/lit/ - Literature

>>2755037
>is the is

YOU FUCKING RETARDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD. YOUR OPINION IS WORTHLESS NOW, THREAD OVER! FUCKING DUMBASS

I don't know much about it, to be honest. According to solipsism, am I having a discussion with myself right now?

>>2755047
Are you me?

>>2755048
I don't know.

(This dialogue has summed up the contribution of solipsism to the philosophical world. As you can see, it's a real piece of shit.)

>>2755037
>implying we can have knowledge of the self

It's just a blind as every other position, my friend.

It's the only rational belief system, and I use it almost every day. I am the only being who exists, I exist because I am aware, and because of this I feel completely justified in looking out for only myself. You can't prove to me that others feel pain in the same way I do, so I'm completely okay hurting others for my own gain or convenience. Can you argue with this?

>>2755055
What happens when you die?

Arguments could be contructed from a neurobiological standpoint.

We can have no direct experience of another person's mind? Well, if the basis of the scientific explanation is consistent then sharing the exact same experience with another person is possible, but infinitesimally unlikely given the complexity of the combinations and permutations of neural activity.

A refutation of the neurobiological postulate (that brain states are determinable), I would think would have to ask the basic question, as a grounding, of what is the experience of empty consciousness (experience without experiential content). Is it determinable? Are there different varieties, or multipicities of empty experience? How can there be different kinds of emptiness?

>>2755060

Well, everything ceases existing. You can't say that won't happen because by the time it happens I'll be unreachable.

I like the argument, "If you're the only one that exists, why did something else have to tell you that you might be the only one that exists?" It's pretty easy to refute, "well I made you, so I'm only telling myself it."

Can solipsism be disproven? Or is it unprovable on the basis that it rejects all proof?

>>2755068
>Can solipsism be disproven? Or is it unprovable on the basis that it rejects all proof?

What are you doing. You're talking about philosophy.

>>2755060
The world ends hurr durr

>>2755055
Rational? More like retarded.
>I am the only being who exists
Prove it.
>I exist because I am aware
Good job, Descartes. And what if you don't really exist? What if your self is an illusion and there's only nature and parts of it that think and feel (thus having self-awareness and consciousness)
>I feel completely justified in looking out for only myself.
Well, do whatever you want. Nobody gives a fuck.
>You can't prove to me that others feel pain
Yes I can. They have nervous system.
>in the same way I do
Is this even relevant?
>so I'm completely okay hurting others for my own gain or convenience.
Have fun with your autism and lack of sexual life.
>Can you argue with this?
Let's try: this is bullshit.

>>2755051
This. We only have knowledge of things we can perceive. We ARE conscious, but don't perceive consciousness.

>>2755049
Agreed.

The belief that every one is in a state of psychosis 24/7

>>2755037
Its basically how much of reality you are willing to accept or entertain is real. Solipsism says that nothing outside your mind exists because there is no way to know outside of your senses.

Therefore it takes the easy position and claims that nothing exists outside your own thoughts because the senses are not proof.

>>2755078
>mad as fuck because he can't refute it
>hides behind petty ad hominems

stay unintelligent, friend


>>2755061
this is the closes you'll get to an decent argument on this board

Solipsism is for angsty teens who drop too much acid.

>>2755078

>Prove it.
Well, I just did. I wrote it, and I experienced myself writing it, therefore I exist. Yay. What, you want proof for you? Did you fucking read what I said?

>Good job, Descartes. And what if you don't really exist? What if your self is an illusion and there's only nature and parts of it that think and feel (thus having self-awareness and consciousness)

Well, if an illusion experiences itself then can it be called an illusion? Well no, at least not as you define illusion. So therefore I'm not an illusion by your definition, because I can say that I'm not an illusion and experience myself saying it.

>Well, do whatever you want. Nobody gives a fuck.
:3

>Yes I can. They have nervous system.
See, you can't really respond to half an argument.

>Is this even relevant?
Yes, it's the whole fucking point of solipsism. There are things that are like me, but you can't prove they're exactly like me. They feel pain, and it can be quantified, but you can't prove that the qualia of pain exists in every person. That must be something unique to me, because I can prove it only in myself. You fucking dolt.

