jamest wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:but really aren't you worried about solipsism and shit???

What is there to worry about?

There is nothing for me to worry about, after all I know all I experience is the products of my mind, so nothing much changes for me - but you lot are in big trouble because I used to wrongly think you had your own mind!

no but my question is what if to exist is by def. to be self evident.
since when we say "x exists" we usually mean x is self evident right???
like "bed exists" means we can feel, see touch bed, all these are observations.
we can't feel/see/touch anything beyond observ. does that mean it doesn't exist by def.?

bump
replies? or do i win this?

i'm not a fucking troll again
just because i dont care about how i type shit.

asdfjkl wrote:bump
replies? or do i win this?

You're talking to yourself. You ask questions... we respond or ask you a question... you utlimately ignore us (as, for example, when I asked you what there was to worry about), and repeat the same mantra about existence being 'self evident'. You even have the gall to demand further replies, lest our lack of responses suffice to prove you right. Right? I wasn't even aware that you had presented an argument!!!

For the final time, there's nothing that's self-evident except the self. The irony is, that the self is not evident in the sense that you keep utilising the concept - as in the sense of something that is observed/perceived. The self is evident in its relations to these observations/perceptions. Its thoughts about the things that are observed/perceived, and its desires and intent that are mirrored in the motivations which drive its interactions with them, are the evidence of the self.

Even the term 'self-evident' alludes to an innate knowledge of the self not borne of 'evidence'. I mean, how can something be self-evident unless there's already a self unto which 'something' becomes self-evident?

Self-evidence, as you use it, is a form of delusion. The link I provided earlier explains that people have understood, at least since the times of the ancient-Greeks, that the actual existence of no thing is evident in its perception. Read Plato's allegory of the cave, for instance.

You simply abuse what 'self evident' means. That's what naive realists do. They assume too much from their perceptions. Then, they draw all sorts of silly conclusions from what is [in their eyes] obviously 'self evident'.

Some people here are trying to assist you. You should make more of an effort to engage with them and the efforts that they make.

Other people do, though.
Can we blame your teachers?

idk still seems to me that solipsism would be more right?

asdfjkl wrote:idk still seems to me that solipsism would be more right?

No, its not 'more right'.
Happy now, or shall we engage in an exchange of ideas upon the topic?

Please note that in order to exchange ideas we should both respond to points of the other person/people invlved. So far, as pointed out to you by Jamest, you have been asked many questions and not actually engaged on any of them. If this is how you think a thread develops, then dont be suprised when there is only you posting - now if your a crazy solipsist you propably dont care, since we dont exist independent of your mind anyway, but if your a thinking solipsist you should care. Even if I dont exist outside your mind, I may be the tool of your subconscious to comunicate importand developments to your conscious mind.
I assume you dont believe that you consciously create and control the entire cosmos?
If so then your conscious mind is not the creator/controler of the cosmos, ratehr your subconscious is - and that provides a reason for me to 'be', am I right about your thoughts on why I express ideas different to your conscious ideas?

asdfjkl wrote:i'm not a fucking troll again
just because i dont care about how i type shit.

Your crappy typing isn't trolling, it's just funny.

You not listening to what anyone says and continuing to repeat the same inane shit is trolling. Stop "bumping" your threads, everyone can see them just fine. This is how it works: if the thread is boring, nobody will respond.

but there is a difference between self-evident (self and its observations) and non-self evident.
self evident just simply exists, you can't deny it.
non-self evident things you can only think about not directly observe.

asdfjkl wrote:bump
replies? or do i win this?

If you're a solipsist, it's all "you" anyway. In that sense, I suppose you do "win". You actually treat others as a self-absorbed solipsist might: you ignore everything except for your own endless drivel.

i'm not a fucking troll again
just because i dont care about how i type shit.

At least you admit that it's shit. If even you are indifferent about your ex-recto posts, why should anyone else care? "Anyone else" is a strange concept for a solipsist to think about anyway. Let's imagine a solipsist troll, trolling the entire universe, which happens to consist of one diminutive mind. Now there's an abyss of absurdity.

but i never got a real answer.

Okey- dokes: here's another one: a solipsist has got the wrong end of the stick. (That's a metaphor, btw. Metaphors belong to something called "imagery". And it's called imagery because it's supposed to create mental images in the reader/listener.)

asdfjkl wrote:but i never got a real answer.

If you're going to be a solipsist, don't make the [usual] silly mistake of thinking that you are asdfjkl, nor that there's nought to 'The Mind' (yourself) than consciousness.

asdfjkl wrote:but i never got a real answer.

asdfjkl wrote: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.

Well, I'm not very impressed by the a priori certainties, and the building of metaphysical systems out of word games. I would direct you to this thread, Human, All-Too Human, but you seem to always want everything boiled down to a line or two. "I shall repeat a hundred times; we really ought to free ourselves from the seduction of words!"

summarize the thread.

Sure.

1. You made a bunch of nonsense propositions, seemingly pulled out of thin air
2. Members tried to discuss this with you to see what the hell you're talking about
3. You repeat the same nonsense as if it made any sense the first time, without any consideration of anything anyone has said

asdfjkl wrote:summarize the thread.

No. If you want to find out, put in some effort and read it.

no i need it summarized.
also it isn't nonsense it means self-evident things are the only things that exist (since our notion of existence comes from perception of self evident things and you can not doubt the existence of self evident things.)