Posted: Jan 26, 2021 2:59 am
by Frozenworld
Spearthrower wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
Generally my stance is the "why do anything" since the "why not" aspect of it has already been answered.


Do you wonder why you breathe?

I mean, there's actually a long, complicated reason as to why you breathe that dates back billions of years - a process that caused changes over time that in turn caused changes to the process itself, and that topic has real depth and substance to it. You could spend a lifetime learning about this and potentially increase the sum of human knowledge with respect to understanding why we breathe.

But I doubt you really wonder why you personally breathe each time you do so even though it's integral to your continued ability to wonder.

Rather, you're the editor of the focus of your wonder - you've decided what's worth wondering about and what's not worth wondering about. But the term 'decision' there suggests you were the agent of those decisions, that you weighed them up critically and convinced yourself through your inquiry that X topic is worth wonder, while Y topic isn't. Are you sure that's the case? Have you really considered why a given topic causes you wonder while another doesn't?

Your posts here do not reflect a neutral interest in a topic. A neutral interest would not only be open to receiving and exploring arguments for and against a proposition, but also be open to questioning whether the proposition itself has sufficient merit in the first instance. You seem intent on stating the proposition MUST have merit, but in support you present other peoples' written ideas which you say you can't really process, but which you say you lend credence to. Meanwhile, you dismiss criticisms of those written ideas which - remember - you've said you can't process, and continue expecting other people to respond to them in a way that satisfies you.

The fact here is that you've 'decided' that this topic has worth, but you can't show that it has worth, you can't provide any argument showing that it has worth, and you admit that the arguments you forward are not ones you understand. At this point, all you've got is an unjustified belief. What is anyone supposed to do with that? You may as well - state your belief, then move on. No discussion can ensue if you insist your belief is valid while being unwilling to inspect its validity.


Not at all. I'm trying to find arguments that address the points I have found that sadly lend strength to solipsism but so far they have fallen short. I haven't decided this topic has worth, rather it has had worth for thousands of years but alas the problem has never had a solution. Even modern neuroscience and quantum physics lends more strength to it than our notion of an external reality and other minds. We know the brain "hallucinates" conscious reality in that it builds it according to sensory data, but the problem of solipsism is this can never be verified.

Why do we breath is a stupid and trivial question, it genuinely doesn't matter at all. The question of how do we know other people exist, or even the world, is far more important and so far has no solution. People take it for granted, saying it's obvious. But the more one thinks about it the less they know and finally they have to face the fact that they can't be sure other people are real or exist.

I don't want this to be true or have merit. But unfortunately once you start questioning the assumptions you make about reality it's hard to stop and things are never the same after that. Everything is less solid and clear.