>Have fun with your autism and lack of sexual life.
Autism is basic reasoning now? Why wouldn't I have sex? You're a piss poor troll or a moron, I can't tell.

>Let's try: this is bullshit.

Your response certainly was :3

>>2755037
>Solipsism is .. Prove me wrong.

Very funny op, 7/10.

>>2755089
>mad as fuck because he can't refute it
Looks like you forgot to read this part:

>I am the only being who exists
Prove it.
>I exist because I am aware
Good job, Descartes. And what if you don't really exist? What if your self is an illusion and there's only nature and parts of it that think and feel (thus having self-awareness and consciousness)

>hides behind petty ad hominems
>stay unintelligent, friend
Irony?

If only you exist, why do you need to explain yourself this shit?

>>2755096
>Well, I just did. I wrote it, and I experienced myself writing it, therefore I exist. Yay. What, you want proof for you? Did you fucking read what I said?
This is not how you prove that only you exist. I can wrote and experience too. I exist too.

Well, if an illusion experiences itself then can it be called an illusion?
This is not what I said. Read it again. What experiences isn't an illusion, what's an illusion is the feeling of self.
Well no, at least not as you define illusion.
I didn't define illusion. Read it again.
ZSo therefore I'm not an illusion by your definition, because I can say that I'm not an illusion and experience myself saying it.
Well, all of this is bullshit since isn't what I was implying at all... lrn2read.

>>Yes I can. They have nervous system.
>See, you can't really respond to half an argument.
But they feel. They have nervous system. You can't disprove it.

>Yes, it's the whole fucking point of solipsism. There are things that are like me, but you can't prove they're exactly like me.
Who cares if they're exactly like you or not? They are, and they're not you.
>They feel pain, and it can be quantified,
lol you were implying they couldn't
>but you can't prove that the qualia of pain exists in every person.
Qualias cannot be proven, you don't know a qualia, you experience it. Basing your point upon qualias is stupid.
>That must be something unique to me, because I can prove it only in myself.
Non sequitur.

>Autism is basic reasoning now? Why wouldn't I have sex? You're a piss poor troll or a moron, I can't tell.
If you don't understand why solipsism is autistic you must be retarded.

>>2755094
>every philosophical notion is for angsty teens

>>2755120
I doubt biological naturalism is for angsty teens.

>>2755122
I'm an angsty teen and I accept biological naturalism.

>>2755107

As for you, sir, you can't into arguments or philosophy. I would suggest suicide.

I think ontology is either ill-conceived or I don't understand what it means (maybe both): If I differentiate some philosophical investigation as 'regarding that which exists', is that not completely loaded with assumptions that work on the level above my investigation, that is the same level on which the distinction between ontology and something else (probably epistemology) was made. Where did I go wrong in this?

>>2755107
>>Qualias cannot be proven, you don't know a qualia, you experience it. Basing your point upon qualias is stupid.

Oh God... the horror...
Okay, maybe we can try to show you why you are wrong. For example, since you seem to be 'into' proof: Every kind of proof is only accepted as valid proof if (and to a certain measure because) the respective authorities in the field agree that it is in fact valid, which they determine through an act of 'understanding' the argument. What this understanding entails, however, is entirely opaque to those who do not understand it.

Sure, you could say 'someone understands proof X if they can reproduce it in their own words', but in order to be the judge of this criterion, you would have to understand it yourself. Now, how do you know you understand it? It is a feeling. A qualium, or possibly a certain arrangement of qualia, I don't think a discussion about a hypothetical qualium-atomism really makes sense with someone who obviously does not understand their significance.

>>2755122
>"Whatever, mom. Just 'cause I value mental consciousness as a higher form of thinking doesn't mean you get to treat me like a child. I hate my fucking mom, nobody understands me"

The part of your brain that is used to regocnize yourself is the same part that recognizes everybody else.
If you are an autistic cunt, then solipsism may be a way out.
If not, you are just being stupid seen from an objective viewpoint.

>>2755176
Awww so cute how you missed the point.
>since you seem to be 'into' proof
No, he was asking for proof.
What I was saying is that basing solipsism on the fact that I cannot accede to others' qualia is stupid. Qualias are not knowledge, they appear to us like evidence, just like consciousness.

>>2755155
At least I give arguments. I don't need to tell other people to suicide when I disagree with him, I use to argue (though it's harder).

>>2755195
lol best son ever.

>>2755246
>>>/b/
>>>/tv/
>>>/mu/

>>2755253
Slightly mad? Cannot even into rational discussion?

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPISAFAG

lichtenberg objection.

Solipsism and ontology are both typical ancient forms of Western thought that try to overthink and overanalyze everything. If you can not see the universal harmony and balance, and want to reduce all truth down to something as tiny as your perception, all in an effort to justify some painful selfisness, go right ahead OP.

But coming to 4chan and asking others to prove you wrong is either further proof of your ego running wild with fear, or a cry for help to change and be somehow how a part of the world.

Good luck, I hope you are a troll.

>>2755037
>ontology
>possible
What are you even doing here?

>>2755292
that's rich, mr siddharta, grumping about other people's egoes. did someone's reality view get stepped on? who is reducing what? subjective perception is the only path to enlightenment, whatever conclusions you draw, they're dependent on subjective perception and experience.

OP here, just popped back over from /sci/ to see how this thread was going. None of you have provided a decent argument yet, you all seem hung up on personal issues you have with the idea like this guy (>>2755292) that boil down to "I don't like it so it must be wrong" and makes you look fucking retarded. Regardless, I've had my fun for now. Stay unintelligent, friends.

>>2755296
>literally anything
>impossible

Why are you even alive?

>he still thinks Descartes was right
Even solipsism presumes more than it can safely presume.

>>2755292
>solipsism
>typical

ohshitniggawhatareyoudoing.jpg

>>2755292
Sounds like your confusing heavy narcissism for solipsism if you think it's a typical Western philosophy.

>>2755298
Believing that you are the only thing that exists, believing that there is no proof otherwise, even desiring proof to the contrary, is not a path to enlightenment. It is a path of fear and isolation, isolation even from your true nature.

Most people,
When criticized for being egocentric
Only find clever means
Of hiding it from others.
After a while
They only fool themselves.

>>2755309

>>2755299
A decent argument? Solipsism is fucking retarded, man. Give me one good reason to believe this bullshit. This is like Christians trying to convince atheists through rationality. I don't need to prove why it's retarded to think that only my mind exists, it's YOU who should prove why something that violates all my intuitions can be true.

>>2755305
Typical of Western thought.

>>2755309
Show me how it is possible to practice solipsism without narcissism .

>>2755319
Having asperger's.

>>2755318
Go to bed.

>>2755322
lrn2 discuss.

>>2755321

>>2755324
>make ridiculous emotional statements
>tell other people to learn to discuss
Seriously, go to bed. Come back with a clear head.

>>2755299
>ignoring the only serious reply on the thread

you have to adress the lichtenberg objection before you can claim solipsism is justifiable.

>>2755327
>make ridiculous emotional statements
like "go to bed" for example? I gave arguments, you should learn to discuss, and by this I mean saying things other than "go to bed".

>>2755318
>MY INTUITIONS DEFINE REALITY

>>2755331
If you really think I was implying this you're an idiot. Read it again.

>>2755329
You didn't give arguments.
The argument was effectively thus:
OP: you can't trust your senses
You: I CAN, FUCK YOU I CAN TRUST MY INTUITION YOUR JUST FUCKING STUPID
Me: Go to bed.

>>2755333
That was clearly implied retard.

>>2755333
appealing to intuition in any way is fundamentally retarded.

>>2755336
lol I'l explain it better for you:

OP: solipsism is true
me: It's fucking retarded. It violates my intuitions and there isn't a single good reason to believe it. If you pretend me to believe something so incredible you should give me good arguments to convince me why it isn't retarded.
You: Go to bed

>>2755321
Nice, repeat something that is so overused on 4chan that it has lost all meaning, as opposed to offering any debate. Not that the debate is relevant.

There is a koan that goes:

A student once asked his master, "Master master! I am so perplexed! What is the meaning of life? What happens to us when we die? How do I reach enlightenment? Is there a God? What is Zen?"

