Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: blaze2]
    #5240231 - 01/29/06 09:10 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

its NOT a sound unless it is HEARD man. its just disturbed air.

Disturbed air? You mean sound waves? Well, gee, that's what I said.

Just like Reality would be nothing without someone to observe it.

Nothing relative to the perception of someone who isn't present, correct. In reality, however, the proverbial tree still stands, regardless. Molten lava still heats and boils underneath the Earth's crust. Stars remain during the day. Existence continues to exist.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5240244 - 01/29/06 09:14 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
Must every effect have a cause?

Until I am shown of an example whereby such laws do not apply, I will remained 100% convinced that every effect will naturally have a cause.



Consciousness.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5240247 - 01/29/06 09:15 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
In reality, however, the proverbial tree still stands, regardless. Molten lava still heats and boils underneath the Earth's crust. Stars remain during the day. Existence continues to exist.




I respect your personal belief in objectivism, but you have to understand that these statements are still leaps of faith and in no way absolute, regardless of how much that philosophy appeals to you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5240249 - 01/29/06 09:17 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
Existence continues to exist.



Until you stop thinking...


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: Sclorch]
    #5240265 - 01/29/06 09:22 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

The existence of consciousness; our faculty of perception, is a product of our body, i.e., brain. It most certainly has a cause.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5240290 - 01/29/06 09:33 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

I respect your personal belief in objectivism, but you have to understand that these statements are still leaps of faith and in no way absolute, regardless of how much that philosophy appeals to you.

Well, likewise I'll have to respect your personal belief in Solipsism. Once you bring out the Solipsism card, we can no longer have any discussion, as there is no point in debating with a Solipsist about such matters. Objectivism requires no leaps of faith, regardless of what you misthink. Existence exists; this is axiomatic, and irreducible. Do you agree or disagree? If you agree, then you must agree that there will be natural corollaries. After all, it serves no purpose to be perpetually stuck at the axiomatic level. Such a corollary: Existence has identity, i.e. a nature. Thus, because it has a specific nature, it will act only in accordance with its own nature. This is 100% evident in all of reality. No leap of faith has been taken. Faith is belief in something that has zero evidence for it.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5240330 - 01/29/06 09:43 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
The existence of consciousness; our faculty of perception, is a product of our body, i.e., brain. It most certainly has a cause.



But you only know all this... because you're conscious.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5240343 - 01/29/06 09:46 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
Existence exists; this is axiomatic, and irreducible. Do you agree or disagree?




My field of perception exists, this is all that I am currently able to admit.


Quote:

Once you bring out the Solipsism card, we can no longer have any discussion, as there is no point in debating with a Solipsist about such matters.



Quote:

Faith is belief in something that has zero evidence for it.




I would say that anything which can't be directly confirmed through one's own perception would constitute faith. Solipsism is NOT a cop out, in fact it is the most logically sound system of belief. Solipsism also has scientific backing through the modern theories of quantum mechanics (the consistency is often alarming). No matter how much consideration I attempt to give to objectivistic philosophy, I simply cannot turn my back on the self-evident, and presuppose anything beyond my immediate perception.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblaze2
The Witness
Male

Registered: 12/20/02
Posts: 1,883
Loc: San Antonio, TX
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5240433 - 01/29/06 10:10 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
its NOT a sound unless it is HEARD man. its just disturbed air.

Disturbed air? You mean sound waves? Well, gee, that's what I said.

Just like Reality would be nothing without someone to observe it.

