Unger And Descartes Argument Analysis

There are always two sides of the same coin, and the coin is the subject of existence. To go against Unger’s, I Do Not Exist, I will use Descartes view of dualism and the fact that, according to him, humans do exist. Yes, there are other views of existence that could go against both of these philosophical views, but Unger and Descartes really counterbalance each other. As mentioned before, Unger explains he doesn’t exist due to anything which exists having a finite amount of small parts. If these parts were continually taken away, one could exist until at one point it would not, due to losing all their parts. In respect to Unger, his argument is correct when dealing with objects such as “tables or chairs, rocks or stones or ordinary stars,”
As long as one can think, as you are right now, you will exist. Now what if one did not have a mind? What if one wasn’t capable to think? This is where Unger’s argument seems invalid. Say the mind is a small part. What would happen if all the lobes, cerebellum, brain stem, and other brain parts finite amount were completely taken away, as Unger explains of the body. Yes, one would still have a physical body, even though that body would basically be a mindless vegetable (in reference to Rocky and Bullwinkle, 2000). With respect to Unger, one would still not exist because their parts can continue to be taken away until none are left. In my opinion, I totally agree with Descartes that one must have a mind; one must be able to think in order to exist. But I could not imagine myself without a body and only a mind. There would have to be some sort of vessel or something that could act as a body. I am kind of stuck between Unger and Descartes. According to Unger, nothing exists because of a finite amount of parts. In a way, this isn’t as persuasive as Descartes’ argument is. I couldn’t imagine a life without a mind, but the IPL also seems impossible due to the fact that not everything imaginable is possible (I can imagine myself being able to teleport, but that will never happen). Ultimately, if Descartes was able to respond to Unger, he would say “I think, therefore I am,” and Unger would say something along the lines of “I do not exist. Nothing exists! Finite parts!” If it had to come down to one decision, I would flip the coin and call heads, and that would be Descartes. I think this because if I did not have the ability to think, I would not exist. Clearly Unger had the ability to think of something so absurd, therefore, he does exist. And so do