I often hear accusations that people don't want to engage or accept something because of reasons of comfort, but why is that such a bad thing? — Darkneos
Well the problem I have with challenging beliefs is that you end up with something like solipsism as a result. I mean at what point do you stop? What merit is there in being rational if I have no ground to stand on? I — Darkneos
I just think if no one else is being harmed then it doesn't matter what folks believe. They don't need to challenge themselves if they are doing fine — Darkneos
Do you deny that it would be a more pleasant society if people weren't homophobic and that's a "better" way of running society? Not so different from other normative questions like "how to play better chess" or "how to be a better scientist" They're objective claims given certain assumptions we adhere to. How to be a better human being among others is another one of them. Just because they're not exactly the same as scientific claims doesn't mean they're just empty words. — Saphsin
Better is not objective though even with assumptions. I mean why assume X is better than Y? I wouldn't argue that society would be better if people were not homophobia because that wouldn't be a true statement. It would be true to say it would be different but not better. Even better chess or be a better scientists are subjective claims that aren't grounded in solid "hard" rules."
My issue is where does one draw the line. At what point is skepticism too far and according to whom? I — Darkneos
In my experience a lie can also avoid disaster and give peace of mind to troubled folks. Refusing to be comforted and erring on the side of caution in my experience tends to pan out poorly. — Darkneos
Pyrrhonism — Darkneos
I mean if a belief or idea brings someone comfort and help and it doesn't impact anyone else then why is accusing them of wanting to be comfortable a counterpoint in an argument? — Darkneos
I don’t think it’s on a linear axis, but I do think there is a spectrum of viable skepticisms. I’m more skeptical about political forecasts than scientific consensus, which I’m more skeptical of than logical conclusions. I think skepticism relies to some extent on confidence in practical terms, you can be open to being challenged on issues, but the problem is we don’t have all the time in the world. It’s not a reasonable way of living life to be open minded to the possibility of every conspiracy theory for instance, you have to make judgment on what’s worth your time. You have to juggle confidence and open mindedness. — Saphsin
What could skepticism that everything we observe and know about the world is fake possibly be grounded in? Doubt has to be based on something, we can't just doubt things just for doubt's sake. — Saphsin
Solipsism is recognizing that you can't prove, or even determine, whether anything outside of your thoughts exists. So solipsism is a fact. But I guess you are asking whether it's possible that the world as you perceive it doesn't exist.
Besides the optical illusions, the fact that our senses don't perceive all reality, dreams, the effects of psychotropic substances on our perceptions, the rubber hand illusion when it comes to selfhood, do I need to continue?
I am a solipsist as is everyone else (you too) — most believe there is actually an external reality peopled with other minds.
In my solipsistic worldview, each of our realities exist in superposition with all other realities. To each of us there is only our personal reality which is formed by our brains through consciousness, which constructs a mashup of external stimuli, transduced via our sense detectors into meaning and internal stimuli from memory, beliefs, dreams, and ideas (also via consciousness) which color our perception (perception is reality) of externally experienced (putatively shared) reality.
As we create each other ~7.5 billion potential creations (to use an electronics analogy, most of those potentials (other minds) are buried in our background noise, practically speaking we only create images of those of whom we are aware from signals which can be distinguished from the noise much the same as a time slice of superposed sounds in a recording.) Those signals (entities) are strengthened in proportion to our awareness, the emotional investment with which we imbue them, or by proximity, immediate or extended (a prime example of extension being social media).
This all happens in superposition. Our immediate realities occupy the local environs in overlaid dimensional layers and they seem to be spatiotemporally oriented, more or less. This creates the illusion of a common experience. We mostly agree this illusion (as we don’t realize that it’s an illusion) generally comports to a framework that facillitates social convention and harmony, albeit subconsciously.
All experiences are unique to the individual’s perception (perception is reality) and shared by co-creation of the event. Sometimes people’s perceptions are so out of sync with each other’s that there can be no agreement, comportment or even acknowledgement that the “shared” event could be other than the individual’s manufactured experience (cf. Trump’s perception vs. the press.)
All evidence you will ever encounter is evidence of your own perception and nothing else. There is no evidence available, not of the type you seek. Neither will logic nor reasoning, nor anything similar help you; they are perceived as well, and not only that, they all rest—down on the very deepest level—on assumptions. This is true for any theory, without fail. These assumptions are for you to discard (or cling to) as you see fit, since there is no evidence for them either.
The very idea of "proof" is just an instance of the longing of mankind. This longing for stability and security is born out of our fear. "What if there is nobody else?" "What if I'm imagining it all?" "What if..." But such questions will not suffice. "Someone else" is clearly in the realm of ideas and hope. At least, you have no means to conclude anything else; nobody does! People will scream and shout; they will do anything to deny this fact. Remember this, and you will probably start noticing it yourself.
So in the end, one doesn't know whether everything is as it seems. That's all there is to it. You may very well keep believing in the "stuff out there," that's fine, but remember that it will always remain a belief. You could argue that solipsism is completely useless (it is, under most definitions of "use"), but know that it is not less true just because of that.
The rest is up to you. Embrace or deny; each option will bring both joy and sorrow. Good luck.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.