Solipsism

[Hexen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Although Solipsism may be a concept that is difficult to comprehend but it basicly means
that for an example that I'm the only concensious being to exist in this entire world and eveyone else I see are just projections that really do not exist....

thoughts?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I dig solipsism. It's a concept that really can't possibly be proven wrong, since it denies the reality of the whole physical world.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dr R:


I dig solipsism. It's a concept that really can't possibly be proven wrong, since it denies the reality of the whole physical world.

Why bother telling us if only you exist? [Why not just mumble it to yourself?]

The fact that you feel constrained to do so here suggests that not even you believe this whacko 'theory'.

And if you reply to this comment of mine, your commitment to this 'theory' will simply take yet another blow.

[After all, who are you replying to? Yourself?]

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Very good rebuttle. But just because we function in the nonexisten world doesnt mean we believe in it. ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Power:


But just because we function in the nonexisten world doesnt mean we believe in it.

Clearly, your post suggests the opposite.

And who is this 'we'?

Can there be more than one solipsist?

[La Comédie Noire]

This would totally make the point of being a socialist moot. Why help anyone else if their suffering is only "perceived" :wacko:

Class struggle is also imaginary.

You'd also be an asshole for imagining Capitalism.

[Hexen]

Here's another scenerio that I have in mind....

Do you people think that Almost Every World Leader (if not all) that ever existed in history happen to be Soliphists themselves? You know, that could explain why their power hungry bastards in the first place don't you think? My point is that Solipsism can also be used (or corrputed) as a excuse for whoever totalitarian powers that may be to opress the masses...

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 03, 2007 11:05 pm
Power:


But just because we function in the nonexisten world doesnt mean we believe in it.

Clearly, your post suggests the opposite.

And who is this 'we'?

Can there be more than one solipsist?
Did you not get that I was being fuckin sarcastic! Did you not get that shit? I know its bullshit. Damn. Fuck. Shit. Beer.

[Lamanov]

Solipsism is by far the most retarded thought/philosophy I have ever encountered.

Through its logic, the only non-hypocritical thing for every "solo ipsis" person to do is to say "I don't want to 'live' in a lie" and, of course, kill themself.

Oh, but you always have that "suicide is a sin" buffer. :lol: That's why Solipsism usually attracts believers in Diety and Creation.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:35 pm
thoughts?
No.

Acording to Descartes,

Cogito, ergo sum.

Which obviously means that if I don't exist, I don't think.

So, no thoughts.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:28 pm
Do you people think that Almost Every World Leader (if not all) that ever existed in history happen to be Soliphists themselves?
No. They quite clearly believed in the reality of the external world. Otherwise, why would the strive for power in such world?

Solipsism is incompatible with any human activity...

Luís Henrique

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 03, 2007 06:34 pm
Dr R:


I dig solipsism. It's a concept that really can't possibly be proven wrong, since it denies the reality of the whole physical world.

Why bother telling us if only you exist? [Why not just mumble it to yourself?]

The fact that you feel constrained to do so here suggests that not even you believe this whacko 'theory'.

And if you reply to this comment of mine, your commitment to this 'theory' will simply take yet another blow.

[After all, who are you replying to? Yourself?]
Well, I'm not conscious that everything that I sense is a figment of my conscience. My imagination is very convincing. =D

Or perhaps I can come to terms with this fact, and still choose to interact the world, i.e. the projections of my mind.

Yeah, I'm replying to myself.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+February 03, 2007 10:19 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ February 03, 2007 10:19 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 08:35 pm
thoughts?
No.

Acording to Descartes,

Cogito, ergo sum.

Which obviously means that if I don't exist, I don't think.

So, no thoughts.

Luís Henrique [/b]
Luís Henrique is clearly a figment of my imagination.

[rouchambeau]

Yeah, it's possible and cannot really be refuted. But who cares? Why should anyone believe such a thing?

[Red Menace]

creepy. In my mind, I've often wondered if I were really the only one that existed. That everyone and everything on this planet was put here to blind me from the truth. I don't really believe it, but the thought always existed in the back of my head. I didn't know it was an actual theory

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 04, 2007 02:17 am
Luís Henrique is clearly a figment of my imagination.
You should stop eating feijoada before going to bed; it is obviously giving you nightmares. :P

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

POW:


Did you not get that I was being fuckin sarcastic! Did you not get that shit? I know its bullshit. Damn. Fuck. Shit. Beer.

