Confucius 10 Best Quotes

Sun Tzu 10 Best Quotes

Socrates Apology Analyzed

Socrates Apology Analyzed

        Socrates Apology was a defense speech given by Socrates to the court of Athens.  In it Socrates must use his accusers’ affidavits as a basis to both respond to and argue his innocence against many allegations and charges made against him by multiple accusers.  He uses more than one technique to make his points in an excellent effort to convince the court of his innocence and thereby spare his life.   

For example he uses deductive logic to dismiss the allegations of being an atheist.  By pointing out that his actions were actually in pursuit of the Oracle prediction made to him, he reminds the court that the Oracle is indeed a demi-god created by gods.  And thus if he believes in the existence of a demi-god then he must, by default, believe in the gods. A more interesting argument he made is that he knows that he is not well liked by many and even admits he can be very annoying by liking himself to a “gadfly”. But he states that these in themselves are not crimes and that he does so only in the pursuit of truth and wisdom. He also suggests that revenge for this behavior is the primary motive of his accusers.  When he continues on to confront the charge of corrupting the youth he uses another approach.  He suggests that it was not his intent to do so if he did at all.  And that ignorance of doing such an act is not a crime but that only intentional actions are punishable by law. Therefore since his actions were not intended to corrupt the youth he is not guilty of doing so.

        Socrates’ argument against his atheism is compelling and valid.  The accuser contradicts themselves in their own statement and therefore it is not sound.  And a witness against him was made to look foolish when cross-examined by Socrates. This is most definitely not concrete evidence and certainly not enough to take a man’s life.   Confirmation in his belief of the gods exists in his admitted belief and acceptance of the Oracle. 

The idea he put forth in his being disliked by his accusers and that revenge led to the allegations against him is also something to be seriously considered.  Especially when you consider that even the court knows of Socrates verbal skills and indeed warns against being manipulated by his words.  This only solidifies the idea that his wisdom is not only disliked but to be feared.  How can you tell a jury not to allow a person’s defense to persuade them to save his life?   

        When he insists that intent is the basis of guilt; he makes another good point.  It is intent that motivates us to take action and our behavior.  His intentions were motivated by the desire to find truth.  Nothing can be more benevolent or harmless.  As he states “the unexamined life is not worth living.”  It is impossible for anyone to foresee who will be influenced or how they are influenced to react to one’s own actions, behaviors or words.  Socrates then infers that if he had intentionally corrupted the youth he would also being doing himself an injustice by indirectly corrupting himself by means of the company he keeps.  This represents a common idea.  Birds of a feather…, guilty by association, it takes one to know one, etc. So he basically tells the court that any corruption he caused would make him corrupt as well, which is not a charge against him, so neither can be true. 

         As I examined the text and reread key parts to get a better understanding, I found Socrates to have presented himself well.  In fact, his defense was so well stated it is difficult to prove false.  There was almost no real evidence against him save for a few sworn affidavits.  Affidavits he all but proved were suspect.  The atheism charge is certainly disproved by his belief in the Oracle alone.  The fact that Socrates was disliked for his badgering style of questioning is not a crime and that the people who accused him had publicly debated and subsequently humiliated by him make their accusations against him very suspect as well.  So his revenge defense holds water too. 

        If Socrates behavior was really corruptive to the youth then why did no one speak up about it when he challenged anyone in the courtroom to do so?  Whether or not he intended to corrupt is irrelevant if no legitimate proof or testimony can confirm he did at all.  And again I ask how a court can ask the judges or jury not be persuaded by testimony or defense of the accused?  How can they ask to disregard the defendants’ (Socrates) statement and defense?  There’s a man’s life at stake!  While I would agree that someone can unintentionally influence others I cannot accept that one person is responsible for another’s actions or behavior.  We all must accept responsibility for our own actions.  

        The only flaw I found in Socrates defense was his arrogance and closing remarks.  Unless he knew it was a futile attempt to clear his name or he actually wanted to be a martyr I don’t know why he said some things he did except for anger.  It was his courage to stand his ground in the face of death and the conviction in his beliefs that command respect. That said, I don’t think he completely proved his innocence but he definitely cast a doubt as to his guilt.  Without any supporting evidence or testimony I would have accepted his plea/apology, found him not guilty and fined him the amount he proposed.

Schwartz?

Schwartz?       

        When reviewing the case of Schwartz, my philosopher friends, John Locke, St. Thomas Aquinas and I uncovered some curious and profound metaphysical questions.  Like who exactly is Schwartz? How does he/she differ now from before his/her ordeal?  And will he/she be the same in the future? This paper aims to explore Schwartz’s existence through philosophical examination and is our attempt to answer these questions.

       Almost immediately John Locke declared that indeed if Schwartz’s memories have been transplanted from one body to another then Hylomorphism (a philosophical theory developed by Aristotle that views “being” as a combination of form and matter.) must be false because Schwartz proves that mind and body can be separated into discreet existences.  He also states that regardless of the body the mind will believe it is the same self it was before the accident because all the memories of past experiences remain unchanged. And sensory input would not change much either with a new body.  A flower would still be recognizable, red is still red, a bell still sounds like a bell and so on. Even though the accident and subsequently the operation would add to the experience of the mind and shape the self dramatically it wouldn’t force Schwartz into accepting an entirely new identity.  Simply put; time and experiences change everyone but it doesn’t mean they are not the same person.

       St. Thomas Aquinas replied that without the operation Schwartz would not even exist and therefore mind and body can only exist, as a whole, in relation to one another. He continued by stating that both of the two individuals that comprise Schwartz would be, or were considered dead and incomplete as a person without their respective mind or body functioning.   St. Thomas contends that it is unnatural for humans to exist without a body because the soul is incomplete without the body just as the body is inanimate without the soul.  Although Schwartz retained memories of the past life, St. Thomas insists that, Schwartz is a completely new person having undergone a second birth of sorts.  The operation forced a soul into an unfamiliar body meaning mind and body had different physical experiences.  Aquinas believes that memories of physical injuries and scars that don’t exist on the new body, as well as those that do without any such memory, would only prove to influence Schwartz to accept his/her new identity as different from before the accident. 

       Locke made some very interesting points with his arguments.  However he can’t prove that while mind and body are separate they can still function independently of one another.  While we know the mind can store and retain memories outside the body we don’t know if it can function properly without sensory input or if it can gain any new memories while separated from the body.  Although I agree that all people change or evolve over time with experiences, Locke has no way to prove that changing the body wouldn’t profoundly affect the mind or alter its’ perception of self. Making his argument unsound.

       St. Thomas on the other hand seems to contradict his own religious beliefs by suggesting that the soul is incomplete without the body (and vice versa).  To which I ask; what about Jesus Christ?  Was he incomplete when his body died?  Isn’t God without a physical body?  And angels?  What of them?   Seems like an invalid argument to me.  However his belief that the injuries and scars obtained through physical experiences would influence the mind into accepting an entirely new identity doesn’t seem that farfetched.  But his argument that Schwartz wouldn’t exist without both the mind and the body is both valid and sound. 

       So who is Schwartz?  Schwartz is definitely a person because it possesses both a mind and a body.  The memories Schwartz has will ultimately influence his/her person more so than the body in which the mind inhabits simply because it has no other information upon which to draw conclusions from.  Schwartz can only make use of what is stored in the memories it has access to.  The body may have some ability or limitation the new mind is not aware of but the body need not know the IQ of the mind to function at peak performance.  This leads me to believe that Schwartz, and indeed the self, is the mind more than the body. 

      Now is Schwartz the same person he/she was prior to the accident and operation, obviously there is some ambiguity there but the short answer is no.  A change as profound as replacing the mind or body with another, especially of the opposite sex, will undoubtedly change a person’s perspective and perception.  Gender is a big part of self-identity.  And to suddenly find ourselves on the other side of the fence would force anyone to reevaluate their opinion on the opposite sex.  But gender aside the entire experience would cause most of us to question everything we knew about reality, self and religious beliefs.  So one must come to the conclusion that Schwartz will never be the same person he/she once was but will also not be a completely new person because the mind possesses information, memories and feelings attained before the accident occurred. 

What is Justice?

What is Justice?

      It is from behind the “veil of ignorance” proclaimed by John Rawls, basically meaning without identity or not knowing who you are, that I must give the general principle/s of “justice” which should be used to govern society.  This philosophical inquiry overlaps into several areas; requiring the examination and thought given to ethics, political philosophy (politics) and possibly even logic.

       Without knowing who I am, my social status, wealth, age or gender I believe I would agree with John Rawls in that I would foremost want to be guaranteed fair treatment and opportunities to succeed in a society.  I also like the way John Stuart Mill defined liberty and I find it to be remarkably similar to the ideas written by Thomas Jefferson in “The Declaration of Independence.”   They both were influenced by John Locke because they insist that there are basic human rights that need to be protected; an idea first put forth by Locke that he called “inalienable personal rights.”   These are rights that all people have.  They are needs that must be met in order to live and maintain a functioning society.  Mill adds a boundary on these rights by stating that they shouldn’t harm another or infringe on the right of others. I also tend to agree with Rawls concept of “justice” because he believes that truly “just” means it must be truly “fair.”  The two are one-in-the-same or intrinsically linked.  Social utility is the core principle of social justice according to Mill.  Social utility is basically like democracy in that it’s a majority rule type system by defining justice as whatever “creates the greatest social benefit for the greatest number of people.”(Chaffee570)  This seems fair at first, until realizing that a majority of people can be disillusioned, deceived, misinformed and uniformed by means of manipulation and propaganda.  That sort of thing could and most certainly has led to unjust action and choices.  Unfortunately this allows for potentially large portions of the population to feel unfairly treated and that justice did not occur. 

       I find Rawls concept of “justice” to be both a sound and valid argument because to be fair is to be just and to be just is to be fair.  I simply cannot find or think of an instance where they are not one in the same.  I do not find Mill’s social utility to be quite as convincing an argument.  There is no proof that the fairest course of action is always the most popular.  Mill did make some very good points about liberty that are valid.  His insightful idea to include free thought and expression undoubtedly laid the foundation for the “Bill of rights” in the American “Constitution.” He also insisted that one has the freedom to exercise these rights as long as they don’t harm anyone else or infringe in any way on another’s rights.  These are both important ideas when considering “justice” in a society.   John Locke’s “inalienable personal rights” concept has validity in that it means that no one person should hold the power of life and death over another.  No one should be denied the ability, opportunity or necessary resources to survive. 

        I would create a just society by governing on the principles of rights and liberty and equality and fairness with each individual having the freedoms to engage in any form of activity they so choose as long as they do not harm or infringe on the rights of others, whether purposefully or otherwise.  These same rules would apply to corporations and governments organizations alike.  Some particular instances where it is necessary due to location and resources for some people to suffer relocation or seizure of property for the greater good should be duly, fairly, timely and completely compensated.  In order to prevent the prediction of Karl Marx we would not use a monetary system.  Monetary systems are inherently flawed and have only proved to promote greed.  Greed compels and tempts individuals to do immoral or unethical practices often leading to the unfair treatment, violation of rights and harm of others. With term limits on policy makers, proficiency tests and equal representation, laws would be fair and just.  In a just society, taxes would be evenly spread out by the use of resources.  Those that use more and consume the most put more strain on the society and system.  Therefore they should be required to pay more especially if those resources are used for profit.  The consequences for violating laws should be fair and swift.  All penalties for violations are the same regardless of any status.  There are no exceptions.        

Works Cited Page

Chaffee, J. (2013). “The Philosopher’s Way: A text with readings”  5^th Ed. 

City University of New York, Pearson

Fantasy Philosophical Discussion About Ethics and Morality

Another Fantasy Discussion About Ethics and Morality

        When it comes to situations as serious and complex as the philosophical issues of morality and ethics that must be considered in these types of cases, I often find myself incapable of making any decision without council.  For this reason I have consulted with both Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche.  Here I recount our discussion and deliver my conclusions based on its content.

        I start the conversation by simply asking, “In general, what does it mean to act ethically?”  After a moment of thought, Kant opens up and replies “To fulfill the moral duties that all people in all situations should follow.”(Chaffee461)  Nietzsche laughed in response insisting that what we are talking about is really what he calls our “will to power”.(495)  He continued by reminding us he has always maintained that the ultimate moral good is simply the individual imposing his or her own values on to others by means of exerting their own will to power to its extreme potential.  I thought about this for a few moments before asking them to relate their philosophical theories directly to these three particular cases.  Kant said that all three are instances of individuals not acting morally or as they should be.  Nietzsche laughs again at my ignorance and states that it is obvious that all three cases are about one individual trying to impose his or her own will to power or set of values on the other respective parties.  “Thank you,” I said to them both as I shook their hands, “I have some thinking to do.” 

         As I began considering our discussion I had to side with Nietzsche and his belief that all three cases did seem to involve one person forcing their own will or morals onto another in some way.  However Kant throws a broad net when he stated that people act ethically when they fulfill moral duty and implying that moral duty is what all people should follow in any and all situations.  But define “moral duty”?  Is it what’s best for the individual or for all?  It almost seems to suggest a “gut feeling” type of reaction.  Some situations and circumstances are not easily determined as to the morally correct thing to do.  Indeed it can get rather complicated.  Overall it does make for a sound argument. On the other hand, Kant’s theory allows a set of universal morals by which most of us believe in and live by today.  Unfortunately it is Nietzsche’s theory that seems to be on to something.  When applying his theory to history it is apparent that people have always forced and imposed their values, morals, beliefs, ethics and religion onto others since we have existed.  So Nietzsche’s argument is, to some degree, valid. 

        After reflecting for some time on the conversation/discussion with my friends Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche, and after carefully reviewing the cases before me once more, I have come to a conclusion.  Taking into account Kant’s theory I cannot deny that there are indeed some universal values and morals that all people share.  However I have come to believe that, whether we know it or not, whether intentional or unintentional we do try to force and impose or will and values onto others.  That said, I can see that in each of the three cases there is some kind of moral/s being questioned, broken and/or challenged.  While each situation here brings its own set of circumstances that make them ethical dilemmas, all of them are, in some way or another, both ethical and unethical depending on the morals and ethics of the individuals involved.  This supports the notion that ethics is a set of the individuals’ morals that determines if they act morally.  Moreover it lends credibility to Nietzsche’s theory because the individual always fights for his or her own moral beliefs and ethics to be imposed as law.  They do this regardless of others opinions or values or beliefs.  Everyone believes themselves to be right and everyone else as wrong.  With this in mind I give my verdict on the three cases. So in the case of the medically assisted suicide of Sue Rodriguez I say she was not treated unethically because it is the law of the land against it and the law reflects the ethics and morals of the population.  As for the defense lawyer contemplating violating her oath and allegiance to her client, I say she would be acting unethically to do so.  She knew when becoming a criminal defense attorney that she would represent guilty people at some point.  She also has the ability to refuse or step aside as this man’s attorney.   And finally the case of the animal testing and reported cruelty by the university I must agree that, at least in this instance, the testing is not necessary because it cannot prevent the disease from spreading regardless of whether it does or not.  Thus the experiments are unethical. 

Works Cited Page

Chaffee, J. (2013). “The Philosopher’s Way: A text with readings”  5^th Ed. 

City University of New York, Pearson

A Question of Morality

A Question of Morality

        Should I take a life to save 29 others and risk my own prosecution, or should I allow all 30 people to die and save myself?  A position I wish on no other but also one that overlaps from ethics to religion to politics.  Realizing my ignorance, I consulted two of history’s greatest thinkers, Ayn Rand and W. T. Stace to help me sort out this mess. I asked them “[Given the situation], what is the morally correct thing to do?”

        Rand replied that because the situation is unique and beyond my control that I could choose either way and arguably still be a moral man.  But he continued by stating that even if I chose to act only in my own self-interest I would still be acting morally.  Suggesting that if I chose to allow all 30 people to die just to protect myself against prosecution at some later time, that I would be acting morally.  W. T. Stace agrees with Plato but only because morality is relative more than universal and as he states, “…some moral values are universal and apply to all individuals and cultures.” (Chaffee 419)  Ayn Rand says Altruistic Morality is noble but “…although it may be possible for humans to act in a way that sacrifices their own self-interest, it is immoral to do so.”(428)  Stace concluded the discussion by saying; “Moral right means what people think morally right.  It has no other meaning.” (421)

         When reflecting on our conversation, I began to understand what Stace was trying to suggest.  He made me think of the religious side of things by suggesting that regardless of the situation, the act is immoral and probably all the same in gods’ eye.  While Ayn rand really made me think that self-preservation is neither shameful nor immoral.  Rands’ perspective allows for an individual to make selfish choices without guilt.  We always seem to recognize, honor and award selfless acts.  As well as celebrate those who do them - sometimes even elevating them to hero status.  However we all know many successful people who have made many selfish decisions.  Choices that have served them well I might add.  But I doubt I could ever live with doing the act itself and would forever be filled with regret.  Possibly even be filled with regret regardless of the choice I make.  According to Stace it is all subjective and simply a matter of perspective.  Meaning each situation or decision has its own morally correct choice.

        Making a decision in this matter is an unbelievably hard thing to do, even after discussing it with some very intelligent philosophers.   Considering the fact that this is not my culture I don’t believe it is my place to make judgements on their morals, values and/or beliefs.  That said, I must also live by my own moral code as well as take into account the laws of land I call home.  It reminds me of the old cliché; when in Rome – do as the Romans do.  I cannot take that advice this time.  I do not believe I can take a person’s life with my own hand unless given proper reason.  I can find no such reason for me to be involved at all.  While I have been given this opportunity to be a part of this ceremony, I must respectfully decline the honor.  My choice is to allow the proceedings to continue as though I were not even there.  I must look past my involvement and realize that this sort of thing happens here all the time.  And that the people chosen on this day, at this time had nothing to do with me or my presence here and would likely have been chosen for execution anyway.  Even if I decided to try and save 29 lives by taking one, how long would it be before those 29 were again chosen to be executed?  These are the reasons I give to remove myself and allow things to unfold as they would without me.  It is best to observe and comprehend before either becoming involved or passing any judgements.  

 

Works Cited Page

Chaffee, J. (2013). “The Philosopher’s Way: A text with readings”  5^th Ed.  

City University of New York, Pearson

Fantasy Philosophical Discussion About Reality

A Philosophical Discussion About Reality

        I dreamt that Leucippus, Democritus and I entered an enlightening metaphysical conversation while enjoying an orange on a casual stroll through the countryside.  The entire exchange of ideas began with my querying the great thinkers that although we all agreed the day was perfect and the oranges delicious; were they actually real or sensory illusion?  Is it really a perfect day?  Is the orange really as I experience it to be?  

        As we spoke I realized these questions are anything but simple and require deep thought.  Leucippus began his answer by insisting that the experiences we have are real because the atoms upon which all things are made of are real and indivisible.  He went further by stating that Parmenides once argued that “Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.”  And that if true, something cannot come from nothing so therefore all that exists has always existed in one form or another.  Democritus agreed and added that the arrangement of the atoms is what makes things what they are, be it an orange, the sun, the earth or anything.  And that we remember familiar matter arrangements like these things.  He continued by explaining that decay, change and mutability is just the rearrangements of the atoms themselves.  Together they suggest that what we are experiencing is as real as it seems because of the arrangement of not only the atoms upon which these things are made but also the atom arrangement of our own bodies.  We feel and see things as we do because of how we are made.  With both philosophers being of the same mind exclaiming atom theory as the nature of reality, I chose to ponder their argument and reflect upon it by considering the opposing ideas of other great thinkers as well. 

         When thinking about Leucippus and Democritus answer to these questions, I challenged their concept of atoms because they had no way of proving they exist when they came up with idea.  They could not even see an atom.  Now we can and have proven that atoms exist with modern technology but if we use that in our argument then we must also use the fact that we can split atoms as well.  Nuclear fission and fusion are undoubtedly possible.  And thus the idea that atoms are indivisible is proven false.  Unless this is considered just an extreme form of mutability or decay because albeit the atom itself may be destroyed the individual components of which it was made continue to exist and will eventually end up becoming part of another atom making up some other matter.  This reinforces the idea that that matter cannot be created nor destroyed only transformed.  Common understanding and concepts held by people on what a nice day is and how an orange taste and feels support the claim that since we are all made similar than we all experience like things the same way.  

