 2 = 5 exists and will always regardless of our exsitence (as will silly playful theorms about triangles and squares and the like). the existence of ideas is central. however i am not summizing the Cogito for you here. after a considerable number of Pabst Blue Ribbon with monseur Descartes last weekend we decided he was quite happily retired. Heiddeger lended some ideas but his english left something to be desired. Thus with a belly full of cheap beer and a head full of wiskey my associates and i have decieded to puruse and new course. a new anti-ontological science free of the onitc and even less full of beings of beings in being. the new science of anti-ontology, or nihilology shall aim as its sole goal to categorize all those things which do not exist. who knows what we shall find. we are know excepting donations on paypal and at shady gas station nearest you.