Apologies, but your 'sarcasm' was a little too well disguised.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DR R:


Well, I'm not conscious that everything that I sense is a figment of my conscience. My imagination is very convincing.

Who are you bothering to tell?

As I predicted, your attempt to convince us all that only you exist is not helped by trying to convince us.


Yeah, I'm replying to myself.

But why say this even?

And the way you talk also suggests you think that your 'conscience' (I suspect you mean your 'consciousness' -- whatever that is) is a separate being from you.

So, you are not alone -- you and your 'imagination' exist side by side -- one is rather clever (the latter), the other is easily fooled (you).

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 04, 2007 01:24 pm
But why say this even?
He is not saying it...

He is just imagining that he is saying it! ;)

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah, but is there a difference for a solipsist between saying something and imagining you are saying something?

[Hit The North]

And anyway, he's not saying anything but typing it on his non-existent keyboard.

[Coggeh]

wow .. i think that all the time ..... scary ... 0.o

[Djehuti]

Solipsism is the ONLY logically sustainable sort of subjective idealism. And it is nuts.

According to this philosophy nothing else that my own consciousness exists. Not yours stupid - you are barely a construction of my mind. Nothing exists outside my skull, well, not even the skull actually. Everything that has existed before my consciousness, everything that exists outside of it, everything that should exist after it, are only my private fantasies. Auch! Did you hit me? Don't think that you proved anything by that. You are an imagination and my nose blood is an imagination. Even the nose is an imagination.

Idealism is a madmans philosophy; and this becomes clear when it is stripped by the word-curtains, the misty clouds and the blown up pomp that normally masks it.

So, can we prove that the different idealisms are true or false? No - it is only logics and loyars that "proves" stuff, not science. We can only make a judgement of who's though constructions that seems the most sound. What most of all talks against idealism is actually that it "proves" to much: it can cook together an "explaination" to about everything, as when the creationists "explain" away passed billions of years with that God planted false evidence for the existance of dinosaurs and that pre-sapiens ever existed (God as a simple deceiver - talk about herecy!). But he who have to many easy-bought explainations must find himself in not being believed.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 04, 2007 10:24 am
And the way you talk also suggests you think that your 'conscience' (I suspect you mean your 'consciousness' -- whatever that is) is a separate being from you.

So, you are not alone -- you and your 'imagination' exist side by side -- one is rather clever (the latter), the other is easily fooled (you).
No!

My "physical being" is only a projection of my consciousness and doesn't actually exist.
My conscious mind is only a part of my consciousness and it is easily fooled.

[bretty]

One other thing to note is that you could critique this idea by the use of a solipsists language. By using words to describe the idea such as "my" and "i" etc. it presupposes the need for you to be identified in the world that you're imagining.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dr R (now getting irate with himself -- why he is picking on me, therefore is a mystery!):


My "physical being" is only a projection of my consciousness and doesn't actually exist.

My conscious mind is only a part of my consciousness and it is easily fooled.

So much dogma -- so little proof.

But he knows this already, since, while it might look like I posted the last sentence, in fact Dr R is merely pointing this out to himself: how weak his own 'theory' really is.

He might now like to tell me what I will say next -- he must know, for it is he, not I, who will say it.

[JimFar]

Rosa,

Maybe Dr. R is simply a guy who likes to talk to himself. :D

[bretty]

Two things that I'd ask Dr.

1. Why do you use the word 'my'? Whats the need for an identifier if you know your the only thing that exists?

2. What is your conscious mind fooled by? You say it is easily fooled but if your consciousness is all that exists then how do you fool yourself?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 04, 2007 02:28 pm
Ah, but is there a difference for a solipsist between saying something and imagining you are saying something?
Of course not, but, then there isn't any difference, for a solipsist, between imagining they are saying something and not imagining they are saying something. Or imagining they aren't saying something for what is worth.

It's all on their imagination!

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 04, 2007 06:13 pm
Dr R (now getting irate with himself -- why he is picking on me, therefore is a mystery!):
Oh, Rosa, you are just anxious that we all discovered that you don't exist, but are just a figment of my imagination.

And he is pickin on you because he is jealous that you are a figment of my imagination, and not of his.


So much dogma -- so little proof.

He doesn't need any proof - being the only real entity in the world, he knows that any alternative views to his own are just figments of his imagination. While he imagines that we are just figments of his imagination, he also imagines that he isn't.

