Cogito Ergo Sum

Cogito Ergo Sum

Nothing really exists, said Johnny. I’m sure of it now. Nothing exists ever.

Mike was looking at him like he was crazy. What do you mean nothing exist? We’re here, aren’t we?

No. We’re not here. This is all just an illusion. I exist, but you don’t. This room doesn’t. And I can prove it. Not to you, of course. You don’t exist.

Mike rolled his eyes and went towards the door. You do that, he said. I’m leaving. You got it all wrong.

Johnny jumped him from behind.

Mike fell to the ground. What the…? Johnny sat down on top of him. He had a kitchen knife in his hand.

You don’t exist, and now you die!  

Fuck off, man, That’s even a contradictio…

Johnny stabbed him in the throat. Blood poured out on the floor.

And now it’s my turn, Johnny said to himself. According to his new revelation he’d been talking to himself all his life anyway, so why stop now.

The ultimate proof that everything but his own mind was just an illusion was about to be his. He stabbed himself in the chest, aiming for his heart. He missed it. The illusion of pain, he thought. He stabbed again.

Everything went black. He never found out, but he was wrong.

https://wordlandvoyage.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/meaningless-moments/

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Cogito_ergo_sum

Existence

18 Comments

  1. Hmmmmmm . Maybe “I feel, therefore I am” is more correct. But did Johnny continue to “exist” after his death? That is the question my friend the fiction writer, that is the question. Which reminds me, I’m due to stroke out a post in the next day or so. Good story!!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I have always thought “I perseive” is the best term, I think it was a critic Hume made in his time, but “feel” is better than “think” in my opinion. The big question is: Can you be sure of the I? Buddha would say no;) In the metaphysics of this story, however, he does not continue as his person in any way. My beliefs turns in that direction as well. Thank you for sharing interesting thoughts:)

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Errr. I have a son who is in an eastern religion class. He recently asked me something about Buddha. I answered something about him seeing people suffering after he left the family palace. He said, no, that it’s something about everything being profane. One of his older brothers said the teacher was taking a particular track… and after a bit added (because the younger son was acting arrogant and rejecting anything about suffering): You’re listening to your teacher and you got it wrong.

    I was thinking of Buddhism when reading your story. But found the Descartes link an interesting take. Will have to read more of it.

    I like “perceive” better than “think” in the formulation too.
    Anyway, we learn to think through our senses.

    Great application of a Matrix line, James!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hehe, the teachings of Buddha has a lot of aspects. Descartes created this frase as an absolute certainty, but as I mentioned earlier I believe Buddha would disagree on the “I” part as he rejected the idea of a “self”. Buddhist philosophers have been debating the appearent contradiction of there being no self and reincarnation ever since, but Immanuel Kant argued that our reason and logic could be uncapable of understanding metaphysics anyway, so who knows;)

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s