How can we know other people other than ourselves exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Ben,

How old are you?

Reading you I perceive confusion in your thoughts. I think I could help you if you respond to my first question: is there anything you would say “this I know”?

JuanFlorencio
 
Thank you Blase6!

Let me consider Existance first. When you say: I know existence? What do you mean? Is it you, or something else?
Existence is the basis of reality. Nothing can be understood without the presence of existence. It really is the simplest concept which cannot be explained otherwise. No communication does not involve existence.
 
Forgive me for intruding, but the idea that any valid arguments disproving solipsism have been presented in this thread, is simply incorrect. With all due respect to Wittgenstein et al, any arguments purporting to do so are specious at best.

I realize that I should have addressed any arguments as they arose, but as a solipsist I’ve grown a bit weary of answering the same challenges ad nauseam, and so I tend to sit quietly on the sidelines during such discussions. In truth it’s a bit of an effort for me to interact on this forum at all.

If you do however have an argument that you find particularly convincing please present it again, and I’ll address it. I’d hate for you to be under the illusion that solipsism can be refuted.
One does not prove the self evident. The existence of the world is proof that it is real. If one cannot accept that self evident fact, no argument will suffice. On the other hand the solipsist can offer no proof that his position is correct. If one does not accept the existence of the world one cannot argue, period.

Linus2nd
 
An experience is not equal to certain truth of an external reality. Since an experience is known through internal experience only, an external world cannot be certainly known.
Yes I know.

But I saw that you said earlier that you are kind of anxious about what will happen to you since you don’t know if you are living in an illusion or not. I’ve had this fear too.

I’m just making a point, that regardless if the world outside your mind is true or not, we will be rewarded in an artificial Heaven for believing the outside world is real (even if it might not be)…so basically, just believe it is because that is all you can do, even your illusionary world is requiring you to believe the outside world is real.
 
Dear Ben,

How old are you?

Reading you I perceive confusion in your thoughts. I think I could help you if you respond to my first question: is there anything you would say “this I know”?

JuanFlorencio
Hi Juan,

“This I know.”…I can’t fully know anything. I can only have faith.
 
Ok so I had a thought at church tonight…

Regardless if there is an external reality or not, we can be faithful that the Catholic Church is infallible, and we are obligated to have faith it is an external entity.
This is contradictory. You cannot say that perhaps the Church is an external reality and then say that it is an " external entity. "
If we don’t have faith that it is, it is a mortal sin that would land one in hell if done with full knowledge and consent (same applies to other gravely evil actions)…or we will go to Heaven if we have faith and follow its teachings.
If you believe that, then you must also believe that the Church is really existing reality, composed of really existing people. It seems that you solipsism is selective. And with no justification. You cannot arbitrarily select as real those things you want to be real and exclude those that you don’t want to be real. That is what I meant when I said a true solipsist cannot function in the world. No one can function in an illusion.
Even it the church was an illusion, we are still, in a way, obligated to have faith that it isn’t, because if we don’t, it will be a mortal sin according to the illusion and we will go to an illusion of hell if we choose to disbelieve its real…or…we will go to the illusion of Heaven if we do believe and following the unreal teachings.
A violation of the principle of contradiction. A thing either is or is not, it cannot be both at the same time in the same circumstance.
The evidence stacks up, whether its a hoax or not, that there is objective consequences in this regards. For example; we know that if we drop a ball, the objective consequence will be it will fall to the ground, whether it is an illusion or not.
Any thoughts on this?
Another violation of the principle of contradiction.

Pax
Linus2nd
 
This is contradictory. You cannot say that perhaps the Church is an external reality and then say that it is an " external entity. "

If you believe that, then you must also believe that the Church is really existing reality, composed of really existing people. It seems that you solipsism is selective. And with no justification. You cannot arbitrarily select as real those things you want to be real and exclude those that you don’t want to be real. That is what I meant when I said a true solipsist cannot function in the world. No one can function in an illusion.

A violation of the principle of contradiction. A thing either is or is not, it cannot be both at the same time in the same circumstance.

Another violation of the principle of contradiction.

Pax
Linus2nd
I’m actually hoping you are right.

I was just saying that the consequences for believing in the external church will either land one in a real Heaven or an illusion of Heaven…either way the person will be in eternal peace. Because there appears to be “consequences” in an illusion.
 
Hi Juan,

“This I know.”…I can’t fully know anything.
Dear Ben:

You are right! You just have to get used to it. It has happened to everybody along the centuries, and it is not an impediment to live a normal life. On the other hand, in my opinion it is good that you are so conscious of you fallibility. That can make you more tolerant towards your neighbors.
I can only have faith.
If by faith you mean certain spiritual strength that impulses you to pursue great endeavors, YES! Faith is not a small thing. It is all we need.

What do you think?
 
