I never really questioned the possibility of my existence if others weren't there before I learned about Hegel and his theory of mutual recognition. Though it was an interesting question it still makes no sense to me. This is where I agree more with Descartes that because I can think and reason I know I exist. I don't need people to come to that conclusion.
There's no way to prove that anyone exists and just because I recognize someone is there's doesn't mean anything. I can't read anyone's thoughts...for all I know everyone could be robots or a figment of my imagination and maybe I'm the only human on earth...scary thought. So the only thing I can ever be sure of is that I have thoughts and therefore I must exist...at least to some extent.
Rafa, this is a fantastic comparison between the two philosophers! I have been trying to think of somebody who would disagree with the basis of Hegel's dialectic. Thank you. :)
ReplyDeleteAnd I've definitely had this thought before. Because, truly, there is no way to read anyone else's thoughts, so how can you ever definitively prove that you are not the only person that exists? And what I have to refute that is the fact that we both thought of this concept, completely independently of each other. To me, that shows that we must exist as free, independent entities of each other. And the fact that we're discussing this lends a hand to Hegel's dialectic in the first place. Because of the fact that you wrote this down, you are NOT keeping it in your head- you are subjecting it to this process of mutual recognition.