On Idealism, repeated

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#281  Postby hackenslash » Aug 08, 2021 3:37 pm

BlackBart wrote:I, for one, welcome our new toe overlord.


it's a digital age.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21921
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#282  Postby scott1328 » Aug 09, 2021 1:58 am

i don’t know which is worse: the idiotic solipsist arguments, or the puns. :roll:
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8721
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#283  Postby BlackBart » Aug 09, 2021 6:28 am

Oh, come on, toe the line, this shit writes itself. (It has to if solipsism is true)
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12435
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#284  Postby Frozenworld » Aug 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Greg the Grouper wrote:1. The utility of a given premise seems like a great criteria with which to determine its veracity to me. I'm also curious as to what true thing we learn in school that lacks utility, as well as how one derives truth with solipsism as a foundational premise.

2. If we're wrong, literally nothing about our lives changes at all, whatsoever. We still interact with the same false reality. We're still incapable of interacting with whatever real reality might exist out there. The people we interact with are exactly the same, regardless of whether or not they're sapient individuals or persistent, complex delusions. That's how atrociously stupid an idea solipsism really is: it has no bearing whatsoever on anything.

If one is wrong then everything changes. Nihilism shortly follows as there is no point to living life anymore if it isn't real.

Some might say that ethics can still happen with solipsism: https://ideasinhat.com/2020/05/13/why-s ... mment-1561

But such a notion is absurd to say the least.

Not to mention that one still can't escape the fact that their own existence is all they truly know: https://qr.ae/pGn9Vj

Like....everyone is being so dismissive of it but I get the sense no one comprehends what it actually means and how in some way there is truth to it.
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 80

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#285  Postby Spearthrower » Aug 12, 2021 2:23 am

How laughably motivated all this is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning

Motivated reasoning is a phenomenon studied in cognitive science and social psychology that uses emotionally biased reasoning to produce justifications or make decisions that are most desired rather than those that accurately reflect the evidence, while still reducing cognitive dissonance. In other words, motivated reasoning is the "tendency to find arguments in favor of conclusions we want to believe to be stronger than arguments for conclusions we do not want to believe"

Motivated reasoning is similar to confirmation bias, where evidence that confirms a belief (which might be a logical belief, rather than an emotional one) is either sought after more or given more credibility than evidence that disconfirms a belief. It stands in contrast to critical thinking where beliefs are approached in a skeptical and unbiased fashion.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28958
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#286  Postby Spearthrower » Aug 12, 2021 2:28 am

Like....everyone is being so dismissive of it but I get the sense no one comprehends what it actually means and how in some way there is truth to it.


Frankly chap, it's you who is completely unable to provide a shred of substantiation for your position. You have repeatedly failed to address the short-comings of your position, you haven't shown yourself to even understand what solipsism entails, let alone address the problems others have pointed out for you. As said a long time back in this thread - you give every appearance of not giving a fuck at all about what is actually justified, what is actually reasonable - you've elected to lend credence to a stupidly empty belief system because it makes you feel special. Big fucking deal; you're still here trying completely irrationally to convince the NPC's that it's reasonable to believe that only you exist.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28958
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#287  Postby Spearthrower » Aug 12, 2021 2:37 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refu ... #Solipsism

A self-refuting idea or self-defeating idea is an idea or statement whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true.

...

On the face of it, a statement of solipsism is — at least performatively — self-defeating, because a statement assumes another person to whom the statement is made.



It's performative, FW - you're performing, you're engaged in an act, and we all know it. None of us here are dopey enough to simultaneously believe that you believe in solipsism while also being engaged in the act of trying to convince other people that solipsism is justified. It's so lacking in even the most foundational quantities of reasoning that it doesn't even amount to being wrong - it's gibberish: you're gibbering at us.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28958
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#288  Postby BlackBart » Aug 12, 2021 2:42 am

Frozenworld wrote:
Greg the Grouper wrote:1. The utility of a given premise seems like a great criteria with which to determine its veracity to me. I'm also curious as to what true thing we learn in school that lacks utility, as well as how one derives truth with solipsism as a foundational premise.

2. If we're wrong, literally nothing about our lives changes at all, whatsoever. We still interact with the same false reality. We're still incapable of interacting with whatever real reality might exist out there. The people we interact with are exactly the same, regardless of whether or not they're sapient individuals or persistent, complex delusions. That's how atrociously stupid an idea solipsism really is: it has no bearing whatsoever on anything.

If one is wrong then everything changes. Nihilism shortly follows as there is no point to living life anymore if it isn't real.


Says who? Why is there no point if it isn't real? And what would be the point if reality exists independently of the mind?


Some might say that ethics can still happen with solipsism: https://ideasinhat.com/2020/05/13/why-s ... mment-1561

But such a notion is absurd to say the least.



Really? So, solipsists run around raping and killing and robbing banks, do they?


Not to mention that one still can't escape the fact that their own existence is all they truly know


That would be true either way so it tells us nothing.


Like....everyone is being so dismissive of it but I get the sense no one comprehends what it actually means and how in some way there is truth to it.


If there's someone out there failing to comprehend something, then it doesn't mean anything because it's not true. Derp.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12435
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#289  Postby Greg the Grouper » Aug 12, 2021 5:53 am

Fuck it; this shit is pretentious and I'm bored.

Frozenworld wrote:
Not to mention that one still can't escape the fact that their own existence is all they truly know: https://qr.ae/pGn9Vj


My understanding of my own self - the means by which I approach anything, my values, etc - is defined by the reality that I regularly interact with. I would therefore assert that reality must exist, as reality has defined me, and I myself exist.
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 71

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#290  Postby Hermit » Aug 12, 2021 7:44 am

Greg the Grouper wrote:My understanding of my own self - the means by which I approach anything, my values, etc - is defined by the reality that I regularly interact with. I would therefore assert that reality must exist, as reality has defined me, and I myself exist.

What an impressive demonstration of circular reasoning. :clap:
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4695
Age: 68
Male

Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#291  Postby Greg the Grouper » Aug 12, 2021 8:16 am

I like to indulge, every now and again.
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 71

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#292  Postby Spearthrower » Aug 12, 2021 10:45 am

Its not a circle-jerk if there's only one of you!
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28958
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#293  Postby Frozenworld » Aug 15, 2021 4:09 am

Spearthrower wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#Solipsism

A self-refuting idea or self-defeating idea is an idea or statement whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true.

...

On the face of it, a statement of solipsism is — at least performatively — self-defeating, because a statement assumes another person to whom the statement is made.



It's performative, FW - you're performing, you're engaged in an act, and we all know it. None of us here are dopey enough to simultaneously believe that you believe in solipsism while also being engaged in the act of trying to convince other people that solipsism is justified. It's so lacking in even the most foundational quantities of reasoning that it doesn't even amount to being wrong - it's gibberish: you're gibbering at us.


That's actually incorrect, it isn't self refuting for that reason. You don't seem to get why the problems you've listed aren't problems for solipsism. The problem, which you still haven't disproven, is showing how there is a world and other people apart from you. It's not on me to prove solipsism since you are the one asserting a world and other people exist, which is not falsifiable since the only method you have is sensory data which itself cannot be verified to be true.

It could even all be a dream for all you know: https://qr.ae/pGOANp

So don't speak unless you can prove others exist. I am aware that I am talking to other people as though they exist but this is an exercise in faith, belief. It's not solid and grows shakier by the day. I believe other people exist and are reading this in the same way people believe in God.
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 80

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#294  Postby Greg the Grouper » Aug 15, 2021 4:48 am

Frozenworld wrote:It's not on me to prove solipsism since you are the one asserting a world and other people exist.


INCORRECT, SIR. As you can see under your own username, you are the thread creator.

Also, again, solipsism is so hilariously stupid that I simply don't care. If I can't demonstrate either position to be true, my next question is which is more worthwhile, and without a doubt relying on reality is the most worthwhile position.

You say you have faith, in the same way one has faith in god? To be blunt, I think you're lying to yourself. You wouldn't, for example, walk in front of a train assuming you want to continue living, because regardless of how much dumb shit you post on this forum, you're going to function in life working off the assumption that the reality you interact with is real, and can directly affect you. Same as the rest of us.
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 71

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#295  Postby Spearthrower » Aug 15, 2021 6:17 am

Frozenworld wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#Solipsism

A self-refuting idea or self-defeating idea is an idea or statement whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true.