Time given, hair will grow in the palm of his hands, but, this, also, will be just his imagination.


But he knows this already, since, while it might look like I posted the last sentence, in fact Dr R is merely pointing this out to himself: how weak his own 'theory' really is.

Of course. He is imagining that his theory is weak; what else a solipsist could do, except imagine that there is a real world out there?


He might now like to tell me what I will say next -- he must know, for it is he, not I, who will say it.

Ah, no. I am a figment of his imagination, but you are a figment of my imagination; so, he cannot directly imagine what you are going to say, but he must imagine what I am going to imagine that that you are going to say. So, he just needs to imagine that I am liar, in order to justify any wrong answer he may give...

Luís Henrique

[disclaimer] Anything in the above post is merely a figment of Rosenpennis' imagination. So any complaints about its content should be directed to him, not to me.

[to Dr. Rosenpennis] Really, sir, this time you let your imagination to go out of control!

[Luís Henrique]

Dr. Rosenpennis, can you now imagine, for some minutes, that I am having wild sex with Nastassia Kinsky?

Thanks in anticipation.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim:


Maybe Dr. R is simply a guy who likes to talk to himself.

According to Dr R he is a split personality -- one half is as gullible as hell, the other mendacious in the extreme.

Do not go down a dark alley with him -- ever.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Dr. Rosenpennis, can you now imagine, for some minutes, that I am having wild sex with Nastassia Kinsky?

If you think that will get you off with Natasha K, I suspect you are in for a rude awakening.

Given the way Dr R's mind works, you will probaly find yourself shacked up with Golda Meir for eternity.

Remember, the whole of reality is controlled by his mendacious alter-ego (his 'imagination').

Upset that, and you are screwed for good (or in your case, never screwed again).

By the way, I write this from a distant ice planet dressed only in a paper hanky.

That'll teach me to be smart....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Oh, Rosa, you are just anxious that we all discovered that you don't exist, but are just a figment of my imagination.

Unfortunately for you and the ruling-class, I have just adopted this great theory, and I now exist again.

No smart remarks or you will find yourself turned into Geroge W's jock strap.

Why I am telling you load of nothings this, I cannot fathom, but just watch it, that's all.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 04, 2007 09:59 pm
Given the way Dr R's mind works, you will probaly find yourself shacked up with Golda Meir for eternity.
Then I will close my eyes and imagine he is imagining Nastassia instead of Golda anyway...

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 04, 2007 10:02 pm
Unfortunately for you and the ruling-class, I have just adopted this great theory, and I now exist again.
Yes, I imagine so...

Luís Henrique

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 04, 2007 07:47 pm
Yes, I imagine
prove it

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 04, 2007 03:13 pm
So much dogma -- so little proof.

But he knows this already, since, while it might look like I posted the last sentence, in fact Dr R is merely pointing this out to himself: how weak his own 'theory' really is.

He might now like to tell me what I will say next -- he must know, for it is he, not I, who will say it.
How can you prove that you exist?
I sense (the words you typed and are now on my screen) your presence, and as far as I know, and as we all know, what we sense isn't necessarily reality... it could just all be a dream, a hallucination, a projection of my consciousness. There is no concrete evidence that concrete evidence is concrete, is basically what I'm saying.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 04, 2007 06:53 pm
Jim:


Maybe Dr. R is simply a guy who likes to talk to himself.

According to Dr R he is a split personality -- one half is as gullible as hell, the other mendacious in the extreme.

Do not go down a dark alley with him -- ever.
I don't have a "split personality". I have, like everyone, a conscious and an unconscious part of my mind.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Structural-Iceberg.svg/496px-Structural-Iceberg.svg.png

[bretty]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+February 05, 2007 12:58 am--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ February 05, 2007 12:58 am)
Rosa [email protected] 04, 2007 03:13 pm
So much dogma -- so little proof.

But he knows this already, since, while it might look like I posted the last sentence, in fact Dr R is merely pointing this out to himself: how weak his own 'theory' really is.

He might now like to tell me what I will say next -- he must know, for it is he, not I, who will say it.
How can you prove that you exist?
I sense (the words you typed and are now on my screen) your presence, and as far as I know, and as we all know, what we sense isn't necessarily reality... it could just all be a dream, a hallucination, a projection of my consciousness. There is no concrete evidence that concrete evidence is concrete, is basically what I'm saying. [/b]
What's your justification for your skepticism of concrete evidence?

