Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Enmos, Mar 21, 2008.

  1. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    Why not?

    Enter solipsism.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Solipsism is a laugh.. come on.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    I don't see how this idea backs up your assertion. It could be used to disagree with your assertion.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    How ?
     
  8. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    That question is almost like how a theist thinks? You are asking for objective purpose for your existence. You think it would be absurd if there was just you and this is seen as proof that there are others. A similar argument could be made for, for example, the everlasting soul. Or God.
    Since life would be absurd if we simply died. Etc.
     
  9. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    Sure. I was trying to be creative. Also I have a gut feeling there is some nugget of truth in there also.

    Or, to be provocative: perhaps the time has come to notice this purpose is no longer necessary and I am one of the first ones to notice.
     
  10. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    No it's experience with nature..
    If you see a particular animal, there are more of them.
     
  11. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    Solipsism might be a laugh, but it is also irrefutable, and all ways of thinking eventually end up in solipsism.

    Solipsism is quite the formidable enemy, nothing to laugh at.
     
  12. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Not my way of thinking

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I think solipsism is a totally ridiculous attempt to arrive at the same implications as my view does. It only falls short, solipsism that is.
     
  13. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    I don't think that constitutes proof. There are plant forms called Rhizomes that can be enormous individuals - root systems - which look like many individuals but are not. There is no reason a planet couldn't have one large rhizome structure, period. And no other members to that species. Also nature has many exceptions: animals and plants with singular qualities that are not shared by other species.

    And last: if you are the only thing that is, those animals are really a part of you. A part of your dream. Or a part of the phenomenological realm that is you.
     
  14. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    What, so now you have a your way of thinking?
    Your way, yours and yours alone, and screw objectivity?
     
  15. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    It can of course, but it is not the rule. There is no procreation if there is only one individual of a species.

    Which is totally ridiculous. Solipsism failed to do away with the self and as a result becomes ridiculous.
     
  16. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I meant what I described in the OP. And I didn't implicate that no one else has the same view. Myles seems to agree with most of it, if not all.
     
  17. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    So? This does not mean that the world is actually a part of you. You are trying to prove something using details from a model that might be false.

    Solipsism was not an attempt to do away with the self.
     
  18. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    With no outside, only you ?
    Dream implicates an outside.
    'phenomenological' implicates an outside.
     
  19. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    But it has done away with all the other selves. Maybe it's an attempt at the ultimate arrogance.
     
  20. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    Sure. I am pointing out your assumptions. Yes, perhaps there is no outside.
    Dream implicate an outside, but as you have made painfully clear in other threads you consider them COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. It seems like they are about objects, but dreams are actually not in contact with objects. You accepted exceptions for sounds in the room, etc. But we can see that even in the absence of outside stimuli the sleeper can imagine that all these external objects and beings exist. Later he or she wakes up and realizes it was not the case. Or Myles and Enmos can tell him that none of these things were external. The same could be be true for waking life.

    phenomenological actually brackets off ideas of subject and object. It sets to the side notions of what is real and focuses on experience. I think you meant 'implies' not implicates.
     
  21. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    I see solipsism as the mark of utter philosophical despair. Not arrogance.
     
  22. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    You are almost there

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Ok fair enough.
     
  23. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    It's just not consequent or logical to reason away all the other selves but not your own.
     

Share This Page