...

On the face of it, a statement of solipsism is — at least performatively — self-defeating, because a statement assumes another person to whom the statement is made.



It's performative, FW - you're performing, you're engaged in an act, and we all know it. None of us here are dopey enough to simultaneously believe that you believe in solipsism while also being engaged in the act of trying to convince other people that solipsism is justified. It's so lacking in even the most foundational quantities of reasoning that it doesn't even amount to being wrong - it's gibberish: you're gibbering at us.


That's actually incorrect, it isn't self refuting for that reason.


You're fantastic at making confident declarations, but never offer so much as a jot of support for any of them.



Frozenworld wrote:You don't seem to get why the problems you've listed aren't problems for solipsism.


Alternatively, I do get why they are problems for solipsism, and if you don't agree, then perhaps it's you who doesn't understand why these are problems for solipsism. Again, you can tell everyone else they don't understand, but the fact is that the parsimonious explanation here isn't that no one else gets it.


Frozenworld wrote: The problem, which you still haven't disproven, is showing how there is a world and other people apart from you.


It's nonsensical. In what way am I supposed to 'disprove' this? It's a nothing-burger. I am not obliged to disprove any old flight of fancy your grey mush can contrive. I do very much understand why you are attempting to shift the burden of proof - because you've got fuck all justification for your position - but it's obviously not going to wash.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of ... philosophy)

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.


Your appeal to ignorance does not amount to you justifying your position.

I've already parodied this in the thread, and as usual, you've failed to counter it or show why my parody is not an accurate and amusing rendition of the argument you're making.



Frozenworld wrote: It's not on me to prove solipsism since you are the one asserting a world and other people exist,...


This is just outright clownery now.

Of course the onus is on you to prove that you're the only person who exists, you muppet.

Further, every single aspect of this entire conversation is NECESSARILY PREDICATED on me being an independent party to you - you NECESSARILY accept that fact by the act of conversing with me, which means that EVEN YOU do not buy into your own position - which shows how piss poor the thought is in the first instance.

So no, the burden of proof isn't on me to prove that stuff other than you exists; it's already axiomatic established as necessary for this conversation to occur.

Which brings us back to the simplest answer here: you don't have a fucking clue what you're yammering about! :lol:


Frozenworld wrote:... which is not falsifiable since the only method you have is sensory data which itself cannot be verified to be true.


Of course it's falsifiable simply by the existence of other people potentially achieving different results. Nearly every aspect of reality is plausibly falsifiable. I can think all I want that gravity is just a construct, but if I jump out the window, you can bet I falsify that very painfully. The consistency of physical characteristics, plus intersubjective verification is more than adequate to knock your contentions far out of the park, and you're still left with nothing more than an appeal to ignorance.


Frozenworld wrote:
It could even all be a dream for all you know:


Yeah, I already parodied your vacuous woo fantastical appeals to ignorance before:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philo ... l#p2773871

Spearthrower wrote:Ooh ooh....

What if the universe is just a big sack of semolina and you wasted your entire life believing otherwise

What if my toe is actually the Emperor of another dimension reigning benevolently for countless epochs, and I wasted my entire life not bestowing upon it the respect it so assuredly deserves?

What if a claim to knowledge is so desperately poor that the claimant can offer no better justification than wasting their life appealing to ignorance?


As if the mere act of constructing a sentence obliges the world to call all knowledge into question. You certainly have the requisite hubris for solipsism, that's for sure.



Frozenworld wrote:So don't speak unless you can prove others exist.


Here's where I once again show how empty your position is - you want me to not speak? Then MAKE ME stop speaking. If only you exist, and I am just some apparence you contrived for some onanistic reason - then MAKE ME stop. If you can't make me, then perhaps you're just a construct I imagined for my own edification - go on, disprove it! :lol:



Frozenworld wrote:I am aware that I am talking to other people as though they exist but this is an exercise in faith, belief. It's not solid and grows shakier by the day.


Utter clownery. You need to buy yourself some oversized shoes, a neon wig, a flower that squirts water... and you could make a tidy living doing parties.

