The ontological error of Philosophy

[PeteJ]

If no one is a solipsist, then no one argues for solipsism, so what is the point to saying it is unfalsifiable? So at that point I just may have misunderstood you, but you also said "The unfalsifiability of solipsism is dependent on the inability of sensory data to determine what exists."

The statement about solipsim is true, and it is true regardless of whether anyone is a solipsist. The unfalsifiability of solipsism tells us a great deal about the world and the limits of empiricism, but I'm not aware anyone endorses it. The point is that a theory for which it is false is untestable and unverifiable. A global theory must explain its unfalsifiability but need not endorse it.

And since there is no other data, you are saying you have no way to determine what exsits.

Ah. You assume there is no other data. I assume, rather, that to determine what exists we have to transcend sensory data. This is an outcome of logic, but it's also the what we are told in the Wisdom literature. I take it you don't believe such knowledge is possible. If it is not possible then, as you say, there is no way to know what really exists as opposed to what appears. It's your assumption about the limits of knowledge that i would question, since it is unnecessary.

I felt it was rude to talk about ignorance before you had established exactly what i was proposing. The 'Principle of Charity' is important in philosophical discussions. No worries though.

[RCSaunders]

If no one is a solipsist, then no one argues for solipsism, so what is the point to saying it is unfalsifiable? So at that point I just may have misunderstood you, but you also said "The unfalsifiability of solipsism is dependent on the inability of sensory data to determine what exists."

The statement about solipsim is true, and it is true regardless of whether anyone is a solipsist. The unfalsifiability of solipsism tells us a great deal about the world and the limits of empiricism, but I'm not aware anyone endorses it. The point is that a theory for which it is false is untestable and unverifiable. A global theory must explain its unfalsifiability but need not endorse it.

And since there is no other data, you are saying you have no way to determine what exsits.

Ah. You assume there is no other data. I assume, rather, that to determine what exists we have to transcend sensory data. This is an outcome of logic, but it's also the what we are told in the Wisdom literature. I take it you don't believe such knowledge is possible. If it is not possible then, as you say, there is no way to know what really exists as opposed to what appears. It's your assumption about the limits of knowledge that i would question, since it is unnecessary.

I felt it was rude to talk about ignorance before you had established exactly what i was proposing. The 'Principle of Charity' is important in philosophical discussions. No worries though.

There is no, "mystic," knowledge. Perhaps you have not noticed, you could not read your "wisdom literature," if you could not see it.

[PeteJ]

There is no, "mystic," knowledge. Perhaps you have not noticed, you could not read your "wisdom literature," if you could not see it.

Not sure what to make of this. I think your point does not come across.

[RCSaunders]

There is no, "mystic," knowledge. Perhaps you have not noticed, you could not read your "wisdom literature," if you could not see it.

Not sure what to make of this. I think your point does not come across.

My two points are, no matter where you think your knowledge came from, it still depends on your ability to directly perceive (see, hear, feel, smell, and taste), and that whatever you read, someone had to think it up and write it down, so you are just accepting the product of someone else's thinking with no means of judging it.

[PeteJ]

There is no, "mystic," knowledge. Perhaps you have not noticed, you could not read your "wisdom literature," if you could not see it.

Not sure what to make of this. I think your point does not come across.

My two points are, no matter where you think your knowledge came from, it still depends on your ability to directly perceive (see, hear, feel, smell, and taste), and that whatever you read, someone had to think it up and write it down, so you are just accepting the product of someone else's thinking with no means of judging it.

I think you might do well to delve deeper into epistemology. The idea that sensory knowledge is all we can have is the idea that mysticism is nonsense. You may believe this, but just saying it won't make it true.

[RCSaunders]

Not sure what to make of this. I think your point does not come across.

My two points are, no matter where you think your knowledge came from, it still depends on your ability to directly perceive (see, hear, feel, smell, and taste), and that whatever you read, someone had to think it up and write it down, so you are just accepting the product of someone else's thinking with no means of judging it.

I think you might do well to delve deeper into epistemology. The idea that sensory knowledge is all we can have is the idea that mysticism is nonsense. You may believe this, but just saying it won't make it true.

Please examine these articles I have posted here on Philosophy Now that relate to epistemology.

The Nature of Consciousness

"Perception"

"The Nature of the Mind"

"Epistemology, Concepts"

"Epistemology, Propositions"

When you have read and understood them, come back and and we can discuss what you think is wrong with my views on epistemology.