Through logic alone, you are existing now. Your existence
  on a literal level is the presence of your physical body.
  In a more abstract sense, you may continue to exist as
  a person or concept if you're carried as knowledge or
  as a memory. These are common ideas, and with them out
  of the way, I would like to ask something.
  
  How do you define your existence?
  
  Do you exist when you are alone or do you base your
  existence around others? Specifically, do you base
  it on how you are percieved?
  
  Do you see it as simply existing in a body that will
  eventually pass into dirt once it ceases biological
  function or as your connection to others? In other words,
  you have an existence in other people, sure, but what
  is its value? Most importantly, to you.
  
  If I were to cut off all existence around others and
  continue to exist as somebody that nobody interacts
  with, I still exist literally. I can still think and
  act and do whatever. Do I still exist to others?
  If nobody knew me, if everyone forgot, I don't exactly
  exist in a, let's say, "global" sense.
  
  Does it matter?
  
  That's not what I was thinking of. I was thinking about
  whether cutting off people entirely would give me
  a break from existing. Since I have no actions, I have
  no impact, and thus no consequences that could shape
  my bonds with others and their perception of me.
  
  How do you define your existence?
  
  I did not answer my own question. I don't want to
  reach an answer. I've long ago come to terms with the
  concept of ceasing existence. I don't need to think about
  it again. I was just wondering about the difference between
  my existence solely and in relation to others.