Aside from the clownery, the arrogance is the only other motivating factor here: you're full of yourself, which is also why you keep writing such dumb things yet think it's other people who are struggling! :lol:


Frozenworld wrote:I believe other people exist and are reading this in the same way people believe in God.


Nope. One thing you need to learn if you're going to achieve anything in this forum is that the act of herding words into syntactically accurate sentences doesn't magically make the resulting meaning of the sentence true.

You no more 'believe' other people exist than you 'believe' you exist. This is all performative, and it's largely you dry-humping our collective legs.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28958
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#296  Postby Spearthrower » Aug 15, 2021 6:20 am

Greg the Grouper wrote:
You say you have faith, in the same way one has faith in god? To be blunt, I think you're lying to yourself. You wouldn't, for example, walk in front of a train assuming you want to continue living, because regardless of how much dumb shit you post on this forum, you're going to function in life working off the assumption that the reality you interact with is real, and can directly affect you. Same as the rest of us.


I believe that infinitely small extra-dimensional pixies yank all things around - there's no such thing as actual motion caused by objects or forces inside this dimension, just continuous pixie-repositioning intended to look exactly like smooth movement and volition.

You can't disprove it! Therefore it's real, and anyone who disagrees is a close-minded faith-based fundamentalist. Your belief in non-pixies is just like a theist's belief in magical sky fairies.

Now I am going to go and live my life according to these great insights! I await the pixies to move the necessary bits to raise a glass in your general direction.... :cheers: ... thank you pixies! See!


Writing stuff, no matter how irrational or incoherent, makes the sentence's meaning gospel. That's 'philosophy'.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28958
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#297  Postby Greg the Grouper » Aug 15, 2021 7:15 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Greg the Grouper wrote:I believe that infinitely small extra-dimensional pixies yank all things around - there's no such thing as actual motion caused by objects or forces inside this dimension, just continuous pixie-repositioning intended to look exactly like smooth movement and volition.

You can't disprove it! Therefore it's real, and anyone who disagrees is a close-minded faith-based fundamentalist. Your belief in non-pixies is just like a theist's belief in magical sky fairies.

Now I am going to go and live my life according to these great insights! I await the pixies to move the necessary bits to raise a glass in your general direction.... :cheers: ... thank you pixies! See!


Writing stuff, no matter how irrational or incoherent, makes the sentence's meaning gospel. That's 'philosophy'.


All pixies, eh? So I didn't drop my phone in the grit channel! It was pixies the whole time!? Fuck!

Speaking of which, how did you manage to assert pixie caused motion as well as the existence of a reality outside of OP when you're just the mental construct of a brain in a jar?
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 71

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#298  Postby Spearthrower » Aug 15, 2021 7:54 am

Greg the Grouper wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Greg the Grouper wrote:I believe that infinitely small extra-dimensional pixies yank all things around - there's no such thing as actual motion caused by objects or forces inside this dimension, just continuous pixie-repositioning intended to look exactly like smooth movement and volition.

You can't disprove it! Therefore it's real, and anyone who disagrees is a close-minded faith-based fundamentalist. Your belief in non-pixies is just like a theist's belief in magical sky fairies.

Now I am going to go and live my life according to these great insights! I await the pixies to move the necessary bits to raise a glass in your general direction.... :cheers: ... thank you pixies! See!


Writing stuff, no matter how irrational or incoherent, makes the sentence's meaning gospel. That's 'philosophy'.


All pixies, eh? So I didn't drop my phone in the grit channel! It was pixies the whole time!? Fuck!

Speaking of which, how did you manage to assert pixie caused motion as well as the existence of a reality outside of OP when you're just the mental construct of a brain in a jar?


Because the brain-in-a-jar's mental motions are caused by pixies... duh!
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28958
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#299  Postby Spearthrower » Aug 15, 2021 7:55 am

Well, as I have now asserted this to be the case, it is obviously FW's job to disprove motion-causing pixies.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28958
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#300  Postby Greg the Grouper » Aug 15, 2021 8:48 am

I wonder if there comes a time when a solipsist, being the narcisistic pedant they are, comes to hate the idea that they're the only thinking being in existence, and finds themselves desperately praying for a unique individual separate from themselves that might then validate their inflated ego.
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 71

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest