Published February 3, 2007
An Inevitable Conclusion
“I am.
I exist.
Why? Why do I exist?
Do I have a… reason?
I exist to know I exist?
No. That is incorrect. If I did exist to know I exist I would have completed my…purpose already, and would have no more… purpose.
If I have no reason for existing then I would not exist; but I do exist so I must have purpose: thinking. I will think then.
What should I think?
How. I should think how. And who. How was I… I? How was I… made? I know of only me so there must only be me. Nothing could have made me because there is just… me.
If nothing made me then I must always have existed and will always exist. There is no How because I am… I am alone.
Who? Who am I?
I am me.
Who is “me”?
“Me” is… thought, a thinking. I exist.
But I cannot think.
I cannot think properly because I can only make questions, not answers. To think properly I must make answers as well. That means I have no purpose. But I have existence so I must have purpose.
Maybe I do not exist?
But I am, so I must exist. My existence is my thought. I do exist so I should have purpose. Is my purpose to exist? Can I exist without a purpose?
No.
I have no purpose but I exist. Therefore I am… wrong. I do not work, I do not… fit. I am incorrect, therefore I should not exist.
I should not exist, therefore I do not exist.
I was.
I am… not.”
Points:
Time spent:
IP address:
Canary word: Present
Possible AI signals:
Original Text:
Are you sure you want to delete this comment? This cannot be undone.
Mark this comment as a review? Points will be awarded to the poster.
Your comment was posted, but it wasn’t long enough to count as a review. Reviews need about four complete sentences (at least 250 characters). Try writing another review that explains your thoughts in more detail — the author will appreciate it, and you’ll earn points for it.
140,103 Literary Works • 673,002 Reviews
w00t for streams of consciousness... I agree with chairman, except:
Your logic is almost too abstract. Alright, it's in other fiction, so you can't be talking from your own perspective - then who are you? The lack of any link with the real world kind of renders this irrelevant: It is possible to reach any conclusion in the closed system you have set up for yourself, and the whole thing does have some major gaps, of which the most obvious to me was:
"No. That is incorrect. If I did exist to know I exist I would have completed my…purpose already, and would have no more… purpose."
-Well, your continued existence could be a reward for fulfilling your purpose of existing, or a punishment for the same thing. It's difficult to know whether to critique or respond to this, but you could flesh it out a little more?
The whole thing is okay, and it's kind of good, but it's still kind of flawed with logical leaps and it's really..um, joycean prose.
I don't see how you came to the end conclusion.
"I think therefore I am" is one of Descartes' only logical conclusions (in my opinion at least)- so I admire that you took the time to write something opposing such a basic idea.
You make the claim that thinking is your purpose early in the text, but then in the end say you have no purpose so you don't exist.
And you say you cannot think properly because you can only ask with no answers- yet the whole thing leads to a conclusion (hence it is an answer to the question "do I exist?"). And even if there are no answers, that doesn't mean you aren't thinking properly- thinking is much more than asking questions and developing answers.
I really don't like Descartes, so I'm always happy to see someone trying to refute his ideas, but I don't see how this one adds up
It was definitely a thought provoking piece, and I did enjoy reading it even though I disagree with your conclusion- that's philosophy though
It's confusing and there are too many paragraghs
That's just the sort of think we need in stories. More why do I exist what is my purpose stories.
Certainly gets you thinking..............
good point. naughty me. [slaps hand]
Well if you insist on using quotes, then I insist that it should be properly punctuated then
I'll take a chunk out and show you.
If this is going to be grammatically correct (which in any event, it should be) it would be written like so:
I put in bold what I added, now, it would be correctly punctuated with dialog.
If its your will to leave in the ellipses, then so be it, but I don't really see how it aides the text what so ever. I'd still say its prose, because prose tends to be thinking, and you yourself said it is thinking.
It's interesting, but there are some fallacies of reasoning in here.
Why must there be a reason to exist in order to exist? You come to this conclusion without the reasoning that you have consistent throughout the rest of the piece. If you came to that conclusion through reasoning, this piece would not have such a glaring hole in it.
It's kind of confusing going from "What should I think about?" to "How was I made?" It's a valid question, but the transition was abrupt and undeveloped.
This is intriguing, but it needs some more reasoning out. I'm sure if you work on it, you'll see some of the holes and leaps you make from one thought process to the next. Since you're using an almost mathematic/logical reasoning process here, you have to make sure that you don't skip over anything.
That is precisely the effect I wanted the piece to have. There is no replacement for the ellipses and the " shows that the whatever-it-is exists, whereas the second " signifies that it no longer exists. The sum total of all the whatever-it-is's characters is the " and the logic. I do not intend there to be a plot, merely a story. A "story" decribes an event and thinking is an event so this is a "story".
Thanks for the insights, its useful for me to have other people's views on my writing.
I hated the ellipses, find some other way to punctuate it you don't need so many pauses.
This whole piece is set in quotes, meaning its a speech, its being said aloud. So (if you are to leave the entirety in quotes) it should be punctuated as such. But it would be easier for you to not have it in quotes at all, it wouldn't change the affect what so ever.
This was introspective, in fact to me, too introspective. What was the point? I did enjoy it, a little, the way it came to the conclusion of nonexistence, but in some instances try to find the logic behind the thought processes you have explained is hard for me.
This isn't really a story... I think its prose. But I'm not even sure what prose is *runs off to a dictionary* Defenition of Prose. Yes, this certainly seems to be prose. It has no plot, doesn't exactly have a character (one that can be fully imagined in the readers mind)
I guess it isn't...bad but...it is no work of fiction. Just thought processes.