And further on that note couldn't someone say that there is no concrete evidence that concrete evidence is not concrete?

Your argument seems circular.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

I have one question (note sarcasm, Rosa):

What if the only thing that truly exists is your subconscious mind and that is where your imagination lies? You couldnt controll your imaginations because it would be in your subconscious mind therefore this could be all a vivid dream.

You fuckers better hope I dont wake up or it could be the end of existence as you all know it.

[La Comédie Noire]

I don't have a "split personality". I have, like everyone, a conscious and an unconscious part of my mind.

I would'nt use Freud's conception of personality. Considering he thought of the id, ego, and super ego as biological drives. But thats forgivable on his part since Behaviourism did'nt come around for another 20 years.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 11:11 pm
And further on that note couldn't someone say that there is no concrete evidence that concrete evidence is not concrete?


Your argument seems circular.
No, actually it's your argument that is logically fallacious. You cannot assert that something exists because its inexistence cannot be proven.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dr R:


How can you prove that you exist?

Well, the issue is whether only you exist.

That you have merely assumed, or you have been bullied into accepting by that alter-ego of yours. You need to stop whimping out, and show it who is the boss.

Either way, we need the proof.

Of course, if you are right, you (or your bossy 'imagination') will merely be proving it to yourself (itself).

If you are wrong, then you won't, I am sure, have any objection to communicating your apologies to the rest of us.

Accepted in advance....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dr R:


it could just all be a dream, a hallucination, a projection of my consciousness. There is no concrete evidence that concrete evidence is concrete, is basically what I'm saying.

No, this is an old canard.

If you know how to apply the word 'dream', you are not dreaming.

On the other hand, if you do not how to apply it, you are in position to judge either way.

Alternatively, if you are using this word in a new sense, then you need to explain that sense to us.

In which case, your comments above will not apertain to the word 'dream', but to your idiosyncratic, substitute word.

Moreover, if you know what words like ‘concrete’ and ‘evidence’ mean, then I need explain no more to you. If you do not, then the above argument kicks in once more.

Now, since it is you who have just imagined all this, and the above is an unassailable argument, which you (not me) have just invented, I must congratulate you on your faultless logic – which you now have to accept, because it is yours, not mine.

[I wish I had thought of that; sh*t!]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dr R:


I don't have a "split personality". I have, like everyone, a conscious and an unconscious part of my mind.

Says who?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 05, 2007 01:21 am
I have, like everyone, a conscious and an unconscious part of my mind.
God, are you admitting that someone else exists?!

Luís Henrique

[rouchambeau]

This thread is an awesome example of what philosophy should not be.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The world that I have thought up out of absolutely nothing, and in which other people exist (albeit only in concept, not in reality), has its own realities. I suppose that my real mind (the one that's projecting our "reality") really is nothing like the "minds" of the "people" in my "dream". So I guess that my use of Freud's analyses was mistaken. I really have no idea how my own consciousness functions. Proving otherwise would purely involve guessing based on "material reality".

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 05, 2007 08:34 am
Dr R:


I don't have a "split personality". I have, like everyone, a conscious and an unconscious part of my mind.

Says who?
Good point. See above.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:27 pm
This thread is an awesome example of what philosophy should not be.
I'm not an idealist. I'm just thinking hypothetically.

[bretty]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+February 05, 2007 07:14 am--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ February 05, 2007 07:14 am)
[email protected] 04, 2007 11:11 pm
And further on that note couldn't someone say that there is no concrete evidence that concrete evidence is not concrete?


Your argument seems circular.
No, actually it's your argument that is logically fallacious. You cannot assert that something exists because its inexistence cannot be proven. [/b]
That makes no sense, I'm not doing that at all.

My question was: Whats your justification for your skepticism?

Why do you feel justified in saying "there is no concrete evidence that concrete evidence is concrete?" while when I say "there is no concrete evidence that concrete evidence is not concrete?" you say it's logically fallacious.

In my argument at least I have empirical evidence to justify my position.

Your position comes from thin air.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The imaginary Dr R:


The world that I have thought up out of absolutely nothing, and in which other people exist (albeit only in concept, not in reality), has its own realities. I suppose that my real mind (the one that's projecting our "reality") really is nothing like the "minds" of the "people" in my "dream". So I guess that my use of Freud's analyses was mistaken. I really have no idea how my own consciousness functions. Proving otherwise would purely involve guessing based on "material reality".

Eh?


Good point. See above.

I did 'see above', that's why I asked; 'says who?'.

No good blaming your idea of Freud....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty, Dr R is extracting the urine!

Hence, the semi-serious nature of this thread.

[bretty]

Agreed.

[gilhyle]

Just for the record Freud did not think that the id ego and superego were all biological drives, this explanation conflates his two main models of the mind.

Solipsism is closely related to to scepticism - the basis of all philosophy - and phenomenology.

Marx's major mature work of philosophyical criticism was an attack on a form of anarchistic solipsism : Max Stirner.

If solipsism is true, it is quite trivial, consequently it is best treated as false.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


If solipsism is true, it is quite trivial, consequently it is best treated as false.

And yet, how could it be (even trivially) true if it is based on a gross doitortion of language?

We can, 150 years later, surely move way beyond Marx, and show that all forms of scepticism are bogus (not false -- they do not even make it that far), and indeed all of (traditional) philosophy is just a ruling-class con.

[rouchambeau]

D R:
I'm not an idealist.
Being an idealist does not mean that you believe all that exists is a figment of your/our immagination. Being an idealist simply means believing that the nature of reality is consistant with the mind.


I'm just thinking hypothetically.

Great. Do it in chit chat or something.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Roucambeau, quite apart from your 'definition' (or rather, loose characterisation) of idealism not making much sense, from what little I can glean from it, I rather think there is more to idealism than this.

Dr R is an idealist since he seems to believe that to think hypothetically means one can screw around with language, derive a few counter-intuitive results, and then project these misbegotten conclusions onto reality as a consequence, declaring what might (or must) be true a priori, for all of reality (in this case, his own little world) for all of time -- even if only hypothetically.

Ruling-class thinkers have been doing this sort of thing (in the west) since at least the days of Thales.

Not that Dr R is a ruling-class theorist (far from it!), but this approach to theory (even to hypotheses) is just one part of the ruling ideas Marx spoke of, and which, because of the influence of Hegel, mediated by Engels, Lenin and co, have infected radical thought from top to bottom since -- so much so that comrades (even at RevLeft) slip into it without giving it the slighest thought.

It all seems quite natural and 'philosophical', when it is little more than empty word-juggling, and based, too, on the idea that there is a hidden theoretical structure to reality accessible to thought alone, supplying the one indulging in it with theses that seem eminently 'self-evident' (so much so it is hard to see where they go wrong) --, implying that reality is mind.

[There's your Idealism.]

The solution is, of course, for consistent materialists to expose this fraud for what it is, and help bring it to a close.

Hence my project.

[gilhyle]

I must admit I dont think we can show that scepticism is an abuse of language. Scepticism supports a correct point - nothing can be known without residual doubt.

As a society we can move beyond the influence of scepticism - which has significance historically as a gateway to fundamental shifts in dominant ideologies. Historically its role has been progressive.

Of course to take scepticism seriously as a hypothesis is quite unlikely as a way of life - although idealism is often taken seriously.

But it is always possible to construct a form of scepticism - or for that matter an hypothesis of a God - that is so structured that it cannot be disproven. But the way that is done is to design such hypotheses so that they have no practical consequences - consequently trivial.

Where I have a problem is if we say to someone who articulates a solipsistic hypothesis, that it is inconsistent for them to ARTICULATE the hypothesis if they believe they are alone. It seems to me perfectly logical that if I believe that I inhabit an imaginary world of my own creation that I would continue to be willing to speak to and interact with my imagined creations and even seek to influence them by argument.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

If I can summon up the enthusiasm, I will explain it to you one day.

[Everyday Anarchy]

I think therefore I am. I personally know that I exist, however all of you... I don't know that you think therefore I don't know that you exist. Just as I don't believe in a god because the idea of a god is silly, I think the idea of others being able to think (thus existing) is just as silly.

Why am I talking to myself here? Why does it matter? I talk to myself because I want to. It makes no difference. Saying that I'm talking to myself doesn't prove your existence.

Why do I feel pain? Because I want to. Sure, when I feel pain I want it to stop, but my subconscious mind isn't there to serve the conscious. Plus, pain keeps me from being bored.

Why do I use words like "my" or "I"? That's a stupid question. I use those words because I feel like it.

