People may have told you things exist. This claim, while broadly accepted, is seldom deeply scrutinized. One must consider, how could we possibly know that anything truly does exist? Some philosophers, such as Descartes, would claim “I think, therefore I am”, perhaps suggesting that something must exist, if only the thought, but this statement is quite difficult to prove considering that there is little to indicate that logic should work at all if its existence is not first assumed. Even if it should, how could we know that any thought is actually logical? If one tries to prove existence exists using logic, the logic must first be assumed to exist and therefore the proof is invalid due to the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Even if one is able to prove the existence of anything they must assume that their proof exists and therefore, the proof is invalid. For this reason it is impossible to prove or disprove existence.
You may say that this argument does not exist, if nothing truly exists, however, unless you assume logic to apply, though, truth be told, there is no real certainty that this article exists at all, either, but in a world where nothing exists, that cannot be used to conclude anything. Additionally, you may argue that if logic did not exist, then how could we say with any certainty that logical statements cannot still be used to draw conclusions? It is illogical, but in the absence of logic, that is perhaps irrelevant. However, it is very hard to make any sort of logical argument without assuming logic to be.
One philosopher, Blaise Pascal, argued that a rational person should adopt the belief that god exists, as one has an infinite amount of pleasure to gain if they do, and a finite amount to lose if they do not. If one applies this argument to existence in general and not only the existence of god, it would be reasonable for one to assume that things exist.
Unfortunately, this argument does not actually attempt to prove existence, simply claiming that you should believe in it blindly because it would make you happier. This is essentially an “ignorance is bliss” style argument. In the end, if your ultimate goal is happiness, as opposed to truth, this argument may hold sway; certainly, it is hard to disprove, since it can be applied to most anything. No matter what is said to disprove it, one could return “it makes me happier to assume everything you said is false”. Even arguing that this line of reasoning will make you miserable could be easily countered in this way.
However, while I can of course not control what you believe, I will say that this argument in no way verifies any claims. Indeed, its very premise that you will be happier if you believe in existence is impossible to verify as happiness can be different for everyone.
Comments