ok awhile ago i was asking whether existence=self-evidence.
the main reason why i might think it is is this:
the only thing that is self evident is the self (and its perceptions of course)
these things we can perceive directly, ie there is no doubt that they exist.
now it seems to me that existence=direct perception (=self evidence)
it seems that just like you're certain these things exist you should be certain nothing else does.
anyone else think this way or are you non solipsist?

asdfjkl wrote:ok awhile ago i was asking whether existence=self-evidence.
the main reason why i might think it is is this:
the only thing that is self evident is the self (and its perceptions of course)
these things we can perceive directly, ie there is no doubt that they exist.
now it seems to me that existence=direct perception (=self evidence)
it seems that just like you're certain these things exist you should be certain nothing else does.
anyone else think this way or are you non solipsist?

I think you're problem is in red.

Nothing... doesn't exist. Everything that is not "nothing" exists.

I am not a solipsist.

I agree that existence is self-evident.

amkerman wrote:Nothing... doesn't exist. Everything that is not "nothing" exists.

Profound.

Profoundly fucking pedantic

so is solipsism justified this way?
since it seems that you can't directly "perceive" non-self-evident things, just think about themm

Maybe one thinks one is thinking about non-self-evident things when in actual fact they are thinking about an abstract representation of the non-self-evident thing — which in itself may be non-self-evident other than the fact that you're thinking about them and, as such, they are self-evident at the time, but only as an abstract and self-evident representation of the non-self-evident thing you thought you were thinking about, in which case, it's not entirely self-evident that one is thinking self-evidentially about something possibly completely removed, evidentially-speaking, from the non-self-evident thing in itself about which one initially though they were evidently thinking about.

yes you can think about non self evident things
but do they exist?
you can think about nonexistent things too

my q is is existence the same as self evidence/

asdfjkl wrote:so is solipsism justified this way?
since it seems that you can't directly "perceive" non-self-evident things, just think about themm

If it helps you you sleep at night, then yes.

There is no point to these threads. You don't listen to anyone, instead just repeat the same question 500 times.

If you want to find more information about the topic at hand,

read a book

/thread

asdfjkl wrote:my q is is existence the same as self evidence/

Existence is the basic state. Self evidence is in the perception of the beholder.

Also, I would agree with Ihavenofingerprints's suggestion to read a book (or several) about these topics. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than me in such matters can offer some, uh... suggestions in terms of appropriate reading material.

so are you guys solipsists or wut?

asdfjkl wrote:so are you guys solipsists or wut?

Yes. You exist 100% inside my own brain. So I command you to download spellcheck.

no really do things exist if you're not directly perceiving them?
or does "i'm not perceiving it directly or 100% aware of its existence"="it doesn't exist"
??

bump guys?

asdfjkl wrote:no really do things exist if you're not directly perceiving them?

Yes.

Now find a new hobby.

Why don't you read some books about this stuff and then come to a conclusion? Why would you take someone else's opinion on the internet as evidence one way or the other?

I vote 'yes' in case you are keeping score, btw.

but having thoughs about objects aint the same thing as actlly perceivving them.
also am i the only one who gets such conclusions or were there other hpilosophers?

asdfjkl wrote:but having thoughs about objects aint the same thing as actlly perceivving them.
also am i the only one who gets such conclusions or were there other hpilosophers?

im thinking about my house being where i left it, i dont need to perceive it to know it (or most of it barring a horrible accident) is there, and it is there despite me not seeing it at this moment as i will be returning to it after work, whats the confusion?

and a different q.
if there is no house or if the house isn't within your perception the effect is the same only thoughts are different.
so house not in perception=no house?
also is this idea novel/unique?