Why am I bothering to explain all this? Once again... because I want to. I'm not doing it out of any obligation to convince anyone. I want to do something and at this moment, I want to talk about this.


Should I just kill myself? Fuck that. Death isn't real. Who says I'm going to die? You? Hah. Like anything my imagination says is a universal truth. The only times I've seen "death" is when it happens to others. And I guess it happens because my mind got tired of a certain persona or to keep the action going.
Hell, even if I could kill myself, why would I do that? If death really is something that will happen to me then why should I bother speeding up the process? I might as well screw around here then die rather then just die... that'd be boring.




Blah. I don't really believe in solipsism. Let me rephrase that, I don't really want to believe in solipsism. Ignorance truly can be bliss.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by bretty+February 05, 2007 04:58 pm--> (bretty @ February 05, 2007 04:58 pm)
Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 05, 2007 07:14 am

[email protected] 04, 2007 11:11 pm
And further on that note couldn't someone say that there is no concrete evidence that concrete evidence is not concrete?


Your argument seems circular.
No, actually it's your argument that is logically fallacious. You cannot assert that something exists because its inexistence cannot be proven.
That makes no sense, I'm not doing that at all.

My question was: Whats your justification for your skepticism?

Why do you feel justified in saying "there is no concrete evidence that concrete evidence is concrete?" while when I say "there is no concrete evidence that concrete evidence is not concrete?" you say it's logically fallacious.

In my argument at least I have empirical evidence to justify my position.

Your position comes from thin air. [/b]
The real question is why should I trust what I sense? Because there is no answer, I don't.

It's actually "your" position that comes from thin air.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:12 pm
D R:
I'm not an idealist.
Being an idealist does not mean that you believe all that exists is a figment of your/our immagination. Being an idealist simply means believing that the nature of reality is consistant with the mind.
I understand, but solipsism is an idealist phylosophy to which I don't subscribe. That was my point. I'm just entertaining the thought.

[EwokUtopia]

If Solipsism is true, then I invented it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 05, 2007 05:04 pm
The imaginary Dr R:


The world that I have thought up out of absolutely nothing, and in which other people exist (albeit only in concept, not in reality), has its own realities. I suppose that my real mind (the one that's projecting our "reality") really is nothing like the "minds" of the "people" in my "dream". So I guess that my use of Freud's analyses was mistaken. I really have no idea how my own consciousness functions. Proving otherwise would purely involve guessing based on "material reality".

Eh?


Good point. See above.

I did 'see above', that's why I asked; 'says who?'.

No good blaming your idea of Freud....
I was saying that I can only identify my consciousness, but cannot define its intricacies, because everything else that I "know" is a mere illusion. So I was admitting that Freud's model is only applicable to imaginary minds, which mine is not.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 06, 2007 10:43 pm
If I can summon up the enthusiasm, I will explain it to you one day.
Do try - since there seems to be some interest in the topic : but the relationship between how doubt is formulated and how knowing is formulated and their supposedly common ground (which I suspect is the kind of territory you might articulate) has never worked for me - not that I have any sympthy for scepticism except as an historically progressive moment in the history of ideas (on at least two occasions). Its just that you and I come at this from different ways of rejecting philosophy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DR R:


So I was admitting that Freud's model is only applicable to imaginary minds, which mine is not.

I have grown tired of 'discussing' this with myself, so I have banished all you mental sprites to oblivion.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Do try

I honestly cannot summon up the will to do it -- and no I would not tackle it al la cliche of 'On Certainty'.

As always, I take from W what I need, and push it much, much further.

[And the interest here seems rather un-serious; that is why most of my stuff is in the same vein.]

[bretty]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+February 07, 2007 12:42 am--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ February 07, 2007 12:42 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 04:58 pm

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 05, 2007 07:14 am

[email protected] 04, 2007 11:11 pm
And further on that note couldn't someone say that there is no concrete evidence that concrete evidence is not concrete?


Your argument seems circular.
No, actually it's your argument that is logically fallacious. You cannot assert that something exists because its inexistence cannot be proven.
That makes no sense, I'm not doing that at all.

My question was: Whats your justification for your skepticism?

Why do you feel justified in saying "there is no concrete evidence that concrete evidence is concrete?" while when I say "there is no concrete evidence that concrete evidence is not concrete?" you say it's logically fallacious.

In my argument at least I have empirical evidence to justify my position.

Your position comes from thin air.
The real question is why should I trust what I sense? Because there is no answer, I don't.

