Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker
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?
amkerman wrote:Nothing... doesn't exist. Everything that is not "nothing" exists.
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
asdfjkl wrote:my q is is existence the same as self evidence/
asdfjkl wrote:so are you guys solipsists or wut?
asdfjkl wrote:no really do things exist if you're not directly perceiving them?
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?
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest