Arguing with a Solipsist

[Philosophy Now]

Raymond Tallis takes it upon himself to prove that you exist.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/141/Arguing_with_a_Solipsist

[Fairy]

It’s not a “someone” who is a solipsist. Solipsist is the one mind of God. ( Awareness )

The Universe is Awareness. Awareness is God. You are Awareness dreaming you are a human.

God is the only being that truly exists.

[Walker]

Raymond Tallis takes it upon himself to prove that you exist.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/141/Ar ... _Solipsist

We could go beneath the inescapably public nature of language to the mutual dependency of the ‘we’ and the ‘I’. As Martin Heidegger would put it, our individual human existence as Da-sein – ‘being-there’ – is realized through ‘being-with-others’ – Mit-sein. Social interactions constitute what I am. There is no ‘I’ without ‘we’. If there is ‘I’, there must be ‘we’.

“We,” exist only in relationship. – Jiddu Krishnamurti

Comment:
- “We,” is not restricted to oneself and another person.
- “We,” is oneself, and an object of attention.
- The object of attention can be a person, place, organic thing, inorganic thing, or a thought such as an emotion.
- A self-concept is also a thought.
- This means that because I think, I am because of the relationship with the object of thought.
- Therefore, attention upon a rosebud and not a thought about the rosebud, is also proof that, I am.
- Therefore without a thought or an object of attention, I do not exist, and neither do "we".
- With thought, memory assembles and by comparison with perception, puts order to the world.

And furthermore, what we call a relationship with a person, is largely a relationship with thoughts of that person, unless we're doin' the mess-around or something else biological.

[Fairy]

Raymond Tallis takes it upon himself to prove that you exist.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/141/Ar ... _Solipsist

We could go beneath the inescapably public nature of language to the mutual dependency of the ‘we’ and the ‘I’. As Martin Heidegger would put it, our individual human existence as Da-sein – ‘being-there’ – is realized through ‘being-with-others’ – Mit-sein. Social interactions constitute what I am. There is no ‘I’ without ‘we’. If there is ‘I’, there must be ‘we’.

“We,” exist only in relationship. – Jiddu Krishnamurti

Comment:
- “We,” is not restricted to oneself and another person.
- “We,” is oneself, and an object of attention.
- The object of attention can be a person, place, organic thing, inorganic thing, or a thought such as an emotion.
- A self-concept is also a thought.
- This means that because I think, I am because of the relationship with the object of thought.
- Therefore, attention upon a rosebud and not a thought about the rosebud, is also proof that, I am.
- Therefore without a thought or an object of attention, I do not exist, and neither do "we".
- With thought, memory assembles and by comparison with perception, puts order to the world.

And furthermore, what we call a relationship with a person, is largely a relationship with thoughts of that person, unless we're doin' the mess-around or something else biological.

Relationship with thought, yes.

The thought of you and me.

Self reflective. I am but a reflection, a mirror of you, of me, in a cosmic dance of separative unity.

[Walker]

Left Brain arguing with Right Brain
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/eQPvW1caDDI

It almost sounds AI generated.
It ends with the man saying he knows human nature, which is mocked.

[Fairy]

Arguing with thoughts is the mother of all fuckups/delusion.

[Fairy]

Solipsism doesn't deny the existence of the external world, it simply is the recognition of the minds projection.

Without the mind as my projection screen, where do I happen?

[Phil8659]

Raymond Tallis takes it upon himself to prove that you exist.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/141/Ar ... _Solipsist

Wow! one can prove existence with words which in of themselves have no meaning.
That goes beyond digging from the bottom of the barrel, that even goes on before literacy, itself.