Originally Posted by punkworld

Sorry, but the one thing you seem to know with any reasonable degree of certainty doesn't fly. "I think therefore I exist" (his actual reasoning was that he doubted that he existed, and that exactly that doubting was a certainly, therefore dubito ergo sum) contains several big problems.

First and foremost, it uses the concept of "existing". However, what "existing" is is left blank. Heidegger's Seinsfrage is probably the first serious attempt in philosophy of even asking the question of what "being" is in the right way. We have no clear and satisfactory definition or concept of being, so it is impossible to conclude it from anything. Furthemore, if you look at Asian languages which don't have a word bearing a meaning equivalent to "being" and subsequently don't ask any questions about it in philosophy, it seems not at all impossible that being as a concept is in fact a social construct.

That leaves us with Cogito/Dubito, I think/I doubt. However, the second problem we face is the concept of "I". What is "I"? Trying to prove the existence of a first person being "therefore I am" by assuming one in the premise "I think" is a logical fallacy.

Thirdly, both thinking and doubting are words. Words are not a priori, but rather a posteriori. Thus, to take their content and concept as a priori truths, is to risk turning something that is fundamentally a posteriori as a priori.


Now, the rest of what you said contains some very valid points, which are very culturally determined, and therefore necessarily very contingent. Your main conclusion, however, seems to strongly resemble my own position, namely that fully experiencing life and striving for personal mental development are worthwhile goals in life, insofar as worthwhile goals are possible.