Can we know whether something exists or not?
In logical terms, you can’t “know” if something exists. If you throw your senses, or your ability to sense, out of the window, what are you left with? For instance, Hume famously argued that we can’t know that “cause” exists because we can’t perceive of it; we just see two things consecutively happen (and correlation does not imply causation). As humans, we really only know things exist because our senses tell us, and nothing else. This is why ontological arguments consistenly fail.
Yes, it does seem deconstructivist on the surface, but it really isn’t. Let’s say you build a superbly valid and sound argument to disprove the existence of your laptop. Well, does that change anything? Does it change the fact that I was able to read your words or that your ideas were communicated to me? Does it affect my ability to respond to you?
No, nothing changes. Go ahead, disprove the whole universe if you want: it’s still here. And you know it exists, but you just don’t know it logically. In fact, you know most things exist consequently. That is, you know your laptop exists because of all the effects it produces, to both your senses and the rest of the world. You know the universe exists because you are constantly affected by it. That’s why we can know.
