No you aren't, as I very clearly explained in my previous post.
But for curiosity's sake, what about her comments are not solipsistic?
Last edited:
God is like atheists in foxholes
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
No you aren't, as I very clearly explained in my previous post.
But for curiosity's sake, what about her comments are not solipsistic?
I surely am. You can't seem to pick up the obvious distinction between solipsism and a solipsist
Its because you identify her as a solipist that you are making the grave error about correlating that to solipsism in order to make some hierarchical value judgment
:shrug:
Last edited:
I have made it clear several times already.
You can in no way call upon solipsism to make a hierarchical value claim to a situation.
The real problem is that you don't understand the distinction between a solipsist and solipsism
:shrug:
Word salad, as usual. Hierarchical value claim? :shrug:
Her actions are solipsistic. Hence, "solipsism at its finest." You have yet to explain how her actions are not representative of solipsism. I can only assume this is because you don't understand solipsism as a concept. :shrug:
I assume you don't know what you are doing when you deem a solopsist a derogatory category on the strength of their connection to solopsism (of which there is none, btw) ... or maybe you do but simply don't understand the phrase "hierarchical value claim"
:shrug:
I've asked you three or four times now to demonstrate the error in connecting solipsistic behavior to solipsism, and three or four times now you've failed to do so. Either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're trolling. Am I supposed to guess? :shrug:
Until you answer the question, this conversation is over.
three or four times now I have already explained it to you.
What is it precisely about the phrase "hierarchical value claim" that you don't understand?
:shrug:
It is you who is saying that. Have you noticed?
Would you ever say
"In my opinion, Wynn's actions are solipsistic"
- ?
If you wouldn't, why not?
Ah, if only the two of you would be fighting over me!
One the prince on the white horse, the other the prince on the black horse!
Dont woe, oh damsel in distress. Here comes the man in the F22, hop on and roam the skies with me! LOL.
I would, if perhaps your actions were less overtly solipsistic. But you very clearly only value your own feelings, and have no regard for anyone else's. This explains why you are so quick to insult, yet so easily offended.
Omit needless words. "In my opinion" is not required here.
What?
You certainly speak in such an objectivist tone as if you were God Himself, and as if everyone would be as obligated to you and your claims as one would be to God.
If Henry has a hole in his shoe, does this mean that Henry now surely must get his shoes fixed?
IOW, you jumped from a conditional ("if") to a conclusion of certainty.
@wynn --
So apparently you're far more interested with the wording of my post than the point contained in it. I don't know why this surprises me anymore, it's sort of your MO by this point.
Would "If your actions here have been solipsistic then an "in my opinion" isn't necessary as the evidence would be right in front of us for the citing" suit your tastes better? The point is still the same and is still valid.
So apparently you're far more interested with the wording of my post than the point contained in it. I don't know why this surprises me anymore, it's sort of your MO by this point.
Would "If your actions here have been solipsistic then an "in my opinion" isn't necessary as the evidence would be right in front of us for the citing" suit your tastes better? The point is still the same and is still valid.
Don't care if Henry gets his shoes fixed, he can have wet socks if he so desires. But there is no need for "In my opinion Henry has a hole in his shoe". The obvious seldom requires an "opinion".