Or, in other words : How can the outside logically be considered possible when your subjective viewpoint always comes first and is technically subjectively created? What gives the possibility of the outside world possibly being real valid credibility? — gsky1

In order for "the outside" to not be possible, it has to be impossible, and traditionally, impossibility has amounted to the notion that there's something logically contradictory about it--something that amounts to unequivocally asserting both P and not-P. Normally we require someone to make the contradiction explicit in order to say that something is contradictory/impossible.

Not sure you have a hard grasp of solipsism...but I agree with the essence of your position.

Solipsism gets lots of scorn in philosophical discussions...but it seems right on the button to me.

If "knowledge" is possible...all I can be sure of is ME.

I see other stuff out there, but while I am confident (perhaps unadvisedly so) that I exist...ALL of what else seems to exist MAY BE nothing but an illusion within ME.

If "knowledge" is possible...all I can be sure of is ME. — Frank Apisa

How are you sure of you?

Cogito ergo sum. Its the only thing you can be certain of. Its not sensibly deniable.

I'm not.

Please consider the qualifier I used..."IF" KNOWLEDGE IS POSSIBLE."

Knowledge, even of self...may not be possible.

Everything, including this thing I call "me"...may be an illusion. An illusion "of what" I am not sure.

Even if knowledge is possible, I MAY BE sure of me...but even that is not certain.

If you need us to tell you, you've already negated solipsism.

Or, in other words : How can the outside logically be considered possible when your subjective viewpoint always comes first and is technically subjectively created? What gives the possibility of the outside world possibly being real valid credibility? — gsky1

It is not from a philosopher but from me. The outside is a human creation. There is not other outside. We have to do with that. What is real is what we can do in that outside we created. Something is credible when we get a result, dancing to get the rain is not credible because usually it does not rain. That does not mean we cannot do it.

What valid reasoning/logic allows for solipsism to not necessarily be true? — gsky1

If you take solipsism seriously then why would you ask others who you cannot be certain exist about it?

It is this idea of of a necessary truth that creates the snag. Doubt can be raised but the possibility of raising doubt is not a good reason to doubt. Why would one even think that solipsism is true? What does one have to give up in order to accept it as true?

What valid reasoning/logic allows for solipsism to not necessarily be true? — gsky1

Well, can't you fathom the vibe of the extrovert's mindset when he says "the world exists without me"?

Is there really more to it than that? (The issue here being about the sense of an expression rather than truth)

I think therefore I am. You think therefore you are. Hence solipsism is wrong. Simple.

My view is that you can't demonstrate a difference between subjective "unrealness" and external reality. Experience is as real as you can get. A subjective, yet consistent world of "fake" other people is still a world to live in. In fact, that's what life is.

ALL of what else seems to exist MAY BE nothing but an illusion within ME.

From a functional perspective though, this doesn't mean anything. The nouns have changed, but the setup is the same.

I think therefore I am. You think therefore you are. Hence solipsism is wrong. Simple. — Devans99

To me, your thoughts exist in a different sense to mine. Certainly the word "solipsism" does not possess a shareable public sense (hence the lack of solipsism conventions), but that is of course of no concern to the solipsist.

And you have a different memory to me. Different thoughts plus different memory equal different entity.

So that rules out 'brain in a vat', but leaves 'brains in vats' in play.

Unless one can prove that another "consciousness" is in play then ofcourse it doesn't rule out "brain in a vat". That's the whole point of brain in a vat.

You could look at sime and say, ah-ha! He's a brain. But alas, he's a mannequin!

I think that: 'you think therefore you are' means we are logically (if not physically) separate brains.

Agreed, but the point of a brain in a vat is that you can't prove the existence of other brains independently of them telling you they exist.

Hence the brain in a vat. The brain exists but all the information you're gathering from your senses could be produced through a virtual reality of sorts. You wouldn't watch a film of mickey mouse telling you that he's conscious and believe it to be true.

Agreed, but the point of a brain in a vat is that you can't prove the existence of other brains independently of them telling you they exist. — Edward

If you ask someone to work something out, say what is 193*636?, and they tell you the answer and it's correct, that seems like strong evidence that an independent logical mental capacity exists, IE a brain.

You know for sure that some thinking took place somewhere logically different to where you do your thinking, hence it proves there must be a logically separate brain.

The reason the "brain in a vat" theory exists is precisely because of our inability to prove anything outside of our own experiences.

What you describe there is an example of why we reasonably presume other people have consciousness, but it's not a proof. It is strong evidence, but the "brain in a vat" theory is more of a thought experiment to highlight our inability to know something.

There isn't an example you can give that is provable independent of your experience. We know experience can be falsified, ergo we can never truly trust our experience.

