Morality: To Wittgenstein Pure Realism is Solipsism

[Veritas Aequitas]

Many philosophical realists has great respect for Wittgenstein, however these p-realists do not realize, Wittgenstein [in the ultimate sense] do not have great respect for philosophical realism [pure realism].

I raised the thread,
Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.
viewtopic.php?t=40197

FJ could not understand the above, so to explain further;
Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic [re FJ]
viewtopic.php?t=40383

Wittgenstein understood the point and claimed;
Pure Realism [Philosophical Realism] is Solipsism.

Here is ChatGPT [with reservations]:

Q: Please explain in laymen term how Wittgenstein referred pure realism as solipsism.

ChatGPT: Wittgenstein, a philosopher, used the term "pure realism" to describe a perspective that sees the external world as entirely separate and independent from our minds or consciousness. It suggests that there is a fixed reality that exists regardless of our thoughts or experiences.

However, Wittgenstein also connected pure realism to solipsism. Solipsism is the belief that only one's own mind is certain to exist, and everything else, including other people and the external world, may be a creation of one's own consciousness. It's like being trapped in your own mind and doubting the existence of everything outside of it.

Wittgenstein saw a connection between pure realism and solipsism because both views neglect or undermine the role of language and social interactions in shaping our understanding of reality. He argued that our understanding of the world is not solely determined by an objective reality "out there," but it is deeply influenced by our shared language, culture, and interactions with others.

In other words, Wittgenstein believed that if we take a purely realistic stance, disregarding the importance of our linguistic and social practices, we risk falling into solipsism, where we isolate ourselves within our own minds and deny the existence of anything beyond our subjective experiences. He emphasized the significance of language and social context in shaping our perception of reality, challenging the notion of a detached and independent external world.

Anyone can argue ChatGPT is wrong with the above?

How is this linked to Morality?
Philosophical Realist [pure realism] insist there are no moral facts based on Philosophical Realism, BUT that is grounded on an illusion and solipsism.
As such, philosophical realists do not have a credibility to deny Morality is Objective.

ANTI-philosophicalRealism [Kantian] has solid grounds of reality to insist Morality is Objective grounded on a credible human-based Moral FSK.

Discuss. Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV
We have 'Atla' the philosophy-gnat who keep accusing me of being solipsistic while being so ignorant that he is kicking his own arse.

[FlashDangerpants]

It should be a rule when using tools such as chatgpt to share the prompt that was given and not just the answer.
This is because chatgpt just predicts text that will fulfil your request and isn't a reliable source for anything else at all.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Question to ChatGPT:
Please explain in laymen term how Wittgenstein referred pure realism as solipsism.

[Iwannaplato]

In other words, Wittgenstein believed that if we take a purely realistic stance, disregarding the importance of our linguistic and social practices, we risk falling into solipsism, where we isolate ourselves within our own minds and deny the existence of anything beyond our subjective experiences.

Anyone can argue ChatGPT is wrong with the above?

Sure, that's easy. It's easy to point out the silliness of Chatgpt's argument. Look at that sentence above. Then remember that Realism asssumes or asserts a mind independent reality. Right???????

That's what you, VA, are always saying is absurd about Realism.

Well, if realists think there is a mind-independent reality and we can know about it, then they cannot possibly be solipsists. Because solipsists believe there is only their mind.

It is utterly contradictory and silly what Chatgpt wrote.

Solipsism is a kind of antirealism, in part because it denies the existence of a mind-independent reality including other minds. It's not the same anti realism that VA asserts, but it is an antirealism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

From another Q&A

What is solipsism according to Wittgenstein?
' In its most general sense, solipsism is the doctrine that reality is in some sense limited or restricted in virtue of its unique relation to oneself. The nearest the Tractatus comes to defining 'solipsism' is its statement, "The world is my world" (TLP 5.62).

[Iwannaplato]

From another Q&A

What is solipsism according to Wittgenstein?
' In its most general sense, solipsism is the doctrine that reality is in some sense limited or restricted in virtue of its unique relation to oneself. The nearest the Tractatus comes to defining 'solipsism' is its statement, "The world is my world" (TLP 5.62).

If you think that's a response to my post, you are incorrect.
Further it is not clear at all what you are saying Wittgenstein believed solipsism was from your post here.
If he meant something very different from the general philosophical meaning, then really the whole thread is moot in relation to your ongoing battle with realists.

And Wittgenstein was neither realist nor antirealist.

And beyond that, Wittgensteins philosophy changed radically after the Tractatus, though goodness knows what your post here is asserting.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well, if realists think there is a mind-independent reality and we can know about it, then they cannot possibly be solipsists. Because solipsists believe there is only their mind.

Well, if a p-realist think [with his mind] there is a mind-independent reality and he cannot know about it directly,
so he believe only his mind exists,
Because solipsists believe there is only their mind.
therefore, a p-realist is a solipsist.
QED.