And the old master replied, "Go ask that fence post over there."

"But master, I don't understand!"

"Neither do I!"

At any rate, none of know, but to practice in a way that reveals more to us is the best we can do. To narrow your view point as much as Solipsism does however, I dare say it is impossible to in any way really function like that. It is merely some function of an argument, and not a practical philosophy for one to live by.

>>2755341
It's not when you haven't good reasons to prove otherwise. Your intuitions tell you that there shouldn't be a brick wall behind your room door, so you should be able to get out of your room. Is that so retarded? You've got no reasons to doubt what your intuitions tell you. Doubting evidences without a reason is just stupid.

To the solipsist guy:
who is this "me" you speak of?
who is this "others" you speak of?
since you're a solipsist you deny external reality, can "you" manipulate what is usually called external reality?

>>2755344
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition

>>2755348
god

are you 14

intuition has no place in any kind of abstract discussion, child.

go to /x/

>>2755339
No, intuitions doesn't define reality and I wasn't implying it. Learn to understand what you read without putting shit in others' mouths and stop being mad.
>>2755348

>>2755356
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition

>>2755353
Why? Why should I doubt my intuitions' validity without a good reason? Explain it. Repeating stuff like "go to bed" or ">>>/b/" only shows me that you don't have a good response.

>>2755362
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition

>>2755362
if you don't see any difference between thought and intuition you should go to /x/.

the go to bed guy is some other guy, child.

>>2755353
Not that poster, and I'm not agreeing with you about intuition, because anyone who has seen mother with child, or been in a deep meditative state knows that it is real, but you can't argue that instinct does serve a purpose. Instinct is clear to see, and its functions serve well to those creatures that trust in it.

>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition
>intuition

>>2755367
But I see it. What I said was about trusting your intuitions. I know thoughts are something different. But they only differ from intuitions when there's a good enough reason. btw that's not the case of solipsism.

>>2755362
Do not listen to them, they are cynics that don't live much, but prefer to read and degrade others, without producing anything of their own besides a contrived opinion. Instinct, emotion, feeling, intuition or however you choose to describe it is proof enough that Solipsism is not more that a hypothetical used as a bullet point in an argument between lofty intellectuals.

Trust your intuition, it just might save your life, but don't ignore that a solid philosophical understanding, and practice of any sort will improve your 6th sense.

>>2755362

>Why should I doubt my intuitions' validity without a good reason?

heh

you´re funny, really funny, I liked you.

stay here more time

ah, think before post, is my intuition

>>2755370
>its functions serve well to those creatures that trust in it.

so does hunger, but it doesn't get you to any truth. whatever, go on, you have nothing to say in a rational discussion about ontology.

>>2755376
>look at me I'm so intelligent I don't even need to explain why I'm right, you should just assume that I'm intelligent to help me improve my self-esteem.

>>2755377
You're joking, right?

>>2755305
>Implying ontology doesn't aim to evaluate an objective reality.
>Implying this doesn't first require objective knowledge.
For solipsism to work, perceptual objectivity must be possible. If it were possible, it would also be possible to have evidence for the world beyond yourself (no line of demarcation), and so solipsism wouldn't be justified.
Nihilism - get on my level.

>>2755382
>but it doesn't get you to any truth
And some ridiculous belief like solipsism does? Give a better argument about why should think that all my intuitions are systematically wrong or just shut up.

>>2755386
What kind of nihilism? Mereological, absolute...?

>>2755301
>>2755305
>Implying ontology doesn't aim to evaluate an objective reality.
>Implying this doesn't first require objective knowledge.
For solipsism to work, perceptual objectivity must be possible. If it were possible, it would also be possible to have evidence for the world beyond yourself (no line of demarcation), and so solipsism wouldn't be justified.
Nihilism - get on my level.

>>2755384
you are a little upset, is my intuition

>>2755388
Who said I was arguing for solipsism? At least he reasoned his way there, instead of just going "hmm, it doesn't feel right, durr".

>Give a better argument about why should think that all my intuitions are systematically wrong

They're unsupported. It's literally not thought, it's irrelevant to a discussion, much like how hungry or sleepy you are aren't relevant. They have no truth value, since they don't abide by any evident logic system.