I personally think that it doesn't matter, because like you say, if we are observing what appears to cognitive ability then what's the difference?

The concept is just useful for imagining abstract sci-fiesque worlds. What if the person is a computer, absent of consciousness but highly cognitive? What if you're never making decisions but merely "asking" predetermined questions to a predetermined "person" in a virtual landscape that you simply observe? What if the people you encounter do not exist if they're outside of your perception? Etc.

I'm not.
Please consider the qualifier I used..."IF" KNOWLEDGE IS POSSIBLE."
Knowledge, even of self...may not be possible.
Everything, including this thing I call "me"...may be an illusion. An illusion "of what" I am not sure.
Even if knowledge is possible, I MAY BE sure of me...but even that is not certain. — Frank Apisa

It seems we can be certain, only not certain of just what it is we're certain of. So we decide; we make a decision. If it works, we go with it. Then there are people who pop up and say, "Oh that's wrong," or, "You can't do that." Sometimes they're right. But nearly always they're wrong, and usually because they do not understand the contingent and provisional quality of everything. (Hmm. Surprising number on this site!) They do not understand that certainty itself is functional and always refers back. And cannot accept that it just is the (only) certainty we have. Our certainty is equivocal, our equivocation our certainty. No way out. Best just to be as certain as possible and beat back the nihilists and the relativists with a stick. At some level they're probably correct, but it's not a level compatible with human living and values that if not certain are mostly and mainly well-tested and work.

It must seem then that "certainty" is really just code for "certainty with respect to," "in light of..," and so forth.

No way out. Best just to be as certain as possible and beat back the nihilists and the relativists with a stick. At some level they're probably correct,

You admit! (in relation to a certain other discussion)

but it's not a level compatible with human living and values that if not certain are mostly and mainly well-tested and work.

If it's true then it doesn't matter that it's not compatible. Like you and everyone else we do live with values that are tested and work. We are all in the same universe. You live in a relative universe even if you'd like to pretend you didn't, and that's fine, because we all do it.

It must seem then that "certainty" is really just code for "certainty with respect to," "in light of..," and so forth.

You've hit the nail on the head! That is all relativity is about... "certainty with respect to" means "subjective to". What was so hard about that?

You admit! (in relation to a certain other discussion) — Edward

The rest of your reply included by reference.

I suppose. But look. You're just a pile of atoms (or whatever). Because I have so denominated you, may I now argue that you are no longer entitled to (or alternatively more entitled to) that to which the right and the good, as we have determined it to be, argue is yours by right?

There are those among us - and it's clear you can find them if you like - who have made it explicitly clear that while they, personally, are not inclined to murder you, still though they deny that the murderer does wrong. They have repeated that, as you can easily check if you haven't already, on behalf of the greater and lesser murderers of the 20th century.

Certainty may have its bounds, but I'd hold that within those bounds it's certain. 2+2=4 and murderers get hanged.

Sometimes the frontiers blow up. The American Civil War. Slavery is bad. Slavery is good. Maybe not quite that simple, but close enough. The resultant synthesis is still (disgracefully) a work-in-progress 150+ years after the cessation of hostility at arms. But the idea incorporated in "synthesis" is what matters. The good itself is a work-in-progress. What of it comes into being is. Relativism that would destroy the idea of the good is thus an operation against the good. The words matter, because if you oppose the good, then you're bad. If you oppose the right, then you're wrong.

Nor does relativism hold as a valid critique, or as the form of a valid critique, because relativism is essentially destructive. And as to what constitutes valid criticism? A well-reasoned questioning tending towards a resolution - a synthesis - even if not into a resultant admixture, but the one over the other. The result - the synthesis - of the American Civil War was not a modified, compromised slavery, rather it was outright abolition. And while the US is still infected with a vicious racism, I doubt if even the racists would defend the notion of slavery as a good.

who have made it explicitly clear that while they, personally, are not inclined to murder you, still though they deny that the murderer does wrong. — tim wood

No they do not deny that. Why do you keep repeating this? I've asked why you keep repeating it already, and you said that you do not keep repeating it. But here you are, saying it again.

Okay, I get what you're saying. Relativism, when taken to extremes is socially destructive.

No one lives like this though (or at least very few). You're mixing theoretical philosophical debate with practical social existence. Everyone does agree that, for society, we should not murder. No one debates this in government.

Still, when we discuss less impactive moral laws, the relativity is useful. For instance, if we hold that directly harming others physically or mentally is a definite "wrong", but we're debating a law that does not involve other people, then we can deem it relative and therefore not wrong. Drinking alcohol for instance. If this does not directly effect anyone but the drinker, then we can deem it beyond moral judgement.

That might sound silly or obvious, but there are many objective moral codes in religions that prohibit this. Objectively.