Nothing relative to the perception of someone who isn't present, correct. In reality, however, the proverbial tree still stands, regardless. Molten lava still heats and boils underneath the Earth's crust. Stars remain during the day. Existence continues to exist.
Quote:



No man i do not mean a sound wave because a sound wave implies sounds and sounds must be HEARD to be sounds, i mean what I said disturbed air that may or may not be there. but most certainly NOT a sound


You assume your view of Reality is real, while I make my own assumtion that reality could be many things. You narrow your view into the realms of absolutes, yet you cannot prove these absolutes. Agreed things SEEM to operate that way but can you ever be sure? no. It is pure arrogence to assume otherwise. History should be a lesson to the assumptions of scientists. You assume the human race has an accurate view of the nature of things, but where is your proof of that? Science has its place, but when one starts to assume that the science of the day will hold fast forever they are in effect placing faith in an idea, jsut like a believer in God would. Im not saying you dont have that right to that, only that you should realize that it is not a sure thing. I believe in the Lord, but do I assume my views on him are hte word of God? no, neither should you believe that your understanding of the world through science is the true nature of things.

either is arrogance, and both are ignorance of the fact of our insignifigance to the big picture. peace

blaze2




P.S. also on an off topic note, i realize now that you are alot different from that fireworks cat, I apologize for including you in that other thread from a few days ago. I made the assumption that if fireworks counted you as on his side(you are of course on a intellectual level) then you would act like the child that he does. That was wrong of me. You are seem to enjoy the discussion of a topic, and not just the endless arguing.






--------------------
"Religion without science is blind, Science without religion is lame." Albert Einstein

"peace is not maintained through force it is acheived through intelligence." Albert Einstein

"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson

Edited by blaze2 (01/29/06 10:12 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: it stars saddam]
    #5240435 - 01/29/06 10:11 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

My field of perception exists, this is all that I am currently able to admit.

And does your field of perception not have any causal roots in Existence? Is there not something outside of your field of perception, that facilitates such perceptual cognition, e.g., a brain?


I would say that anything which can't be directly confirmed through one's own perception would constitute faith.

Then this is where we'll simply have to differ. I cannot confirm through my own direct perception, that I have kidneys - and if I were a Solipsist, then I would have to ignore the fact that I have witnessed kidneys being operated upon, on television - and the fact that they are shown in medical books, and the fact that there are various, established procedures and medical treatments that pertain to disorders of such organs, ignore everything I've heard about kidney transplants, ignore all the agonizing pain that I've witnessed people go through because of kidney stones, and so on and so forth, just to support the notion that I cannot be sure I have kidneys, merely because they don't fall within range of my own perception. But because I am not a solipsist, and rather, an Objectivist, I can use reason and rationality to determine that I indeed, do have kidneys, and that there is no faith involved. Furthermore, I need not conflate perception to the point that only perception itself is reality - as frankly, there is far too much evidence pointing to the contrary. Aside from the one provided above, fossils of extinct dinosaurs are one of many examples.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5240451 - 01/29/06 10:18 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
And does your field of perception not have any causal roots in Existence? Is there not something outside of your field of perception, that facilitates such perceptual cognition, e.g., a brain?




I can't say for sure.

Quote:

I would say that anything which can't be directly confirmed through one's own perception would constitute faith.

I cannot confirm through my own direct perception, that I have kidneys - and if I were a Solipsist, then I would have to ignore the fact that I have witnessed kidneys being operated upon, on television - and the fact that they are shown in medical books, and the fact that there are various, established procedures and medical treatments that pertain to disorders of such organs, ignore everything I've heard about kidney transplants, ignore all the agonizing pain that I've witnessed people go through because of kidney stones, and so on and so forth, just to support the notion that I cannot be sure I have kidneys, merely because they don't fall within range of my own perception.




All of this too could be an illusory fabrication of the mind in order to ensure the consistency of your singular reality. Solipsism in no way defeats the consistencies and intricacies of existence; in fact, it has led me to view them with a new level of admiration and curiosity.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: it stars saddam]
    #5240471 - 01/29/06 10:30 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

:heart: this thread.
.
.
.
Assumptions are made on either side of this argument.
Assume that existence exists independently of yourself, essence takes a hit.
Assume nothing, fall down that solipsistic well.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblaze2
The Witness
Male

Registered: 12/20/02
Posts: 1,883
Loc: San Antonio, TX
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5240479 - 01/29/06 10:33 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

animal brains know only what they sense and see, much like much like your Epistomology mumbo jumbo(no offense) the human brain is obviously something more as we have awareness of our selves and our being, along with feelings other animals have not such as shame and guilt. We have an internal sense of right and wrong, a conscious. The Brain is not responsible for all that. the brain is our computer a thing of instinct of measurable quantites, but we have a self workign that computer. We can direct our thoughts to specific purpose. This is what seperates us from animals Im not going to speculate on what the self is, it will only lead to more arguments that cannot be proven/disproven.

You can use reason and rationality to come to alot of conclusions true enough but you cannot prove something that has never been observed, you cannot make it "true".

heres a mind bender, in teh beginnign there was stardust it made stars which condensed the lighter elements into heavier ones, and eventually made planets, and life, and us... When we go around observing the world and stars we are the universe looking at itself. Perhaps that is the meaning of life in and of itself. Merely to be here and observe so that "reality" can exist, maybe we support it and make it "exist". makes ME think at least. peace

blaze2


--------------------
"Religion without science is blind, Science without religion is lame." Albert Einstein

"peace is not maintained through force it is acheived through intelligence." Albert Einstein

"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: blaze2]
    #5240633 - 01/29/06 11:27 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

No man i do not mean a sound wave because a sound wave implies sounds and sounds must be HEARD to be sounds, i mean what I said disturbed air that may or may not be there. but most certainly NOT a sound

Okay, vibrations. There. Vibrations continue to exist. Better?

It is pure arrogence to assume otherwise. History should be a lesson to the assumptions of scientists. You assume the human race has an accurate view of the nature of things, but where is your proof of that?

The proof is in the pudding. Show any case whereby the Law of Identity, or Cause and Effect, is violated. Demonstrate any case whereby an entity goes against it's own nature. These are all demonstrable, repeatable and consistent laws of nature, which man has discovered through reason, logic and objectivity.

P.S. also on an off topic note, i realize now that you are alot different from that fireworks cat,

Yes, two entirely different people. Fireworks and I even have differing positions and stances at times - regardless, he and I are good friends outside of this site.


I apologize for including you in that other thread from a few days ago. I made the assumption that if fireworks counted you as on his side(you are of course on a intellectual level) then you would act like the child that he does. That was wrong of me.

Seeing as how I too participated in OTDesque behavior, e.g., misquoting your words in accordance with my slightly comical twists and exaggerations, you've no need to apologize - but if you insist, then allow me to return the gesture in kind: I apologize for being the antagonizer that I was, as it was hardly conducive to the promoted atmosphere of this forum, nor to the facilitation of mutual understanding and concordance.


You seem to enjoy the discussion of a topic, and not just the endless arguing.

:thumbup:



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5240856 - 01/30/06 12:39 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

I can't say for sure.

So in the absence of mirrors and any reflections, you couldn't say for sure if you possessed a pair of ocular organs? What if somone comes up to you, and smacks a good ole' fist in your left eye? The effect: You have blurred vision. If you did not have any sort of organs which facilitate your perception, then you would remain unaffected by any such physical interaction.

Okay back on track. So you say only your field of perception exists. Only that? This is a non-sequitir, for there must be an existence in order for you know that your field of perception exists. Thus the axiom that existence exists. So you must agree, that existence exists - or at the very least, your own actions - however diametric to your thoughts - must follow this. What thinkest thou?

All of this too could be an illusory fabrication of the mind in order to ensure the consistency of your singular reality. Solipsism in no way defeats the consistencies and intricacies of existence; in fact, it has led me to view them with a new level of admiration and curiosity.

If you recognize that existence is consistent with itself, and that reality is lawful - and you still maintain your solipsist viewpoint, what keeps you from progressing beyond that point? Why not treat it as exploring a world in itself, and learn about how your [illusory] perceptual cognition is facilitated by [illusory] various organs, for instance?




