The problem with writing things down is that the aggregate of human knowledge is constantly changing and if anyone wants to consider themselves a ration person they must be able to shift and meander with the ever changing tides of the river of knowledge. Knowing that, it's hard to draw any firm conclusions.

I'm often left confused, wondering if anything I say is original or just an amalgam and transliteration of what others have said. I pull and I'm dragged by the chain of causality often enough to question if this all isn't just some fabricated play, I the actor on stage, going through the script, trying my best to play my part perfectly, knowing the final act is my end.

But I am convinced, as much as I can be of a few things. I believe something exists. No amount of thought can wither this belief away as I have tried to approach it from many angles. If there is no real matter, it is all just illusion of senses, than there is still something which exists. Thought exists at the least and if thought exists so must a thinker. As much as I'd love to draw some concrete conclusions to a more specific nature of existence, I find this the only solid framework to build a philosophy.

However, in my question to disprove that statement I did stumble onto something which could be a possible refutation, though unlikely. The paradox. Though it seems beyond my understanding to fully conceptualize and "wrap my mind around" the paradox would allow for both existence and non-existence. It would allow their to be both thought and no thought.

But a paradox is a silly notion and the epitome of over thinking so for the sake of simplification I will state that something exists. Something exists now and will forever exist.