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.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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."

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.