Philosophy Now Forum

To boil it down, a solipsist confuses two terms, interpretation and creation. The mind interprets the external world. It does not create it. The solipsist believes it creates the external. Which, if true, would make the external world about as consistent as a dream, which shifts as it's created on the fly.

That's my view in a nutshell. Any thoughts?

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:28 pm To boil it down, a solipsist confuses two terms, interpretation and creation. The mind interprets the external world. It does not create it. The solipsist believes it creates the external. Which, if true, would make the external world about as consistent as a dream, which shifts as it's created on the fly.

That's my view in a nutshell. Any thoughts?

That which is uncreated cannot and does not exist.

You are talking about a mind that interprets an external world.

Well you now have to tell us what created the mind?

What created the mind that can interpret an external world, and what is aware of that mind existing?

.

A solipsist is someone who rejects the principle of intersubjectively verified evidence or just perception itself and then assumes out of all the possible options that they're the only thing that is real, maybe because it's a good starting point - I think therefore I am - kind of stuff?

Anyone else? DAM doesn't exist independently of me.

(Actually, he's just blocked for being a solipsist.)

Judaka wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:37 pm A solipsist is someone who rejects the principle of intersubjectively verified evidence or just perception itself and then assumes out of all the possible options that they're the only thing that is real, maybe because it's a good starting point - I think therefore I am - kind of stuff?

Yes, unless they accept that things exist, independently of themselves. Solipsism doesn't leave any room for further exploration beyond themselves. In which case they are making up the whole body of philosophy in their own mind, and arguing against themselves.

Though Descartes was a dualist, which I also disagree with, at least he didn't fall into the trap of solipsism. So only the 'Ego ergo sum' is a good starting point. Then accepting the external validity of things and other conscious beings, as they persist in a consistent manner.

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:38 pm Anyone else? DAM doesn't exist independently of me.

(Actually, he's just blocked for being a solipsist.)

Just answer the questions...


That which is uncreated cannot and does not exist.

You are talking about a mind that interprets an external world.

Well you now have to tell us what created the mind?

What created the mind that can interpret an external world, and what is aware of that mind existing?

.

Yes, unless they accept that things exist, independently of themselves

A solipsist is someone who doesn't do that... by definition.

Judaka wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:24 pm

Yes, unless they accept that things exist, independently of themselves

A solipsist is someone who doesn't do that... by definition.

Agreed. Nice to see someone who sticks to the point, Judaka. Appreciated.

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:28 pm To boil it down, a solipsist confuses two terms, interpretation and creation. The mind interprets the external world. It does not create it. The solipsist believes it creates the external. Which, if true, would make the external world about as consistent as a dream, which shifts as it's created on the fly.

That's my view in a nutshell. Any thoughts?

Solipsism is about what is knowable via empiricism.

so your notions of "mind" and "external" are both irrelevant per the above.

and yes consciousness - in the here and now - mine BTW - does create it (pragmaticalliy/empirically speaking ........if you/the world exists outside of me - GREAT - but i cannot prove it and so not provable. all i can prove is that i Am and you/external world are a part of Me right now.......................

you may exist, or you may not and i'm playing games with myself - either way which it is is not provable and so irrelavent.


I hope you ARE - but i have no conviction that you are (you cannot prove you exist anymore than can your God show himself to me as a being outside of myself - i'm an athiest and my view of your existance is the same as that to YHWH.

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:28 pm To boil it down, a solipsist confuses two terms, interpretation and creation. The mind interprets the external world. It does not create it. The solipsist believes it creates the external. Which, if true, would make the external world about as consistent as a dream, which shifts as it's created on the fly.

That's my view in a nutshell. Any thoughts?

clearly (you (me)) do not understand the mindset of Solipsism.

Judaka wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:37 pm A solipsist is someone who rejects the principle of intersubjectively verified evidence or just perception itself and then assumes out of all the possible options that they're the only thing that is real, maybe because it's a good starting point - I think therefore I am - kind of stuff?

yes, would welcome - though talking to myself maybe - if you could use smaller words in your/mine? first sentence though.

i get your/my? drift, but welcome lower language and lesser words to restate that which i think i agree with.

i thank you Sir

Yeah, I played with the concept of solipsism in my youth, for fun. But the weight of external forces severely limits this view.

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:41 pm

Yes, unless they accept that things exist, independently of themselves.

than they are no longer an Solipsist!

such a concept require faith outside of empiricism.

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:41 pm Solipsism doesn't leave any room for further exploration beyond themselves.

correct, outside myself.

there is no "themselves" unless you include faith.

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:41 pm In which case they are making up the whole body of philosophy in their own mind,

correct,

and history, science, politics and all the rest of all knowledge.

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:41 pm and arguing against themselves.

??? i don't follow.

i do not argue against myself - outside of my ID at least.

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:41 pm Though Descartes was a dualist, which I also disagree with, at least he didn't fall into the trap of solipsism.

He (me?) was a solipist first and formost (BTW i was one before i even knew of (or invented?) Descrate as a 16 yr old.

came to the same conclusions in full ignorance of Destarte, who i learned of 5 yrs later.

He (me?) "sold out" and later invented all sort of crap beyond his (mine?) original concept of "i am and known nothing more".

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:41 pm So only the 'Ego ergo sum' is a good starting point. Then accepting the external validity of things and other conscious beings, as they persist in a consistent manner.

you have faith then, reject empiricism.

good for you, may your God show mercy upon me.

Judaka wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:24 pm

Yes, unless they accept that things exist, independently of themselves

A solipsist is someone who doesn't do that... by definition.

yep - thanks for talking to myself.

a bad habit of mine.

thanks anyway.

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:48 am Yeah, I played with the concept of solipsism in my youth, for fun. But the weight of external forces severely limits this view.

how so?

welcome discussion - IF via with myself.

BTW I agree that Solipsism is a meager and piss poor answer - damn near less than zero.

but wishing for more is not relevent to what is knowable IMO.

maybe crums are all an ant gets per the ant's limited nature.