          My exploration and reflection on these questions and the argument posed by Leucippus and Democritus were enlightening but I do believe further analysis through both philosophical inquiry and scientific investigation are required.  That said, based on the information provided, time spent researching and in deep thought about these questions lead me to believe that Leucippus and Democritus were not too far off in their theory and assumptions.  Impressive when considered they pioneered the atom theory long before modern technology could prove some of their ideas correct.  Personally I found that many of the ideas and theories posed by great minds of the past tend to be similar and overlap.  Existing and not existing are similar to duality of worlds Plato referred to as Being and Becoming.  The void between matter is like the unchanging eternal world of Being.  Conversely the world we know that is physical and constantly changing is the world of Becoming.  This relates to the influential philosopher Heraclitus own view that the world is in a constant state of flux (the world of Becoming) but is governed by logos or and underlying intrinsic set of universal laws (the world of Being).  So the conclusion I have come to is that the world of Being lives alongside or within the world of Becoming.  That which exists exists within that which doesn’t.  Matter exists in the void.  One cannot exist without the other.  They are two sides of the same coin.  Atoms drawn together create form.  Which eventually deteriorates or decays but is reused or recycled into another form.  We experience these things as we do because the atom arrangement of our bodies allows us to.  Our senses, which themselves are made of matter consisting of atoms, allows us to distinguish one form of matter from another.  So the day is perfect and the oranges are delicious because they do exist and whether we experience them or not the atoms they consist of are indeed real. 

Fantasy Philosophical Discussion About Epistemology

A Fantasy Conversation with Two Great Philosophers

         Another discussion I had with two of history’s great thinkers was in the realm of epistemology also referred to as the Theory of Knowledge.  This time it is both George Berkeley and Immanuel Kant that provide some stimulating conversation and insight on the subject after I posed a single question to them; what can be truly known?  As you will read, this question is extremely deep and difficult for even the most intellectual minds in philosophical history.

       Now if you know George Berkeley, or read any of his work, especially A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, then you would know his stance on the subject is that “to be is to be perceived”.  He restates this argument aloud again as though neither I nor Immanuel Kant have ever heard or read his widely known beliefs before.  Basically his answer is no because truth is just an idea or perception of the sensible world.  While both I and Immanuel agreed that he exposed the flaws or poked holes in (however you choose to see it) John Locke’s  An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, we couldn’t accept perception alone as the only measure of true knowledge.  And I as I pointed out to George Berkeley, God was his ultimate answer to the physical world that he couldn’t fit into his own theory.  Kant countered by insisting that true knowledge comes from using our minds to interpret our sensory experiences and not sensory experience alone.  And that an external, material world must exist in order for our senses to actually be of any value.  “Otherwise,” he continued, “why would we have any need for them or God have endowed us with them?”  I could tell this question bothered Berkeley.  After a few minutes of intense thought, Berkeley finally responded by suggesting that it is the mind that allows the senses to exist because it believes them to exist and uses them to develop perceptions and ideas.  But it was Kant that had the last word by saying that the world of objects indeed exists and our minds allow us to interpret, remember, organize experiment and test our theories to gain a better understanding of the material world and allowing true knowledge to be attainable.

           A long period of silence gave the three of us a chance to reflect on the conversation.  I began to understand why Kant felt obligated to combine the rationalist and empiricist view into a unified theory.  Both were dead ends when followed to their conclusion but I wondered how he could be certain in his assumption that the material world actually exists if other great philosophers were not as convinced.  However I found it equally as hard, if not harder, to accept Berkeley’s answer that nothing can ever be truly known. How can he say that confidently?  How is that statement in itself truly known if nothing can be truly known?  It is a self-contradicting statement and argument.  Also, I wonder how can we contemplate these things forever and never achieve any real or true knowledge about it.  How can verifiable and repeatable results not lend to the validity of certain things being facts instead of theories?   The fact remains that we, humans, have achieved many things based on what we believe to be truths.  We have developed fundamental laws and mathematics that are the foundations for our technological advancement and our civilizations ultimate success.  All of which seem to support the idea that some things are truly known.  

         In conclusion, after reflecting on the conversation with these two highly intelligent men and reviewing several other opinions and theories from a few other notable philosophers on the same subject, I found that some things can be truly known while others may never be.  I say that I honestly found Kant’s theory to be much more likely then Berkeley’s.  Personally I completely believe and hold certain things to be undoubtedly true and no matter how hard we may try to disprove them as true we cannot.  For example water is wet, life exists and the sun is hot and bright. These things are facts not because I or we all experience them with our senses but because we have cannot disprove their existence or end their existence. They are not here simply because I or we experience them or perceive them because we have not always existed and at some point we will all cease to exist.  Yet water will still be here and wet, life will still exist in some form or another and the sun will shine regardless of whether they are experienced by humans or not.