That's a limited view of idealism. — Tate
Within modern philosophy there are sometimes taken to be two fundamental conceptions of idealism:
1.something mental (the mind, spirit, reason, will) is the ultimate foundation of all reality, or even exhaustive of reality, and
2.although the existence of something independent of the mind is conceded, everything that we can know about this mind-independent “reality” is held to be so permeated by the creative, formative, or constructive activities of the mind (of some kind or other) that all claims to knowledge must be considered, in some sense, to be a form of self-knowledge.
I've noticed that as a serious flaw in this thread. Idealism is represented as "mind alone exists". In reality, idealists are mostly dualists. — Metaphysician Undercover
So you’re opposed to every monism and would suggest instead some kind of dualism or pluralism? — Michael
still can't see how that can be proven. Solipsism is like a funnel we're sliding down, grasping at ropes (theories) that might pull us out of it. But they always break. Without a really good argument, solipsism wins by default. Sad. — GLEN willows
There really is no choice; if we want absolute 100% certainty, we'll all havta be solipsists. — Agent Smith
If nothing is real, everything is.Chomsky said "real" is just an honorific anyway. Like: "real potatoes" as opposed to fake ones. In other words, we're in 'language on holiday' territory. — Tate
Just as left needs right, I need you.I'm also not sure how I can exist without an Other for contrast. It seemsI need the Other for my own existence — Tate
Why would you disagree? — Agent Smith
Isn't it quite clear that, in line with solipsism, the only thing we can be certain about is our own self — Agent Smith
if we want absolute 100% certainty, we'll all havta be solipsists — Agent Smith
Not true. If you read Witty yourself, Smith, you will find various kinds of inquiries & suppositions which occasionally include (reductio) arguments against commonplace nonsense like e.g. the private language argument.Wittgenstein opined but, as per credible sources, never argued! — Agent Smith
If you really don't see it, then maybe you're not aware of how certain you actually are of our existence. We don't need proof for the things we're most certain of. That's pretty much what certainty is.
I for one am glad that I'm not trapped in your head. — Jamal
What was said was for you and you alone. — Morpheus
I don't think we need to make this about Wittgenstein, even if he was one of many to point typical confusions on this issue.
As far as I can tell, you completely failed to respond to any of my points — Pie
I've made several, but no worries — Pie
You've then missed the point of solipsism — Agent Smith
All discursive "disagreements", my man, presuppose shared (public) practices (language games). Refute that statement with a counter-example. — 180 Proof
Temet nosce. — Oracle of Delphi
No, I'm guessing you just misinterpreted my use of the phrase "our existence", by which I meant the existence of me, Pie, 180, and everyone else aside from you. — Jamal
Ok. I defer to your better judgment — Agent Smith
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.