It's actually "your" position that comes from thin air. [/b]
So your saying you don't trust your senses when you need eyesight or when you need touch or hearing? Come on, your way beyond a healthy form of skepticism.

What is your evidence for not trusting your senses? It's easy to say you don't trust them but you do it all the time and they seem to be consistently right. So explain to us what your justification is for asking the question, "can I trust my senses?".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty, when people use the phrase 'tusting my senses' they are treating their senses like their friends (or like advice they are given, or like reports in a newspaper, etc.).

More anthropomorphism, more fetishism....

So, you should rather be asking them why they are treating their senses like people/reports/advice.

In short, one can only trust/fail to trust one's senses if one has a rather odd set of beliefs about one's own body.

They'll be telling their senses off next, or reporting them to the 'authorities' for lying -- or, alternatively, recommending them for an award for telling the truth!

A set of confusions that is par for the course in traditional thought, I'd say!

[Notice how W's method lets all the hot air out of metaphysics, and engages it on an entirely new level by taking the words metaphysicians use and exposing the nonsense they contain?]

[bretty]

I agree with that Rosa. That is why I simply pointed out that the question has no reason to be asked because it is 'nonsense'.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by bretty+February 07, 2007 08:57 pm--> (bretty @ February 07, 2007 08:57 pm)
Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 07, 2007 12:42 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 04:58 pm

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 05, 2007 07:14 am

[email protected] 04, 2007 11:11 pm
And further on that note couldn't someone say that there is no concrete evidence that concrete evidence is not concrete?


Your argument seems circular.
No, actually it's your argument that is logically fallacious. You cannot assert that something exists because its inexistence cannot be proven.
That makes no sense, I'm not doing that at all.

My question was: Whats your justification for your skepticism?

Why do you feel justified in saying "there is no concrete evidence that concrete evidence is concrete?" while when I say "there is no concrete evidence that concrete evidence is not concrete?" you say it's logically fallacious.

In my argument at least I have empirical evidence to justify my position.

Your position comes from thin air.
The real question is why should I trust what I sense? Because there is no answer, I don't.

It's actually "your" position that comes from thin air.
So your saying you don't trust your senses when you need eyesight or when you need touch or hearing? Come on, your way beyond a healthy form of skepticism.

What is your evidence for not trusting your senses? It's easy to say you don't trust them but you do it all the time and they seem to be consistently right. So explain to us what your justification is for asking the question, "can I trust my senses?". [/b]
Have you ever done acid?

Anyways, there is nothing empirically true about the things we see, hear, etc. And I say "we" with skepticism, since I don't know if you actually exist. Or my computer, for that matter.

[bretty]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+February 08, 2007 12:25 pm--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ February 08, 2007 12:25 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 08:57 pm

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 07, 2007 12:42 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 04:58 pm

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 05, 2007 07:14 am

[email protected] 04, 2007 11:11 pm
And further on that note couldn't someone say that there is no concrete evidence that concrete evidence is not concrete?


Your argument seems circular.
No, actually it's your argument that is logically fallacious. You cannot assert that something exists because its inexistence cannot be proven.
That makes no sense, I'm not doing that at all.

My question was: Whats your justification for your skepticism?

Why do you feel justified in saying "there is no concrete evidence that concrete evidence is concrete?" while when I say "there is no concrete evidence that concrete evidence is not concrete?" you say it's logically fallacious.

In my argument at least I have empirical evidence to justify my position.

Your position comes from thin air.
The real question is why should I trust what I sense? Because there is no answer, I don't.

It's actually "your" position that comes from thin air.
So your saying you don't trust your senses when you need eyesight or when you need touch or hearing? Come on, your way beyond a healthy form of skepticism.

What is your evidence for not trusting your senses? It's easy to say you don't trust them but you do it all the time and they seem to be consistently right. So explain to us what your justification is for asking the question, "can I trust my senses?".
Have you ever done acid?

Anyways, there is nothing empirically true about the things we see, hear, etc. And I say "we" with skepticism, since I don't know if you actually exist. Or my computer, for that matter. [/b]
What do you mean empirically true?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What people sense, or what you sense, (which would obviusly include your perception of what others sense) cannot be proclaimed as objective and real. People "see" things all the time. People hallucinate, dream, etc. all the time. There is no logic in asserting that everything that we sense is absolute fact just because what you sense as other people appear to agree. Objectively speaking, objectivity doesn't exist.

