/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>3260

A genealogy of yourself should be all you need. If you're stupid enough to buy into solipsism it is only because you're stupid enough to believe you somehow knowingly and unknowingly made yourself and the whole world you're in, yet not seeing that realizing this still doesn't confer you any power and hence is just a stupid mind game you're playing with yourself to not get shit done.

>>3320

>not wooing her by living a modest and virtuous life

wew lad.

Kant furnishes a tentative empirical proof of the existence of external objects by arguing that, since time and space aren't perceptible by themselves but only by their content, and yet we perceive inner change, there must be an unchanging external component from which we derive this perception by comparison.

In my opinion, his proof isn't that convincing because the solipsism rises precisely from the ill-defined demarcation between inner and outer phenomena. If appearances aren't trusted, such that any and everything that happens might be an illusion, then there's nothing stopping me from equivocating "I" and "the world". On the other hand, by undermining all things in such a extreme way, I don't see what either "I" or "the world" would mean. Whatever I call by this words would never appear to me in experience, otherwise it would either be an illusion, or indistinguishable from an illusion.

So to me it's a meaningless question. It can't be proved or disproved. But I believe, from the history of philosophy, that it's possible that some description of the world might be created such that there's nothing but "I" (Fichte's idealism) or "world" (Iron Age philosophy and mysticism, Schopenhauer's idealism).

>>3260

Off topic, but related to OP's image. How many of you here think it's completely true that her boyfriend of a few years ago is the one that pushed her into doing porn which she never really wanted to do? Everyone thought the pic was a joke, how could a porn star that did so many demeaning shoots like hers have any serious thought in her head? Anyone think philosophy might have been a big impetus for her to get out of porn?

>>3355

I think it's the opposite

She tried to get into philosophy after quitting porn

>>3355

Oh, that's someone I was supposed to know?

Besides, doing demeaning stuff does not an idiot make.

>>3260

>implying it's falsifiable

I can't believe every body is slinging this good shit, you can not disprove solipsism with logic, that it's self could be a product of the observer.

>>3260

It's kind of like...

A solipsist will believe that they are the only conscious being, that they are the only one whose mind truly exists, but that assertion is just as baseless as the assertion of God.

If we're speaking PROOF, then you should always try to prove a positive, rather than proving a negative.

The invalidity and inapplicability requires a greater burden of proof than the validity and applicability.

Other than that, there's no real way of disproving that you're the only conscious being because it's like the matrix theory, for every piece of evidence presented, you could just say "but that would be a part of the matrix, some false evidence coded into the matrix to trick me and make it feel real".

>>3260

I was thinking about this earlier today for fun

Solipsism seems to come from Cartesian Cogito, not how >>3332 sees it, or some "ill-defined demarcation between inner and outer phenomena" or whatever whatever. None of that additional content is needed for solipsism, all is needed is doubt, and the Cartesian standard of proof.

If, as I see it, solipsism comes from this doubt and the Cartesian standard of proof for the existence of reality, then there are some obvious attack vectors. Attacking the Cogito(which has been done), attacking the standard of evidence for the existence of reality(which isn't done enough), and some other lesser ways.

Definitions: I take the Cogito to mean "I think therefore I am"

I take "Cartesian standard of doubt" to mean that if something can be doubted at all, then you can "withhold determination" regarding the existence of whatever the subject is. Example: If I can doubt apples, then I "withhold my determination of its existence"

I take Solipsism to mean the idea that only our minds cannot be doubted, and the existence of other minds can. In effect "only I exist".

Recap: Solipsism = false if Cogito == false or CartesianStandard == false

So I've been thinking about this, right?

You can't disprove solipsism, but maybe there's a way to attack a big motivation for why people would believe it. The idea that your mind is the only thing in existence, and that you're imagining everything else in the world, has a satisfying unification to it. There is only one thing in the universe: your mind. People like believing everything can be boiled down to one thing.

But, like, if part of your mind is consciously aware of your thoughts, and another part of your mind is sending imaginary information

to the other side and creating a hallucination of reality, what you effectively have is two minds, you and the thing making up information. I mean, you can call it a part of your mind, but honestly if it's disconnected from your thoughts to such an extent and has to run calculations apart from your mind in order to form a false reality, it's basically a separate entity. So now we have two things in the universe: you and the Cartesian demon. That's not nearly as satisfying as only your mind existing.

So in summary, solipsism requires part of your mind to act so separately from your consciousness that basically it's not only your mind existing.

>>3260

you are not everlasting

therefore something must have caused you

therefore something else must exist to cause you

therefore solipsism is false

fault me

>>3486

Who says that the rules of logic exist before, or after me?

>>3488

that depends on whether logic depends on you for its existence, which would make logic arbitrary

>>3486

there is a fault between premises 2 & 3

what if you caused yourself?

>>3499

because you were not existing for you to be able to cause yourself

something cannot come from nothing

>>3378

You can however point out contradiction in the theory as a skeptic would. I'm trying but my brains dead for now, just woke up. Whether it's convincing to the subject or not is irrelevant though. You can't ever be sure you'll convince a subject of anything anyway.

>>3439

/thread

Unless someone can improve it.

>>3503

>something cannot come from nothing

How do you know?

>>3439

If there's no distinction between inner and outer phenomena, then there's no "I" and there are no objects. There's only "something", which cannot be doubted to exist, because the "doubt" is something, and exists.

Another way to put it: solipsism is either the belief that only my mind and thoughts exists, or that external objects do not exist. You see now what is meant by "inner" and "outer"?

But both the dichotomy between me and the world and the doubt relating to it are necessary for solipsism.

>>3429

It's particularly infuriating that the book places such importance in Dostoevsky and Satre

>>3528

Is that not a logical impossibility?

>>3665

Since when did logic place demands on reality? Law of identity isn't a thing in quantum physics for instance.

>>3669

Aren't you now suggesting that logic is arbitrary and completely useless?

https://twitter.com/Ishkur23/status/706086561624887296

>>3378

Good points.

>>3710

This where the debate usually ends up. Solipsism deifies the logic you supposedly created, along with the rest of the universe.

>>3355

>>3429

Sasha was intelligent in the arena of self promotion. Not Like Jameson of course, but in that Grey pulled the art world trick of playing pretentious outsider to convince gallery shoppers that crap is worth buying. I recall many times she claimed that when she shouted stuff like "fuck me harder motherfucker" it was like, totes meta feminist deconstructionism.

She absolutely wanted to start in porn as a means to bigger things. Sadly she wasn't actually smart, talented or wise enough to reach her goals. Soderberg did cast her, but it was for an emotionally cold, vapid whore.

Meanwhile Asia Carrera was a legit genius who didn't demand attention for it or shit on her own industry while working in it.

(Yes I am also infuriated. Sorry.)

>>3792

but solipsism is based upon that logic

if solipsism disregards that logic, then why cant the idea that solipsism is false be equally valid?