The Street > The Lounge
New Random Thoughts Thread
Alex.:
Butts go poop.
LukeTom:
--- Quote from: Liam on May 26, 2015, 08:51:37 PM ---
--- Quote from: meathead on May 25, 2015, 12:31:20 PM ---often though about this , but what if no one else really exists what if im the only person who is actually real and everything else is some kind of illusion my mind has made up?
could be true :o
--- End quote ---
Then really it doesn't matter either way if the difference is imperceptible. I appreciate that this wouldn't help you, but I know your belief about your own mind is untrue, even if you don't. I know my mind exists, so I can conclude that your mind can't be the only thing in existence.
The endurance of solipsism is a perfect example of how people can get stuck on the outcome of a logical argument, even when the conclusion is relatively absurd. I feel quite happy to disregard the idea on the simple basis that there are many things in the world that I don't understand at all. If the only thing I can verify the existence of is my own thoughts, then I struggle to see how I could think up things that no amount of those same thoughts can actually comprehend. The only way for that to be possible would be if there was a duality of mind/another strata of thought. Using solipsistic reasoning, there's equally no reason to believe in the other strata of thought, as there's no way to comprehensively verify it. It's always struck me as quite self-defeating.
--- End quote ---
I do see what your saying, but it has always struck me when reading Descarts meditations is that he does not specifically care about the outcome, it is more of a line of thinking, in his first mediation he doubts everything around him, including himself, and then finally coming to the conclusion that we must exist, because of these very thoughts. I think the outcome of this thinking is neither here nor there for him, rather just the logical conclusion of his previous work. Regarding Soplipsim in general, I have always liked Bertrand Russel's view in that why would the Soliphsist every try to convince anyone else of their argument, since it does not matter if you are the only person to exist. It has always seemed to me as a moot point in philosophy with people who argue for it being answered with a 'so what?' at the logical conclusion of their argument.
To play the devils advocate regarding your idea of 'strata thought', if you start from the position of the Sophalist, who believes only his mind exists, these things which cannot be conjured up by your own mind must point to another being rather than disproving it.
Liam:
--- Quote from: LukeTom on May 27, 2015, 06:30:25 AM ---To play the devils advocate regarding your idea of 'strata thought', if you start from the position of the Sophalist, who believes only his mind exists, these things which cannot be conjured up by your own mind must point to another being rather than disproving it.
--- End quote ---
You've either just rephrased my point, or I don't understand what you're getting at here. The pointing to another being is the collapse of the solipsistic position. I'm no expert on philosophy, but I wouldn't consider Descartes to be working within the same frame as the solipsist, even if there are parallels in some of their conclusions. Descartes was working on the basis that there is a truth to an external reality, and how exactly one would go about proving it. The solipsist jumps on that train of thought and slams the brakes on.
LukeTom:
--- Quote from: Liam on May 27, 2015, 07:45:15 AM ---
--- Quote from: LukeTom on May 27, 2015, 06:30:25 AM ---To play the devils advocate regarding your idea of 'strata thought', if you start from the position of the Sophalist, who believes only his mind exists, these things which cannot be conjured up by your own mind must point to another being rather than disproving it.
--- End quote ---
You've either just rephrased my point, or I don't understand what you're getting at here. The pointing to another being is the collapse of the solipsistic position. I'm no expert on philosophy, but I wouldn't consider Descartes to be working within the same frame as the solipsist, even if there are parallels in some of their conclusions. Descartes was working on the basis that there is a truth to an external reality, and how exactly one would go about proving it. The solipsist jumps on that train of thought and slams the brakes on.
--- End quote ---
Yes, your right. It has been a while since I studied philosophy, confused between solipsism and Descarts.
Finn the Human:
Why does potato stay so hot?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version