If you take solipsism seriously then why would you ask others who you cannot be certain exist about it? — Fooloso4

If I take solipsism seriously, then all the posts in this thread are mine. There are no others, and therefore I am not asking them. Rather, an aspect of myself is asking aspects of myself. It's a very curious thing, but in accounting for the way things appear to be, the solipsist ends up just substituting 'self' for 'world' and 'aspect' for 'individual', and otherwise having a view of things indistinguishable from the non-solipsist.

No one lives like this though (or at least very few). You're mixing theoretical philosophical debate with practical social existence. Everyone does agree that, for society, we should not murder. No one debates this in government. — Edward

That's not even the problem. The problem is something I've explained before:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/264275

No they do not deny that. Why do you keep repeating this? I've asked why you keep repeating it already, and you said that you do not keep repeating it. But here you are, saying it again. — Terrapin Station

Clarity is good and I can be f-up. But let's see what you wrote:
-------------------

the 20th century murders by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and a host of imitators are nothing whatsoever wrong in themselves. Apparently that's even a nonsensical idea. — timw

Correct. — terrapin

The truth is that those persons thought their actions were acceptable/justifiable/necessary/good, take your pick — timw

Sure, they may have.
At least you're getting it now. — terrapin

-------

The right or wrong of something like "Murder is bad" or "One should not murder" is a moral right/wrong, and it's identical to the preferences "Murder is bad" or "One should not murder." The grounds of determination is someone having those preferences.

Moral stances are preferences of interpersonal behavior, not just with respect to oneself. "No one should murder anyone" is a preference that many people have. — terrapin

The grounds of determination is someone having those preferences. — Terrapin Station

------------------

Hmm. Maybe I did not f-up. But this is easily easily and simply resolved:

Then it's clear. According to the philosophy of Terrapin, et al, the 20th century murders by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and a host of imitators are nothing whatsoever wrong in themselves. Apparently that's even a nonsensical idea. The truth is that those persons thought their actions were acceptable/justifiable/necessary/good, take your pick. — timw

Just take a moment and set me straight, here. Do you care to redraft your agreement that it is a nonsensical idea that these murderers and those like them did something wrong?

Okay, I get what you're saying. Relativism, when taken to extremes is socially destructive.
No one lives like this though (or at least very few). You're mixing theoretical philosophical debate with practical social existence. Everyone does agree that, for society, we should not murder. No one debates this in government. — Edward

You're missing that most folks thinks it's wrong. Relativists do not say or think that - or at least those here who have recorded their views.

Still, when we discuss less impactive moral laws, the relativity is useful. For instance, if we hold that directly harming others physically or mentally is a definite "wrong", but we're debating a law that does not involve other people, then we can deem it relative and therefore not wrong. Drinking alcohol for instance. If this does not directly effect anyone but the drinker, then we can deem it beyond moral judgement.
That might sound silly or obvious, but there are many objective moral codes in religions that prohibit this. Objectively. — Edward

That's right. You wish to reasonably question some rules. But even here you go off track a bit. E.g., "Drinking alcohol for instance. If this does not directly effect anyone but the drinker, then we can deem it beyond moral judgement.
That might sound silly or obvious, but there are many objective moral codes in religions that prohibit this. Objectively."

Problem drinking always effect others. And what religions prohibit can indeed be problematic, but the first task it to assess why the prohibition in the first place. Then one can proceed reasonably. The risk of dismissing religion as religion is that it is also a storehouse of collective wisdom. The real question is whether that wisdom is still useful or valid, whether modified or in original form, or if it has passed its use date..

Relativists do not say or think that - or at least those here who have recorded their views.

I am a relativist and I think that. Why are you getting hung up on semantics? You've admitted that at a base level there is no objectivity. When relativists use moral terms it depends if they're speaking generically or philosophically.

I don't think that anyone in this forum would choose for murder to be legal. They simply know it to be subjective in a basic sense.

Problem drinking always effect others.

Yes, I knew you'd say that, but that is the subjective part of the argument, whether it effects others.

The problem is that those moral frameworks do not discuss the context. They objectively declare the sole act of drinking as wrong. That's not useful and is functionally meaningless.

You could lock someone in a room with a bottle of whiskey for a week and somehow they'd still be objectively wrong for drinking it. Objective rules are meaningless without context.

You said " they deny that the murderer does wrong"

I don't, and no one else around here does, either. No one said anything like that.

" nothing whatsoever wrong in themselves"

Sure, since no moral stance is "wrong in itself," and yes, that's a nonsensical idea. That is NOT the same thing as "denying that the murderer does wrong."

That is NOT the same thing as "denying that the murderer does wrong." — Terrapin Station

Great! What wrong does the murderer do, by your lights?