How's this for logic? Prejudice blocks our minds from "an area we have yet to consider." :cool:I heard it said that solipsism can't be refuted because it's logically impeccable, but does that make it true? — Darkneos
I heard it said that solipsism can't be refuted because it's logically impeccable, but does that make it true? — Darkneos
You could always reflect on the notion that you’re the only being in the Universe and that all other beings are your projections is simply absurd. — Wayfarer
It's not really what I think about it but what others say about it. I don't want to believe it but it's a select others that say I am mistaken in dismissing it as false or wrong. — Darkneos
I heard that a statement can be logically valid but not true and that truth isn't the same as validity? — Darkneos
I'm off to work for now, but wanted to make the comment: So too will some argue that Earth is flat irrespective of what you and I say. Why take what they say so seriously?
Especially when it comes to experience and intention ... you know your own better than anyone else, right? — javra
Solipsism being true would not be fun. — Darkneos
It would lead to despair and tragedy as one would become keenly aware that they are "It". — Darkneos
What are the people around me other than images, sounds, and feelings?" — Darkneos
And, it is the existing subject's relation to existence, not the nature of existence, but the relation that causes despair and makes a tragedy. As an existing subject, one is effectively "It", and this is the case regardless of whether solipsism is true or not.
If solipsism is untrue and there are other subjects like me, I still cannot directly access their subjective immediacy as I do my own. In this way I am unique and separate. Whether there are others like me or not, I am (as a subject) alone as it were. I think alone, dream alone, shit alone, die alone...this is what existence as a subject entails, even if you are incessantly surrounded by crowds imitating your every move. This senario seems to me to be even more dreadful and tragic than that of solipsism.
Just remember, when in solitude, everyone is effectively a solipsist, or maybe not, who knows? — Merkwurdichliebe
The fun thing about solipsism, everybody can do it! — Merkwurdichliebe
I heard it said that solipsism can't be refuted because it's logically impeccable, but does that make it true? — Darkneos
Solipsism refutes itself as even a solipsist would distinct between himself and others/things. This makes it unsound - if there was only himself he could not speak of other things: there would be nothing to experience — Heiko
I heard it said that solipsism can't be refuted because it's logically impeccable, but does that make it true? — Darkneos
So again, how does it refute itself because so far the arguments don't seem so strong. You can intend X and not X by simply waving it away as a figment of your mind — Darkneos
Even in dreams the world you are in is not the subject of experience. It just does not make sense. It takes "something else", which, by its own terms, may not be, and declares it as "one self" while also staying "something else". The "sources" thingy is nonsense either: Here the wanna-be solipsist tries to double himself, but even then: When there is him - as experiencing subject - and him - as the fabricating source - there is again two things: An experiencing subject and the fabricating source. If that "him as" would cound as an argument, then we could proclaim Chewbaccaism as irrefutable: There is only Chewbacca as you and Chewbacca as others. Who would doubt that?We infer all the happenings of REM dreams to occur within our own personal mind, and this because these happenings are found to all be private to ourselves upon awakening from sleep: others do not share our REM dreams. — javra
So in this conceptualization of existence wherein we awaken to a waking dream, the “mind” addressed in effect encapsulates all the sources of awareness and intention that interact (both human and non-human). Thereby not pertaining to any one source of awareness and intention. Thereby constituting one interpretation of a non-physicalist existential reality that, all the same, is constituted of multiple selves which all pertain to a common mind—for instance, a common effete mind as C.S. Peirce would say.
For the solipsist, there is an insistent equivocation between “me”, a source of awareness and intention, and “my mind” which is not “me” but instead belongs to “me”—such that both “me” and “my mind” are illogically affirmed to be identical. This is as equally true of mind (in whichever ontology) that is composed of both conscious awareness and sub- or unconscious awareness—such that both are conflated into “me” as conscious awareness—as it is in regard to the notion of mind as that which constitutes reality as a waking dream—wherein all others are irrationally deemed to be “figments of my imagination as a conscious awareness”.... Or, else, "my mind's figments of imagination" which, again, is conflated with the "me" that is one source of awareness and intention. — javra
Solipsism is fucking rubbish!
Solipsism is a philosophical position.
All philosophical positions require language use.
All language use requires shared meaning.
All shared meaning requires a plurality of creatures.
If solipsism is true there is no such plurality of creatures.
If solipsism is true there is no shared meaning.
If solipsism is true there is no language use.
If solipsism is true there are no philosophical positions.
Solipsism is a philosophical position.
Draw your own conclusion. — creativesoul
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.