Apologies for not reading the thread and perhaps repeating what's already been said. As far as Im concerned, "the reason for believing in the exisrence of the world" is that there aren't any compelling grounds to doubt the existence of world. :smirk: — 180 Proof
But what is your proof that what you are seeing, and going through in your life is not a long vivid dream or some realistic illusion or hallucination? — Corvus
Well, this notion of craving for self-sameness as nihilistic and life-denying is discussed by Nietzsche in terms of the ascetic ideal in his Genealogy of Morals. — Joshs
Your own opinions and views are most appreciated, but there is no reason why you shouldn't agree to, or follow the historical philosopher's views, ideas and systems, if that is what you do synchronise with in the ideology.Others have responded to your question much better than I can but I would like to know what answer would you find satisfactory? — Captain Homicide
What is the "more reason" in detail that entail the belief?but as I said we have more reason to believe those things than that the universe is a simulation and everyone but you is a meat robot without actual sentience. — Captain Homicide
Is reason an activity that exists while nothing else does? Is that activity something that can be known without reference to beings? I doubt that. — Paine
Can you control or decide what and how you dream during deep sleep? I thought it is impossible for one to control, think, decide in one's dream. Isn't the content of dream totally random in nature, and you have absolutely no control over it?No, I think that believing in the existence of the world, during deep sleep, is what turns pleasant dreams into nightmares. — Metaphysician Undercover
hmmm... The problems of death seem still to be a mysterious topic. Are the dead totally really dead? I was under impression, they are dead physically, but might not be dead in soul. Might not be dead doesn't mean they are alive either. It just means we don't know.And believing in the world when one is dead seems to be impossible. — Metaphysician Undercover
This seems a very unfairly asymmetrical question. Why would someone need proof that it's not a dream, but not need proof that it is a dream? — flannel jesus
I was reading a paper on Nietzsche's metaphysics and epistemology last night, and apparently he was very much into Kant's TI in the beginning. The paper was saying that to Nietzsche, art was a form of perception, which gave him therapeutic comfort from the unbearable world. — Corvus
The creating of possibilities for the will on the basis of which the will to power first frees itself to itself is for Nietzsche the essence of art. In keeping with this metaphysical concept, Nietzsche does not think under the heading "art" solely or even primarily of the aesthetic realm of the artist. Art is the essence of all willing that opens up perspectives and takes possession of them: "The work of art, where it appears without an artist, e.g., as body, as organization (Prussian officer corps, Jesuit Order). To what extent the artist is only a preliminary stage. The world as a work of art that gives birth to itself" (Will to Power)
Does that mean that when observation is not operational, do you stop believing in the existence of the world during the time of no observation? If you keep believing in the existence when the observation stopped, what is it that forces you into the belief?Ordinary observation. Or if you want a more formal word - empiric. — L'éléphant
How do you know the admission is true, not mistaken or unfounded? From whose point of view is the admission being performed, and proved?Perception is conscious activity -- not in deep sleep. So, if you're asleep, you're not making a judgment like "I don't believe the cup exists when it's not in front of me." Let's settle on that. You're awake, and you're making a claim that you don't have a reason to believe an object exists when you're not looking at it. This is you admitting that you exist. — L'éléphant
I suppose there are many alternative worlds existing out there to believe in too. I asked ChatGPT for type of the alternative worlds available for us. So, the traditional earth bound world is not the only world existing out there. But then would you have to decide on which world is the real one, which are fake and bogus worlds?The brain can't tell the difference between a self-generated world and an exogenous one. We almost always automatically believe the world that we are presented with, real or not. It appears that we are 'programmed' to believe in something, no matter what. — punos
How did you manage to perceive the unperceived cup first place, which caused your belief and memory on the unperceived cup?I believe in the unperceived cup each time I remember it in my mind. Absent the thought, the belief is absent. — Throng
Most of our beliefs can be unfounded and groundless. But we could try to figure out which beliefs are groundless and which are warranted by evidence beliefs. This is partly what the OP is about suppose.The error of assumption is regarding belief as a permanent object - let alone the cup. — Throng
Solipsism sounds controversial, but then the alternatives don't sound much better, do they?The thought experiment about Solipsism is, of course, endlessly relevant because it can't be disproven. As far as I know, there's no sequence of experiences or observations one could have to prove this isn't all a figment of your imagination, or a virtual world full of NPCs created to keep you entertained and docile, or any number of other infinite fake-world ideas. — flannel jesus
Ok fair enough. Quite disappointed on your "vulgar" nature of response in hysterical tone. Enjoy your own recommended readings yourself."Proof?" I make no positive claim that requires "proof"; simply there are no compelling grounds to even consider that the world is "a long vivid dream or some realistic illusion or hallucination", and therefore, the existence of the world remains self-evident or presupposed by all other true statements of fact. Your OP raises a perennial pseudo-question (à la "Cartesian doubt"), Corvus, and maybe as a cure for what's ailing you, consider Peirce's "The Fixation on Belief" and Wittgenstein's On Certainty. — 180 Proof
Isn't experience always about something? I used to think that way, but maybe you have idea on experience in general, or experience which is not about something. What would it be from your idea?First, let me ask you for a brief elaboration of your own view: what is 'experience' if it is not of something, under your view? That way I can provide some worries I may have with your intuitions and evidence. — Bob Ross
Obviously you have not seen them getting asked, and giving out their replies. That doesn't follow that they don't make claims on these issues. Other possibility could be that they don't make claims on them because they don't know?Realism itself makes no claims about God or souls or unicorns or Santa clause — flannel jesus
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.