Why the sudden appearance of Solipsism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Linusthe2nd said:
There are no valid arguments for Solipsism. For viewers who may have become confuesd I enclose the following from the First Vatican Council. It shows that God Almighty created a real world, knowable to the intelligent creatures he created. Is God a lier? The whole of Divine Revelation testifies to this.
Click to expand...
Real? What does one mean by real? If God creates a virtual world for the sake of our experiences, how is that any less “real” than a world of solid external objects?

I don’t think it makes any difference insofar as God’s plan is concerned.
 
Peter_Plato said:
So, an egoist/solipsist must abandon their egoism/solipsism in order to love other as other. There is no way around that. They have to allow that OTHER person they love INTO their world. Which means solipsism is thereby ruptured.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how you could compare egoists with the solipsist except to put a negative slant on Solipsism.

At the end of the day I dare assume that most egoists think that they are certain of other peoples existence, and in knowing of their existence they proceed to dominate and manipulate to appease their own ends.

If a solipsist merely argues that there is a limit to what we can truly know for certain and that the objectivity of the universe is not self-evident, then it is evident to me that this is just the truth; the denial of which speaks more to the fact that we have a tendency to accept the world to which we are presented. I agree with the solipsist on this matter, and I have never considered myself a solipsist. I get the feeling that certain facts about knowledge are being rejected out of hand here for the fear that it might conflict with a favourable belief, but this is not the true spirit of a philosopher who is truly seeking the truth and not just simply seeking that which pleases their ideal scenario.

But if the solipsist then went on to say that we should treat our experiences as not real objectively speaking, then the burden of proof belongs to the solipsist because we have not yet seen or heard a rational argument that supports the idea that the universe is not objectively real.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
In the time I have been posting on C.A. there has never been any mention of Solipsism. Yet in the past month or so there have suddenly appeared half a dozen of adament defenders of Solipsism. Can anyone explain the sudden appearance of this heresy? Why is in now suddenly appearing? Is this something new that has appeared in university courses? Has some Guru of Solipsism suddenly appeared on the lecture circuit on Youtube, etc.
Click to expand...
Solipsism is usually an unintended consequence of some thought processes. It’s been around for millennia. Every philosopher worth his salt has to confront it at some point.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
In the time I have been posting on C.A. there has never been any mention of Solipsism. Yet in the past month or so there have suddenly appeared half a dozen of adament defenders of Solipsism. Can anyone explain the sudden appearance of this heresy? Why is in now suddenly appearing? Is this something new that has appeared in university courses? Has some Guru of Solipsism suddenly appeared on the lecture circuit on Youtube, etc.

Pax
Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Good question since this situation should never arise at all. Why would a solipsist ever feel the need to discuss the matter with non-existing entities?
 
fhansen said:
Good question since this situation should never arise at all. Why would a solipsist ever feel the need to discuss the matter with non-existing entities?
Click to expand...
Because if you do exist, perhaps you can prove it logically?
 
blase6 said:
Logically no. The gun aimed at my head is not absolute proof that someone intends to shoot me. But for the sake of probability, I would still try to get away.
Click to expand...
It is absolute proof that you need to run. What more proof would you need?:confused:
 
ChainBreaker said:
Originally Posted by Charlemagne III
Click to expand...
It is absolute proof that you need to run. What more proof would you need?

Is it? Are you not assuming that the gun and the bullet is objective based on experiences that you assume to be objective?
Click to expand...

You may have just qualified for the Darwin Award for Least Likely to Contribute to the Gene Pool.
[/QUOTE]
 
Bahman said:
That is very simple. No change is possible in absence of consciousness.
Click to expand...
Well, that works if you suppose a completely unfounded proposition can serve as adequate proof or disproof of a reasonably certain one.

We have much LESS reason to think “No change **is possible **in the absence of consciousness” is true THAN WE HAVE to think other minds and objects exist independent of our awareness of them.

We have as much reason to think change depends upon consciousness as we do to think other minds and objects depend upon consciousness. However, when you claim change is NOT POSSIBLE without consciousness, you make that claim far less warranted than solipsism, so you cannot use it to prove solipsism.
 
ChainBreaker said:
Is it? Are you not assuming that the gun and the bullet is objective based on experiences that you assume to be objective?
Click to expand...
Then “objective” is simply rendered meaningless. Which means you have simply declared “subjective” to mean the same as “objective,” by fiat.

“Objective” simply IS “subjective,” and nothing more, if that is the case.

At that point you may as well just spend all of your time talking to yourself.
 
ChainBreaker said:
I don’t know what you mean by consciousness or how you relate consciousness to change.
Click to expand...
Consciousness is the essence of a being and grants ability to experience and affect mental states. Change happen in physicals as a result of conscious being acting on it. Think of something which is at rest.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Well, that works if you suppose a completely unfounded proposition can serve as adequate proof or disproof of a reasonably certain one.

We have much LESS reason to think “No change **is possible **in the absence of consciousness” is true THAN WE HAVE to think other minds and objects exist independent of our awareness of them.

We have as much reason to think change depends upon consciousness as we do to think other minds and objects depend upon consciousness. However, when you claim change is NOT POSSIBLE without consciousness, you make that claim far less warranted than solipsism, so you cannot use it to prove solipsism.
Click to expand...
What is left in physical reality when you realize that it has no essence/consciousness? Illusion.
 
Anybody who is struggling with solipsism can just Goggle “solipsism refuted.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top