[FlashDangerpants]

Question to ChatGPT:
Please explain in laymen term how Wittgenstein referred pure realism as solipsism.

You wrote "how" not "if". GPT took that instruction to generate a text showing how not if, it's a very literalist platform and would absolutely lie to achieve the mission you set for it rather than correct you.

But what doe sit matter? This comes from the Tractatus and with your exquisite Wittgenstein scholarship you would normally dismiss that as pre-modern cro-magnon W

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have interacted with ChatGPT with many questions.
ChatGPT will respond with what is available in the internet up to Sept 2019.
Where I happened to ask what is not in accordance to what ChatGPT is fed with, it will inform accordingly.

Of course we need to take ChatGPT with reservations and confirm what is stated to the direct sources.

In this question there is no if, it is a fact Wittgenstein did refer "pure realism as solipsism" as I had read in many articles elsewhere.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, if realists think there is a mind-independent reality and we can know about it, then they cannot possibly be solipsists. Because solipsists believe there is only their mind.

Well, if a p-realist think [with his mind] there is a mind-independent reality and he cannot know about it directly,
so he believe only his mind exists,

Really basic fallacious conclusion.

Because solipsists believe there is only their mind.
therefore, a p-realist is a solipsist.
QED.

That makes no sense at all.
Solipsists believe there is only their mind.
REalists believe that is utterly false.
One reason, is the painfully obvious fact that realist believe, according to you (and you are correct on this, that there is a mind independent reality.

Do you have anyone in your life you can show these arguments to who you respect? Please do if you can.

Adding QED is pretentiously meaningless.

It's like giving yourself a grade.

[Iwannaplato]

I have interacted with ChatGPT with many questions.
ChatGPT will respond with what is available in the internet up to Sept 2019.
Where I happened to ask what is not in accordance to what ChatGPT is fed with, it will inform accordingly.

Of course we need to take ChatGPT with reservations and confirm what is stated to the direct sources.

In this question there is no if, it is a fact Wittgenstein did refer "pure realism as solipsism" as I had read in many articles elsewhere.

Well, then quote those articles.
What you don't understand was that the Wittgenstein who connected solipsism with realism was not doing this in any way at all as an antirealist.

He didn't believe in the self!!!

So all there was, was world.

He was a unique thinker, or really thinkers since he had different opinions over time. But he is not talking about solipsism the way realists or philsophers or even antirealists do.

You google around looking for support for your opinions, then post fallacious arguments based on limited understanding of the people you quote.

And let's be clear, the whole of the thread is an appeal to authority. But it's again a very very weak one, even of that.

Pluck things out of context...jeez.

Then when it's pointed out that your defense is to shift the definition of solipsism without acknowledging there's any problem with the way YOU have been using the term up until now.

This is disingenuous sophisty.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well, if a p-realist think [with his mind] there is a mind-independent reality and he cannot know about it directly,
so he believe, directly, only his mind exists,
Because solipsists believe, directly, there is only their mind.
therefore, a p-realist is a solipsist.
QED.

I don't see what is wrong with the above argument?
It has to be understood with deeper reflective thinking which p-realists are not capable of.

P-realists are clinging to an evolutionary default and driven with terrible pains of cognitive dissonances from an existential crisis will cling to an illusion to soothe the pains.
Then their defense mechanisms will do whatever it take to protect that state of being soothed with all sorts of defenses including irrational arguments.
The inability to understand the above argument is simply one crude defense.

[Flannel Jesus]

It would be much more convincing if you could quote Wittgenstein, or other respected human philosophers who professionally understand Wittgenstein, instead of what you've done with ChatGPT. ChatGPT will just try to do what you asked it to do, whether it's correct or incorrect. ChatGPT lies quite a lot. I really don't care that you got ChatGPT to write some arguments for you.

But also, so what if some long dead thinker agreed with you about one issue? That doesn't make you both right. Most philosophers, no matter how great their thinking was, must necessarily be wrong about most things.

Also, what Wittgenstein meant by "solipsism" is itself debatable. Here's an article that gives an interpretation of it that's not in line with what most people think when they read "solipsism": https://bethlaceyswingler.medium.com/wa ... 10b5d773e1

If you want to find out if someone is a solipsist, just ask them.

[FlashDangerpants]

It would be much more convincing if you could quote Wittgenstein, or other respected human philosophers who professionally understand Wittgenstein, instead of what you've done with ChatGPT. ChatGPT will just try to do what you asked it to do, whether it's correct or incorrect. ChatGPT lies quite a lot. I really don't care that you got ChatGPT to write some arguments for you.

The worst thing is when he begs cGPT to tell him one of his flaky syllogisms is valid. It has no way of telling, it isn't intelligent in that way. So using it to write arguments for you is probably less bad than using it to underrstand them for you.