>>2755401
>it's irrelevant to a discussion
But the thought that there are things that exist other than my mind and that my intuitions respond to some real structure is.

>>2755396
You're just a poor troll.

>>2755411
and you have good intuitions

>>2755391
Sorry, bro. I was replying to the other guy, and then I accidentally left the link to your post in my repost anyway. Epistemological, in at leas this context. Given, you know, that I was pointing out the impossibility of knowledge.

>>2755382
Ontology is basically a dualistic science of questioning everything. How can you ever find truth in anything like that? I know if I FEEL hungry, I likely need to eat, and that if this feeling persists, my health will suffer. I know this, not because some scientist has told me so. Must you tell a baby to cry? No, I know this because it is truth, just like I know many truths about the world, by looking within myself.

And in any event, we are discussing Solipsism as an answer to ontology. The concept of Solipsism is too exclusive to fulfill the inquisitive nature of the ontological man, and furthermore, insinuating that the self could somehow arise independent of its environment borders on the absurd.

The entire point of Western philosophy is to spin its wheels in never ending argument and intellectual masturbation. Trying to practice Solipsism is impossible, and therefore irrelevant to any school of thought.

>>2755413
Do you really think knowledge is impossible? How do you know it? Is it possible to believe such a thing? Why do we think that we know if we don't?

>>2755414

I love the fact that there are smart people on the internet.

>>2755312
You're right, I agree. I defended subjectivism more than solipsism.

>>2755414
>>insinuating that the self could somehow arise independent of its environment borders on the absurd.

But solipsism does not entail that. It only entails the assumption that this environment is contained in my self-hood.

>>2755436

BUT WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THAT ASSUMPTIONS? WHAT DOES IT EVEN MATTER.
IF EVERYTHING IS "ME" WHY DO YOU EVEN USE THE WORD "ME"?
IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE YOU COCKJUGGLING THUNDERCUNT

>>2755414
>How can you ever find truth in anything like that?

On its own terms, within it's own framework what's true is true, and that's enough. Trivially true statements are the only possible true statements.

>insinuating that the self could somehow arise independent of its environment borders on the absurd.
>implying there is 'an environment' in solipsistic thought

>The entire point of Western philosophy is to spin its wheels in never ending argument and intellectual masturbation.

Good for you buddha.

>>2755410
>But the thought that there are things that exist other than my mind and that my intuitions respond to some real structure is.

I was talking only about your intuition, and even then this isn't as much an argument against anything as it is just saying "well i don't think so."

>>2755436
If it's contained in your self-hood, then isn't really your environment. Assuming solipsism implies no environment other than some kind of imaginary one.

In order to say "I think therefore I am", I must have knowledge of a public language or be involved in some language game. Whatever way, it involves other people.

>>2755443

>Implying that Buddha isn't a lot smarter than you.

>>2755439
solipsism has always been a miscarriaged description of monism. pointing out it's stupid is not hard.

>>2755443
My intuitions are unsupported, but they lead to some true statements. Solipsism isn't supported (by a any remotely good reason), and it leads to nothing useful or true.

>>2755456
buddha wouldn't bother arguing with me; the imbeciles who think they're enlightened are not.

>>2755460
>implying no one in the world can be right about that
Come on. Someone out there is enlightened and I doubt that person thinks "man, I can't wait til that enlightenment thing kicks in!"

>>2755458
>My intuitions are unsupported, but they lead to some true statements

so? contradictions can lead to true statements as well.

>Solipsism isn't supported

Then why can't you argue it away without appealing to non-thought?

> and it leads to nothing useful

Irrelevant.

>or true

How would you know?

Solipsism seems to have a 50/50 chance of being true, and no way to tilt the balance one way or the other.

>>2755443
Constantly calling me Buddha, or some-such only serves to make you look like a dissatisfied teenager. I am not a Buddhist, nor do I even study much into Buddhism, or any "ism" for that matter, I find that for the most part, they are too restrictive, not that discipline is a bad thing, but pretense is.

