Posted: Apr 14, 2012 11:38 pm
by asdfjkl
OK I am tired of people criticizing the way I post (no one on other forums does it) so I'll talk normally.
At first I believed that everything in the universe obeyed 1 law (the law of identity) and the logic that complements that law.
Then I realized that there are paradoxes that are self-evident. That would mean that logic is not a universal absolute and that self-evidence trumps it. Then I realized that self-evident things (the ones you directly perceive) are irrefutable; eg no matter how you put it, when you're observing a computer you're not observing a goose. Self-evident things exist for sure and self-evidence and existence sort of became synonymous in my mind, with logic becoming a flawed process.
Now with an object that is NOT self-evident, I'm not perceiving it in any way. I'm not touching it, seeing it, feeling it, etc. To me, it self-evidently makes no difference whether it exists or not. This is my worry: if the existence of self-evident objects is 100% irrefutable, is the nonexistence of non-self-evident objects equally 100% irrefutable?
The main reason it worries me is if it also applies to time (temporal solipsism) then that would mean that I am alone PLUS I'm eternally frozen in time (no past no future, just the present self-evident moment).
I actually had various other reasons to worry about this idea before (paradoxes of motion) so I got used to the idea (it isn't THAT bad) but an eternity of anything isn't exactly present.
So, do you think that this proves solipsism or not? And why?