[bretty]

Well I wouldn't of defined that as "empirically true" because empiricism is your sense experience, so the point of it is that your senses ARE true.

Why do you say it can't be real or objective? What IS real for you then? What is the objective world then, and if you believe there is no objective world then why? Whats your evidence to suggest this theory?

Are you not making the very assumption you criticize by supposing it is not objective?

So what is your consistent evidence to conclude that you can't rely on your senses? Even though you do all the time, every moment of the day.

I used to hold an opinion like this one until I realized it was rediculous.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

So what is your consistent evidence to conclude that you can't rely on your senses?

You don't understand. There is no consistent evidence as to why I should trust them. Other than everyone appears to. Couldn't this just be an illusion? The existence of doubts nullifies any assertion that everything that we sense is empirical evidence.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 09, 2007 12:51 am
Objectively speaking, objectivity doesn't exist.
Let us say that is true....what is the resulting position?

Only that subjectively, objectivity does exist.....so, we started off with the objective world and the subjective world and certainty and having gone through the fire of scepticism we end up with ....the objective world, the subjective world and the absence of certainty.

Now lets go back and check: did we actually really think we had certainty concerning our picture of the objective world before these sceptical gymnastics: no we didnt. Few people are arrogant enough to think their view of the objective world is certain or final. So what has the sceptical turn achieved:nothing except punching some paper tigers.

[bretty]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 09, 2007 05:54 pm

So what is your consistent evidence to conclude that you can't rely on your senses?

You don't understand. There is no consistent evidence as to why I should trust them. Other than everyone appears to. Couldn't this just be an illusion? The existence of doubts nullifies any assertion that everything that we sense is empirical evidence.
Is it not true that empirical evidence is sense? So how can you doubt what you sense is empirical evidence?

Your senses help you in your everydayness so is that not consistent evidence to justify believing what you sense? [this makes no sense in itself because your sense is a part of you, it's rediculous to assert you need to believe your senses].

Whats the evidence to suppose the opposite?

Why couldn't you also say that your doubt is an illusion? an abstract thought with no concreteness? It is a slippery slope of radical skepticism.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Okay, forgive my use of "empirical" for just a moment. I was using it to mean factual, udeniable, true, etc.

The fact that doubts exist about the reality of what one senses, nullifies what one senses as reality.The doubt is that senses are not objective. If we cannot trust them to be objective all of the time, how can we trust them to be objective at all? Or even exist?

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 10, 2007 12:48 am
The doubt is that senses are not objective. If we cannot trust them to be objective all of the time, how can we trust them to be objective at all? Or even exist?
This is the paper tiger - who really believes today that senses provide privileged access to an objective reality; we live in a post-modernist, relativistic age where 'yea but thats just your opinion' is seen as a legitimate response to factual propositions. Six hundred years ago maybe this was an important issue - but not now.

In this society, in the culture of the late (hopefully !) imperialist period heartlands, we dont ascribe certainty to subjectivity, we ascribe inherent legitiimacy to subjective perspectives....not because they have priviledged access to reality but simply because they are the subjective perspectives of an individual agent from an imperialist society. Thats phenomenology for you.

Scepticism has no purchase because it deals with an error few make. Solipsism, on the other hand, as a form of phenomenology (phenomenology as metaphysics), is just around the corner of madness - read American Psycho.

[bretty]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 10, 2007 12:48 am
Okay, forgive my use of "empirical" for just a moment. I was using it to mean factual, udeniable, true, etc.

The fact that doubts exist about the reality of what one senses, nullifies what one senses as reality.The doubt is that senses are not objective. If we cannot trust them to be objective all of the time, how can we trust them to be objective at all? Or even exist?
So your saying that because you can doubt something it deductively negates any truth to it?

You keep saying how can we trust them.. it's not a matter of trust [like Rosa said, thats anthropomorphic language because it suggests that senses are something seperate of yourself]. (In this last paragraph I am simply critiquing your use of language, not offering a solution to the question).

Finally, you ask how do we know senses exist? Well what are you referencing when using the term 'senses' then?

And how does this question relate to the other, because in one question you ask how we can 'trust' our senses? and then go on to ask how do we even know they exist?

Do you feel that the ability to question if what you mean by 'senses' is objective or not is support enough to deny the very fact you question? I mean to say why does one question imply the other?