Posted: Apr 14, 2012 11:36 pm
by lobawad
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?

How does certainty of one's own existence imply non-existence of anything else? "I am" demonstrates "it is possible for something to be"; the inference from there is "it is possible for something else to be". "I am, therefore it is possible for something to be, therefore only I exist" is simply not reasonable.

How do you go from the deductively discerned possibility of existence to inferred impossibilities of existence?

And note that it is not necessarily the case that "I am" precedes "other things are". It is more likely the case that it is the other way around.

If you are shopping for a mental illness, a less truculent and more succulent one than solipsism would be to be sure of everyone else's existence and doubtful of your own.