Why the sudden appearance of Solipsism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_Plato said:
Well, no. Perception is not “all you have.” In fact, perception is quite distinct from conception. Perceiving something is not the same as conceiving. In other words, having sensory awareness (perception plus the capacity to image what is perceived) is not identical to being able to think about an idea or concept (conceive or conceptualize.)

Ideas are not tangible in the same way as perceptions are, that is why it is helpful to write, draw or in some other way make ideas manifest. That is not, however, to deny that ideas do not exist on their own terms and in their own right. Which means perceptions are not all you have.

Concepts are not experienced in the same way that perceptions or imagings are, but nevertheless exist in the mind.
Click to expand...
Perceptions are all I have. I cannot know a “conception” unless I experience within myself perception of that thought.
 
blase6 said:
Actually, it is acknowledging that nothing apart from your experiences can be known certainly by you.
Click to expand...
Logically, it must also be true that even things that ARE part of your experiences can be credited only with the amount of certainty you can afford to bestow on them – and that degree of certainty is merely a concoction of “you” as determined by you.

Welcome to the hamster wheel of solipsism which, logically speaking, gets us nowhere.
 
Partinobodycula said:
I realize that this post is soon to be buried in the rush of replies in this thread, but I have a question.

Do you believe that you can be certain of things, to the same degree that God is certain of them?
Click to expand...
No. But I can be certain of them as far as one can be certain with his natural reason. Solipsism denies that one can be certain with reason of anything beyond himself–which is not consistent with Catholic teaching.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Logically, it must also be true that even things that ARE part of your experiences can be credited only with the amount of certainty you can afford to bestow on them – and that degree of certainty is merely a concoction of “you” as determined by you.

Welcome to the hamster wheel of solipsism which, logically speaking, gets us nowhere.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I know certainly that I am experiencing. I cannot get any further because I cannot look outside of my perception at “what is really there”.
 
blase6 said:
Like I said I do not see yet how existence is a reality apart from objects. It is a descriptive idea of objects.
Click to expand...
So you agree that what an object is is not identical to its manner of existing?
 
CrossofChrist said:
So you agree that what an object is is not identical to its manner of existing?
Click to expand...
Yes. Existence is a quality of an object. But it depends on what kind of “existence” you think it is. I think that basic “existence” is the simplest concept which is present universally and cannot be understood fully.
 
blase6 said:
Like I said, I know certainly that I am experiencing. I cannot get any further because I cannot look outside of my perception at “what is really there”.
Click to expand...
That is because you are basing certainty upon your capacity to experience things in some sensory way.

The point of philosophy is that there are basic principles of thought and logic that can get us beyond mere sensory experience into knowing with certainty that we can draw inferences and conclusions about the objective world and reality in general based upon those logical principles. We can be reasonably certain of many things we cannot directly experience.
 
blase6 said:
Yes. Existence is a quality of an object. But it depends on what kind of “existence” you think it is. I think that basic “existence” is the simplest concept which is present universally and cannot be understood fully.
Click to expand...
So you admit of a distinction between essence and existence, great.

Do you agree that the distinction holds true for all material things?

And since God is Existence itself, if we could fully understand existence we could understand God–which isn’t possible. 🙂
 
CrossofChrist said:
No. But I can be certain of them as far as one can be certain with his natural reason. Solipsism denies that one can be certain with reason of anything beyond himself–which is not consistent with Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
Thank you

If I may, I have another question, are you more certain about the veracity of Catholicism, than a Muslim is about the veracity of Islam?
 
Peter_Plato said:
That is because you are basing certainty upon your capacity to experience things in some sensory way.

The point of philosophy is that there are basic principles of thought and logic that can get us beyond mere sensory experience into knowing with certainty that we can draw inferences and conclusions about the objective world and reality in general based upon those logical principles. We can be reasonably certain of many things we cannot directly experience.
Click to expand...
I have not found certain truth through reason that I can know what is true certainly apart from my perception. That is why I became a solipsist.
 
CrossofChrist said:
So you admit of a distinction between essence and existence, great.

Do you agree that the distinction holds true for all material things?

And since God is Existence itself, if we could fully understand existence we could understand God–which isn’t possible. 🙂
Click to expand...
First of all, you are putting words in my mouth; I don’t know what you mean exactly by “essence” and “existence”. I am not a professional philosopher who has studied all the big names and knows what the general definition of those terms would be.

Second of all, if you say that God is existence, then that moves me to think of a sort of pantheistic God. As in, my existence, that rock’s existence, is God.
 
blase6 said:
Second of all, if you say that God is existence, then that moves me to think of a sort of pantheistic God. As in, my existence, that rock’s existence, is God.
Click to expand...
But not your essence. Your nature is your own. The act through which your nature has actuality is not your own; it is not your nature. You are not existence; existence is something else’s nature, and our being is realized inside of that nature.
 
Sometimes the philosophy forum seems a refuge for the confused. Not trolling, just sayin’.
 
Aloysium said:
Sometimes the philosophy forum seems a refuge for the confused. Not trolling, just sayin’.
Click to expand...
The problem with statements like this is that someone maybe thinking the exact same thing about you.

What value does a statement like this have?
 
blase6 said:
That’s why I came to the philosophy forum. If I wasn’t confused, I wouldn’t be here.
Click to expand...
Exactly. So you admit that your solipsism is a product of your confusion!

(i had to get a cheap shot in there somewhere Base6;) sorry)
 
ChainBreaker said:
Exactly. So you admit that your solipsism is a product of your confusion!

(i had to get a cheap shot in there somewhere Base6;) sorry)
Click to expand...
Yes, it is the logically valid position of not knowing things of a specific nature certainly.
 
The question is " why, " why, why. Why has it suddenly popped up?

Linus2nd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top