Ok so I had a thought at church tonight…

Regardless if there is an external reality or not, we can be faithful that the Catholic Church is infallible, and we are obligated to have faith it is an external entity.

If we don’t have faith that it is, it is a mortal sin that would land one in hell if done with full knowledge and consent (same applies to other gravely evil actions)…or we will go to Heaven if we have faith and follow its teachings.

Even it the church was an illusion, we are still, in a way, obligated to have faith that it isn’t, because if we don’t, it will be a mortal sin according to the illusion and we will go to an illusion of hell if we choose to disbelieve its real…or…we will go to the illusion of Heaven if we do believe and following the unreal teachings.

The evidence stacks up, whether its a hoax or not, that there is objective consequences in this regards. For example; we know that if we drop a ball, the objective consequence will be it will fall to the ground, whether it is an illusion or not.

Any thoughts on this?
I would say you are heading in the right direction in the face of (any) uncertainties. The “faithfulness” is to an “object” in that “illusion” (which I will say is not an illusion). And it is also faithfulness to a person in that “illusion”, namely Jesus, who is expecting you (the faithful) to be ready and awaiting his return. So it is a kind of “commitment” to the “illusion” as being not an illusion. I will say that I am committed to it, and plan all my doings in such a way that he is not disappointed in his return, but happy to see me and others.
 
One does not prove the self evident. The existence of the world is proof that it is real. If one cannot accept that self evident fact, no argument will suffice. On the other hand the solipsist can offer no proof that his position is correct. If one does not accept the existence of the world one cannot argue, period.

Linus2nd
It is self evident that we are experiencing something. It is not self evident that what we are experiencing has an external object. However, we have no reason to doubt the existence of an external object and therefore one can reasonably hold that it does exist on that basis.

The solipsist is not incorrect to say that we cannot prove the external existence of the universe. They are incorrect to say however that we cannot trust our senses on those grounds. There is no reason not to trust our senses. We can be critical realists.
 
It is self evident that we are experiencing something. It is not self evident that what we are experiencing has an external object. However, we have no reason to doubt the existence of an external object and therefore one can reasonably hold that it does exist on that basis.

The solipsist is not incorrect to say that we cannot prove the external existence of the universe. They are incorrect to say however that we cannot trust our senses on those grounds. There is no reason not to trust our senses. We can be critical realists.
Of course there are things that demand proof, but not the existence of the things or our every day existence. There is no doubt that the planets, suns, galaxies, etc. exist. It is the precise nature of these bodies which must be demonstrated. The solipsist is wrong because he doubts the objective existence of all that exists outside the mind.

I don’t know why this idea has suddenly become a hot topic of discussion. Can you explain that. Is it something being showed on youtube or some book that is causing all this buzz?

Pax
Linus2nd
 
Dear Ben:

You have not responded yet, but still I would like to give you some piece of advice: Think about your concrete experiences. For example, when you say “I can’t fully know anything”. Instead of anything or everything let’s talk about “water”. I am aware that you don’t know water fully. Neither do I. But surely you know something of it. I know about many of its physical and chemical interactions; more than I need for my daily life. What about you?

JuanFlorencio
 
An experience is not equal to certain truth of an external reality. Since an experience is known through internal experience only, an external world cannot be certainly known.
And you are certain about this? 😃
 
Of course there are things that demand proof, but not the existence of the things or our every day existence. There is no doubt that the planets, suns, galaxies, etc. exist. It is the precise nature of these bodies which must be demonstrated. The solipsist is wrong because he doubts the objective existence of all that exists outside the mind.
I know that you’re a big fan of Aquinas, and so I’m curious about something that Aquinas asserts in his Five Ways. Specifically I’m curious about his Fourth Way, the proof of God from the gradation of things. This proof seems fairly simple and straight forward, that which is maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus. Thus that which is hot draws its being from that which is hottest, that which is noble from that which is noblest, and so forth.

But this would appear to create a conundrum, for how can that which is immaterial be the cause of that which is material? If that which is the cause of all attributes must itself be the greatest of those attributes, then logically that which is the cause of everything material, must itself be material. But surely Aquinas isn’t suggesting that God is a material being.

But if Aquinas’ Fourth Way is correct then either God is a material being, or we’re not, we’re actually immaterial beings, living in an immaterial world. Strangely enough the only things of which I can be absolutely certain, my thoughts, my reasoning, my logic, my intuition, my emotions, my memories, my hopes, these are all immaterial things. Everything that I know for certain, is immaterial.

You say that the objective existence of the world around me is self-evident. But this reminds me of the parable of a wise old teacher and his young student. The two sat watching the sunrise one day and the student asked the teacher if it was true that people used to believe that the sun went around the earth. The teacher assured him that yes indeed there was a time when men believed such a thing. The student asked how it could be that men could be so foolish, for it’s obvious to everyone that the earth goes around the sun. To which the teacher replied, tell me, what would it look like if the sun did go around the earth?