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5240906 - 01/30/06 01:02 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
So in the absence of mirrors and any reflections, you couldn't say for sure if you possessed a pair of ocular organs? What if somone comes up to you, and smacks a good ole' fist in your left eye? The effect: You have blurred vision. If you did not have any sort of organs which facilitate your perception, then you would remain unaffected by any such physical interaction.




In the absence of mirrors and reflections (assuming I had never been able to view my own ocular organs), I COULDN'T say for sure whether I possessed them or not, since the concept of said organs would be entirely foreign to my consciousness (this leads back to the debate in your "Are Certain Things Unknowable?" thread).  I would interpret the blurred vision as a direct consequence of the other person hitting me, but I would be unable to rationalize the distortion in terms of the organs themselves.

Quote:

there must be an existence in order for you know that your field of perception exists.




I don't see how this is so (actually you kind of lost me with that whole paragraph), but I suppose it depends entirely on one's own definition of existence.

Quote:

If you recognize that existence is consistent with itself, and that reality is lawful - and you still maintain your solipsist viewpoint, what keeps you from progressing beyond that point? Why not treat it as exploring a world in itself, and learn about how your [illusory] perceptual cognition is facilitated by [illusory] various organs, for instance?




I do.  Though at heart I subscribe to solipsism, I'm very interested in science and various philosophies, and I even maintain relationships with a few people.  :eek:  Contemplating solipsism doesn't necessarily equate to isolating one's self and living in uncertainty; the truth is, whether or not there is an objective reality, we are stuck in our own singular field of perception, and this is the only vessel through which we can experience consciousness.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: it stars saddam]
    #5241287 - 01/30/06 06:22 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

In the absence of mirrors and reflections (assuming I had never been able to view my own ocular organs), I COULDN'T say for sure whether I possessed them or not, since the concept of said organs would be entirely foreign to my consciousness (this leads back to the debate in your "Are Certain Things Unknowable?" thread). I would interpret the blurred vision as a direct consequence of the other person hitting me, but I would be unable to rationalize the distortion in terms of the organs themselves.

Well, I was operating under the hypothetical scenario that you still have much of the knowledge of our ocular organs - and the fact that you see other people as well, with such faculties of sight. For argument's sake, lets go back to our brainy discussion so to speak, and say you got a concussion, and suffered some noticeable brain damage - clinically documented and established by medical professionals. Would you still doubt the existence of such an organ, merely because it does not fall within your range of perception?


I don't see how this is so (actually you kind of lost me with that whole paragraph), but I suppose it depends entirely on one's own definition of existence.

You wrote: My field of perception exists, this is all that I am currently able to admit.

This is what I am referring to. In order for you to be able to admit that your perception exists, there must be an existence for you to know this.
As Rand points out, "A consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness."
The definitions of Existence are quite simple and straightforward: The fact or state of existing; being.

And so, we have the axiom: Existence exists.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5241325 - 01/30/06 07:35 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

My suggestion is to ignore the Solipsists entirely. As you pointed out earlier, there is no point arguing with them as they believe your words are generated by themselves -- that they are arguing with themselves and not with a separate entity. I say if they are REALLY Solipsists, then let them provide their own imaginary debating opponents.

Of course, the ones on this board who proclaim themselves Solipsists are not in fact Solipsists -- their every action shouts otherwise. The very fact they engage in these discussions (and perform the rational actions necessary to keep themselves alive long enough to type on a keyboard) blows their protestations out of the water. The reason they give for behaving as non-Solipsists is that it pleases them to behave at all times as if they are non-Solipsists except when backed into a corner in a debate, where they then happily drop the "S" bomb and wander off "vindicated" by essentially proclaiming, "Not only can you not prove existence exists, you can't even prove YOU exist, you figment of my imagination, you!"

It's a waste of keystrokes to engage such posers.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5241374 - 01/30/06 08:01 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
Well, I was operating under the hypothetical scenario that you still have much of the knowledge of our ocular organs - and the fact that you see other people as well, with such faculties of sight. For argument's sake, lets go back to our brainy discussion so to speak, and say you got a concussion, and suffered some noticeable brain damage - clinically documented and established by medical professionals. Would you still doubt the existence of such an organ, merely because it does not fall within your range of perception?




