Hi Gigi
You haven't understand what is important in my way of thinking, because you are seeing all with your bad-educated eyes. (I don't speak english, so don't feel injured by what I'm saying, I just try to make you understand what I want you to understand.)
Of course, in maths, axioms are taken as true, and can't be proved. But all sentences can't be transcribed in logical assumptions: it's the problem (well, it's normal that you didn't understand if you don't speak french, i really wonder, how you could understand so much!) because the world is not definited by men, and the words of a sentence have no sense for maths: the words that are used in maths are ALL definited by maths (you can ask what you want and I will answer!). You can give a mathematical sentence to a computer (these sentences are not the one, which you must know, i speak about the authentic "logical assumptions", which are the basis of maths, but which are too complicated to be used in evoluted maths: mathematicians don't use them, but their work can be transposed with symbols as =>, <=, <=>, and so on ), so you can give such a sentence to a computer, and he CAN say if it's true or not: he just has to reckon (you can trust me or verify by yourself with for instance "Introduction to logic" by François Rivenc, i don't know if you can find a translation, but... it's not the only book about it!). But the words in our life are not definited, but you hear them all you life, so when you hear "exist", you refer to sentences that you heard, and you see in your head images which are associated to the sound. when you think about a tree, you think about something abstract that is green and so on, when you think about an abstract notion, you also have images, that are abstract too, but you don't refer to definitions. Well, in dictionnaries there are definitions, but they refer to some words, that are not definited. And you can't definite all words, because you can't master the world: you can't say that you have definited something:
_ because to say it, you need words that you have not already definited
_ because you didn't create the world, so you don't know the highest nature of the things, and to definite them is to lose a part of their "nature".
But, all what I said isn't important. It's just rhetorics. game with words. What is true in maths? what's is definited as true. A logical sentence (logic is only maths for me, of course, because what pretend to be logical must be strict as maths) is true but it could also be "green" or "oiroijsdgliud", but mathemacians have decided to say "true". It's only a word! In maths, when we say a theorem is true, it means, with the language of logic, that you can apply the algorithm of the demonstration with the first assumption to say that the second is "true". but the word "true" is not important: it means that something can be done, as if the computer that read the sentence could make noise when it finds a "true" sentence. Do you understand what I mean? In maths, the truth is a mirage. Mathematicians wnat to solve problems of our life for physicians for example, so they use sentences that can be understood with a "concrete" view, but it's only formal. It's the base of my way of thinking...
Because, how to definite what's true in our life?? you can have an idea, and i have one. but i know that it can't become a science, it can't become logic. Because the language is not strict enough, and because you can't create the world with your definitions as mathematicians create maths with axioms.
It's not a current way of thinking, so think about it before rejecting it.
Then:
" The notion of material furthermore doesn't have only a sense for the physics, but also chemistry,biology, etc.
You also said that for you nothing is true. When you look yourself in a mirror what do you see exactly?? Or if u want do u exist?? (answer with a True/ False) "
chemistry physics, biology ====> the same problem: you can't definite the world, even if you are dressed with white clothes: because you are not a GOD!!
AND: You ask if i think i exist. I answer "oirejg" that has so much sense as your question.
If i ask you "oirjeg eorij lkjsiuh?", and i create a language with these words. It has a sense for me, and other people, who are crazy too and who know this language, can understand (and they thought it's a good question :P). you can't understand and so you can only answer something like "oijrglhjbzer" that has no sense for you. And it's the same situation when you ask me if i exist. Your ancesters have created a language (maybe not yours or mine, but...), and you all understand it because you speak it, so you have many images in your head with situations and so on, and i can understand because i have these images too, but it has no sense for me, because it's not definited. You must think that it's not important to know the definition, but it is! because it's philosophy!! you have to demand a definition.
Of course, when i see in a mirror, i usually say: "I am ... or ..." so i mean i exist, but in order to live, not to do philosophy!! In my life, it's important to say "I", to say "you", and to accept the words, even if they are defnited, because i want to eat, to drink, to be with my darling :P but if you want to know my opinion in philosophy, i think that "I" doesn't exist. because it has no sense: "to exist"?? does it means that "I" am made of material? what's material? just somathing that i know trough my fingers: something that philosophy CAN'T know, because yours fingers aren't an instrument which can give definitions. the "existence" is just the existence of your sool, something that is not made of material? but my fingers can't find something that's not made of material, and my eyes too and so on. i can't just imagine it with my mind. and you can't demand that i think it's a reality, as you can't demand i think that Poseidon had white hair: you can imagine it and I too, but i can't even have an impression of it. maybe an other animal could "touch" the "no-material" with another sense than ours, but i can't, so i have no idea of what's not made of material. So it has no sense for me. Yes, i can think about it, i understand what you mean, but as a philosoph, it has no sense. and i can't answer your question.
I think nothing is true, because "true" has no sense. But i can use the word to communicate. And what's wrong is to think that the words are more the communication. it's "wrong" because it's not proved. And, because it can't be proved, noone can say it's true. You can say it. And I think, you have the right to say everything, I will not avoid you to think it, not because i'm tolerant (because it has no sense for me "tolerance"), but because i can't prove it's false, because "false" has no sense, of course :P
I don't see a possibility to definite the truth (i resume now). so there's no truth. and the words have no sense. So, all can be true or false, i don't know, i let people think about it, i just live, and do maths :P
I think, what I said isn't enough to make you understand. But you must understand that: i think that "I don't exist", but the question is not to say if i can see me in a mirror, the question is: what means "exist"?
It's difficult to say something when nothing has sense! So i can't explain you well if you don't ask!
It seems to be stupid, but if you want to prove i'm wong, you have to prove it! Just do it!
++
Olivier
PS: Dsl Nadine, j'ai encore beaucoup écrit, mais c'est eux qui voulaient O: ) !
En plus je me répète et tout... Enfin, j'espère que si vous n'êtes pas d'accord avec moi, vous reconnaitrez au moins kil est difficile d'expliquer quelque chose qui repose sur le principe même du langage et de l'acquis: ce qui nous semble naturel n'en est que plus trompeur, et ma méthode consiste seulement en une destruction au final. Mais d'autres ont construit kelkechose ensuite.
Read Nietzsche!!
