Your subjective experiences still take place within a context, which would indicate that on some level there is some form of objective existence - of yourself if nothing else.
certainly but if you can't observe it, you can't make observations about it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! this is the nature of tao
It does not indicate that there necessarily exists an objective outside of the self. Yes, the self exists. Hence, the subjective. That is inapplicable however, to an objective of the universe.
That doesn't matter - what matters is whether it can be there or not. Edit: You squiggly punks! I'll pin you down to numbers yet!
Apologies to Xev - I s'pose this isn't exactly what you were looking for. On the other hand metaphysics is always a can of worms, and truth a can of invisible, incorporeal, unverifiable worms that cannot be detected in any way.
---That doesn't matter - what matters is whether it can be there or not. Of course it matters. We spent half a bloody hour talking about it. But that is the entirely of the notion. The self is the only verifiable. So yes, one can say an objective universe may or may not exist. It is irrelevant. In fact, I can argue that one can only say an objective universe cannot exist, but I suppose it is uniomportant really. Perhaps another time.
Sorry, that was addressed to wes's post: Shoulda made that clearer. BUT in any case it's not irrelevant, since your mind was already able to conceive of more things than there are. It is possible for you to abstract concepts as well, and thinking about something is not the same as observing it - no? So if it's possible to think about the context you exist in, and how it would be if you didn't exist (which you can think about, if not observe) then we can think about the properties of that context. That's why it's important.
Solipsism can't be disproved, but then you run into the problem of defining yourself as an observer. I suppose I will dig around for something that might actually refute solipsism. Lost Wisdom.
Holy shit, you know Burzum? Nobody, even my "metalhead" friends, know Burzum. I say "Burzum" they wonder who the hell I'm talking about. "He killed a man? Wicked! Let's go listen to SYL!" (Then again, I used to be as bad. I thought Cradle of Filth was black metal and Deicide was "wicked heavy" just for being anti-Christian) Det Som Engag War. The album is almost painful for me to listen to. My favorite album by Vikernes has to be Hlidskjalf. Angry in parts, full of lonesome rage and tremendous beauty. But umm, on topic, so many methods can be used to arrive at "a" truth. But formal logic eventually becomes self-referential, a system that is useful for proving things but not for much else. Logic is a tool, use it as one rather than as an end in itself. Doesn't it work best on a practical matter? I know I don't define the world around me because I can't fly. I'd desperately love to fly (without mechanical aid) but I am limited. Maybe the best argument against it is to ask who a solipsist is arguing with.
A solipsist argues with himself/herself apparently. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Everybody is free to believe what he or she wants. But my main problem with the "all-is-subjective" type of approach is that it's completely useless. It takes you nowhere: if you're just a little practical you can't take it seriously. It's a possible theoretical stance but both its predictive power and its utility value is nil. On top of it, sooner or later it turns into solipsism if you want to remain consistent. And as Xev just pointed out rightly solipsism has its own absurd features. But I repeat, everybody is completely free to choose his or her favourite set of beliefs, at least theoretically. If the train is coming, even the stubborn solipsist jumps aside.
You mean one without thought eh? EDIT: Do you see what I mean? The application of reason requires solipsism. I don't think that is a bad thing at all. It's merely regonizing that reason is the manipulation of symbolic abstracts as they relate to other symbolic abstracts, all of which are fundamentally solipsistic, in the sense that a dictionary is analagous to a book about solipsism. Meh. I suppose I'm saying I'm agnostic, which leads to solipsism, which I escaped by faith in reason. To me, it is reasonable to believe you exist, though I cannot ever 100% confirm my belief. So I think that when you trancend instinct, you are inherently indulging in solipsism. "I think therefore I am" damnit. It gets weird to me though in that really as far as I can tell: Even if you don't think, you am until you aint. Of course, that's assuming you existed at all blah blah, which goes in circles, which is why it's weird. IMO, this is the boundary of logic. Solipsism is the foundation. "I assume that I am" "I assume it is reasonable to be reasonable" "I therefore assume my sensory input is reflective of a medium in which I am" "I sense that you exist" "I therefore assume that you exist" I think that is perfectly reasonable, and flexible in that I realize that I've made assumptions that could prove not to be true.
Glen Benton and his boyfriends "satanism" is a schtick designed by their record company. They talk about fucking jesus at gigs and in front of fans, but spend every other moment inserting dildos into each other and reading "Better Homes and Gardens".
That still does not disprove solipsism in any way. I can assume everything is in my head, but that doesn't mean I can consciously control every aspect of reality. Think of it as paralysis: a paralyzed person has the ability to move their limbs, but cannot because of a certain misfire in their brain. I read the Lords of Chaos book and thought I would check out the bands. I found Burzum and Emperor to my liking, because I enjoy classical. My favorite would have to be Hvis Lyset Tar Oss, simply because of the atmosphere of it. Hlidskjalf was a fine album too, but some of the songs seem like filler. Frijo's Golden Tears is an excellent example of romantic structure, being more about feel than form. Det Som was alright in my opinion, but it was more 'metal' than the other works. I'm not a big fan of anything other than classical really, but I have some black metal bands I enjoy for the intensity and spirit.
Hastein: does the true solipsist allow for the possibility of anything outside their own consciousness? I would read solipsism as saying "the only thing that exists is your own mind" - which would mean that the solipsist was the entire universe. In this case even your "paralysis" would only be a product of your own world view, which would mean that with sufficient effort you should be able to change it. I generally agree with the common sense view of the universe, that is, "we can't control things because they are seperate from us + we developed/have senses and self-control to protect ourselves from injury caused by uncontrollable things."
Of course, I agree. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are trying to alter reality just by thinking about it (this is the basis for some magick practices) Yes, but the fact that they can't makes their theory tricky. It is impossible to disprove solipsism, but it is also impossible to prove it. My philosophy is that even if solipsism is true, it doesn't really change anything, because your reality is the same either way.
The solipsist doesn't allow for material, and that includes their own brain. We're not just talking about just Cartesian brain-in-a-vat evil genius stuff, we're talking about your mind being the only thing that is real. It sounds like you're talking about something more complicated, or at least allowing for a "real" universe beyond your own consciousness. Not so?
You lost me, but I'm sure you are correct. Xev made the point that a solipsist couldn' do whatever they wanted just by thinking about it. I stated that this doesn't disprove the theory, it just means the solipsist doesn't know how to alter reality to their will because something is hindering them.