Not that I would necessarily have to (considering said organ is still outside of my perception, the only medium through which I can validate anything), but say I did admit that my consciousness was a projection of the brain's functions; how does this take solipsism out of the picture? The perceptions which I experience are the product of my brain and my brain only, I still cannot confirm that the creatures similar to myself which I observe have working brains and aren't simply a manifestation of my consciousness constructed in my image. The same could be said about the clinical documents and medical professionals.

Quote:

In order for you to be able to admit that your perception exists, there must be an existence for you to know this.




Yes, but I could argue that the existence through which I am able to know my perception is entirely that of my mind and my mind only.

Quote:

As Rand points out, "A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness."




Says who, Ayn? What is consciousness conscious of besides itself? Did Ayn Rand ever come into contact with the fabled "ultimate objective reality?" No, I know for a fact that she didn't, because no conscious being on this planet has any mode of perception other than their own singular subjective experience (this is assuming that there is consciousness beyond one's own, which still remains murky at best).

This is a very serious philosophical problem, in my opinion; fascinating as well.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleit stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: Phred]
    #5241407 - 01/30/06 08:14 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
My suggestion is to ignore the Solipsists entirely. As you pointed out earlier, there is no point arguing with them as they believe your words are generated by themselves -- that they are arguing with themselves and not with a separate entity. I say if they are REALLY Solipsists, then let them provide their own imaginary debating opponents.

Of course, the ones on this board who proclaim themselves Solipsists are not in fact Solipsists -- their every action shouts otherwise. The very fact they engage in these discussions (and perform the rational actions necessary to keep themselves alive long enough to type on a keyboard) blows their protestations out of the water. The reason they give for behaving as non-Solipsists is that it pleases them to behave at all times as if they are non-Solipsists except when backed into a corner in a debate, where they then happily drop the "S" bomb and wander off "vindicated" by essentially proclaiming, "Not only can you not prove existence exists, you can't even prove YOU exist, you figment of my imagination, you!"

It's a waste of keystrokes to engage such posers.




Well, somebody's grumpy. I think we're having a very nice (and informative) debate though, personally. You, like many others, make the false assumption that to seriously contemplate the philosophical problem of solipsism, one must immediately afterward withdraw, commit suicide, whatever. You know why the "S-bomb" is so effective in arguments, Phred? It's because it is a GLARING philosophical paradox. Solipsism does not constitute the abandonment of rationality, it is merely the act of probing deeper and exploring into the self-evident and irrefutable truth that our experience of consciousness is limited within the boundaries of our own perception. Why, if the tenets of solipsism were in fact true, why would I want to kill myself or withdraw into despair, rather than doing the things I enjoy (such as discussing philosophical problems with interesting people on an internet message board) and making the most of and unraveling this fleeting, strangely paradoxical existence?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Do Basic Human Morals Exist
( 1 2 all )
mrfreedom 5,095 24 05/28/02 07:55 AM
by Sclorch
* The Internet Dosn't Exist
( 1 2 all )
Demon 2,131 21 02/11/03 12:20 AM
by Demon
* A big reason why aliens DO exist!
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )
Ego Death 14,421 181 08/06/03 10:53 AM
by Azmodeus
* Sclorch's "Dirty Fractal Edge" Sclorch 3,077 17 02/06/03 02:32 AM
by whiterasta
* God hates you all(except Sclorch LOL) whiterasta 931 7 10/18/02 10:36 PM
by Anonymous
* God Cannot Exist
( 1 2 all )
jim_dewit 5,365 39 08/22/02 06:29 PM
by Xlea321
* objective reality does not exist
( 1 2 all )
monoamine 6,350 34 11/01/02 08:55 AM
by Newbie2000
* lets build a space ship to search for ET
( 1 2 all )
Cosm 2,064 30 02/05/05 02:22 PM
by Ego Death

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,332 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 22 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.037 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.