So tell me, what would it look like if the world really was an illusion? If the only one suffering were you? If the only one being judged were you?

You assert that objective reality is self-evident, I on the other hand wonder, is it really?
 
I know that you’re a big fan of Aquinas, and so I’m curious about something that Aquinas asserts in his Five Ways. Specifically I’m curious about his Fourth Way, the proof of God from the gradation of things. This proof seems fairly simple and straight forward, that which is maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus. Thus that which is hot draws its being from that which is hottest, that which is noble from that which is noblest, and so forth.

But this would appear to create a conundrum, for how can that which is immaterial be the cause of that which is material? If that which is the cause of all attributes must itself be the greatest of those attributes, then logically that which is the cause of everything material, must itself be material. But surely Aquinas isn’t suggesting that God is a material being.

But if Aquinas’ Fourth Way is correct then either God is a material being, or we’re not, we’re actually immaterial beings, living in an immaterial world. Strangely enough the only things of which I can be absolutely certain, my thoughts, my reasoning, my logic, my intuition, my emotions, my memories, my hopes, these are all immaterial things. Everything that I know for certain, is immaterial.

You say that the objective existence of the world around me is self-evident. But this reminds me of the parable of a wise old teacher and his young student. The two sat watching the sunrise one day and the student asked the teacher if it was true that people used to believe that the sun went around the earth. The teacher assured him that yes indeed there was a time when men believed such a thing. The student asked how it could be that men could be so foolish, for it’s obvious to everyone that the earth goes around the sun. To which the teacher replied, tell me, what would it look like if the sun did go around the earth?

So tell me, what would it look like if the world really was an illusion? If the only one suffering were you? If the only one being judged were you?

You assert that objective reality is self-evident, I on the other hand wonder, is it really?
There is no point in trying to explain something to a person who things everything outside the mind is an illusion.

Pax
Linus2nd
 
Dear Ben:

You probably will agree with Franz Brentano that to be conscious is always to be conscious of something. Conscience could be understood phenomenologically as the simultaneous emergence of things and the self. Why we cannot be conscious of other consciences? Is it because our conscience is imperfect? No, it is because such thing is impossible. If you were conscious of another conscience you would not be able to distinguish it from yourself.

You say that you are anxious because you cannot be certain about the existence of other consciences. On the one hand, you should take it precisely as a guarantee that other consciences might exist (and you can continue with the meditation using other means; for example, considering how language precedes you). On the other hand, you might be even more anxious if you think that I might have doubts about your existence and your consciousness.

Regards
JuanFlorencio
 
Dear Ben:

You probably will agree with Franz Brentano that to be conscious is always to be conscious of something. Conscience could be understood phenomenologically as the simultaneous emergence of things and the self. Why we cannot be conscious of other consciences? Is it because our conscience is imperfect? No, it is because such thing is impossible. If you were conscious of another conscience you would not be able to distinguish it from yourself.

You say that you are anxious because you cannot be certain about the existence of other consciences. On the one hand, you should take it precisely as a guarantee that other consciences might exist (and you can continue with the meditation using other means; for example, considering how language precedes you). On the other hand, you might be even more anxious if you think that I might have doubts about your existence and your consciousness.

Regards
JuanFlorencio
Only those things which are experiences in and of themselves are certain. An external world is uncertain because it cannot be directly perceived; any perception which is assumed to present an external world lies within one’s internal awareness.
 
Only those things which are experiences in and of themselves are certain. An external world is uncertain because it cannot be directly perceived; any perception which is assumed to present an external world lies within one’s internal awareness.
Hi Blase:

I did not mention an “external world”. Can you read my message again?

As it has been you who have used the expression “external world”, I request from you a careful description of what you mean by it. Please, proceed.

JuanFlorencio
 
Only those things which are experiences in and of themselves are certain. An external world is uncertain because it cannot be directly perceived; any perception which is assumed to present an external world lies within one’s internal awareness.
Interesting, isn’t it? Your mind goes to all kinds of effort to gather all kinds of sensitive data from your sensitive powers (sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell), and then goes to all kinds of effort to analyze these sensed things with the internal sensitive powers (memory, images). It is like your mind is trying to do something contrary to your philosophy, as if your mental activities day in and day out believe in something you do not believe in: that the external is real and that you must know it and know it completely. Your body strains to see a beautiful sunset while your philosophy doubts them. Your eyes do not doubt, but you do. Oh, and out there is something, someone, real named Jesus, called the Church, called the Body and the Blood. By the way, it is the intellect and will that benefit from the senses, and they drive the insatiable appetites of the senses to get the understanding of and union with the external “other”. The soul does not want uncertainty but requires understanding of everything (and it will have it, for it was created to have it as its fulfillment).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top