Are you upset that I pointed out that all of this arguing, even if it some how validates your sense of self, isn't going to get you anywhere? At least the Buddhists live the things that they vocalize. If you really believe you only exist inside of yourself, then go out and do everything that your whim directs you toward. There should be no consequences.

I prefer a world were I can feel emotion for things outside of myself and try to bring balance and positive energy into the world. If that makes me Buddha in your eyes, I'm sorry for your limited scope.

>>2755448
I agree with this concept, and would add that most of us think in terms of dialogue with some sort of an audience, and often reflect on the thoughts of others. A Solipsist could never differentiate like this.

>>2755475
I'm not the solipsist here, if you really have trouble following the discussion.

>Constantly

I did so once, hippie.

>Are you upset that I pointed out that all of this arguing, even if it some how validates your sense of self, isn't going to get you anywhere?

I'm annoyed that people that think themselves above argument and discussion participate in them just to let others know.

>>2755460
I never claimed to be enlightened. But at least I attempt to follow, in a very undisciplined manner, a spiritual and philosophical path that can at least offer me small enlightenments and connections to the world and the things in it. And who knows, maybe one day I will find "enlightenment" if that is what you choose to call it. I think of it as peace, or balance. But at least I am trying.

And isn't pointing out that people claiming to be enlightened, etc., doesn't acknowledging others directly disprove the theory?

itt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcytTEtuWtQ

>>2755488
>I like talking about myself a lot and can't really be bothered to see who I'm replying to.

>>2755487
Well then someone else did, calling me Siddhartha when all I said was 'Western'.

I never claimed to be above arguing. I like to share my path with others, helping people brings me joy. I just feel bad that someone could take such a selfish approach, and then WANT to argue about a philosophy, that has as a doctrine, the principle of not accepting any argument.

Discussion can lead to deeper understanding, but argument is usually prefaced with at least stubbornness self assured, and at worst bitterness and vitriol. And in reading most any Western philosophy, the writer is always making himself known, and always trying to invalidate his contemporaries. To me that is destructive, and doesn't benefit anyone.

>>2755475
>I agree with this concept, and would add that most of us think in terms of dialogue with some sort of an audience, and often reflect on the thoughts of others. A Solipsist could never differentiate like this.
Well, it's Wittgenstein's counter to solipsism as it were. His point is more that solipsism assumes we have priveleged access to our own minds and thoughts, which is not the case at least most of the times (or not always or whatever). You've also got to remember that the idea of solipsism as the basis for philosophical apparatus (how we reason about the world) is based within language, and that is contrary to the cartesian idea of thinking and being as the heart of philsophy, the true underpinning is language and how we use it (although there is the whole some ideas can be shown and some told, and Witty also argues that solipsism is a truth which can be shown but not told, even if it is uncanny or weird feeling).

>>2755418
Buddy, you're going to be able to call me out on a lot of semantic contradictions, but I'd ask you not to because it's not relevant.
That said, we can understand that evidence is impossible through this process - ask yourself how you can accept any evidence you encounter as real. This relies on evidence. I'll use this teacup I'm drinking out of as a demonstration, and explain my inability to provide evidence for it, to either you or to myself. If I'm to accept the reality of this teacup, I must first accept that what I am perceiving is reality in the first place, and that I am even capable of perception. To know these things, I need to already know them, or else I cannot create knowledge. See the problem yet?
I can't be fucked talking about mathematical knowledge, and it's not really relevant, but I wouldn't say that's possible either.
The semantic contradiction is that I keep making claims yet saying claims are impossible - I know that. Knowledge for me is more a point of function than of reality, I use the word metaphorically and for convenience.

>>2755393
Welp, that's about as wrong as you can be on the subject. In fact, you're inadvertently arguing for solipsism by validating the premise that knowledge beyond the self is unknowable and therefore the assumption made is that it does not exist. You can't pull a positive from a negative state.

>>2755471
Ahhh...nope.


This thread is hilarious by the way, and on top of that, whether you were being serious or not, there is some good discussion. Proud of you, /lit/

Why would I argue against you? You're right. Or that is to say, I'm right.

>>2755759
Indeed, and is solipsism not a positive?

>>2755037
Stop indulging in your sppoks.