/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10737371]

There isn't a single philosopher who has soundly proven that the external world exists.

[Anonymous No.10737385]

My externality plumbed you're moms internal world desu

[Anonymous No.10737386]

>>10737371
>There isn't a single philosopher who has soundly proven that the OP exists.

[Anonymous No.10737398]

>>10737371
Even if you were a brain in a jar, or were living in a simulation, there would still need to be a world external to you in which that jar-brain or simulation could exist or be run.

[Anonymous No.10737399]

You're sitting in a movie theater. The seating is full. You are completely focused on the movie. Something in the movie makes you laugh. Several other people in the audience laugh as well.

How do solipsists explain this phenomenon?

[Anonymous No.10737415]

>>10737398
No, all you need is a mind and some experience/sense data and boom. The brain in a vat thing is just a colorful illustration.

[Anonymous No.10737417]

>>10737399
>when you laugh, the world laughs with you. When you cry, you cry alone
Fuckers

[Anonymous No.10737418]

>>10737399
No different than two leaves falling from a tree.

[Anonymous No.10737432]

>>10737371
I'm actually publishing a paper on the subject right now. It's being peer reviewed as we speak.

One of my interesting discoveries was that OP himself does not exist. I demonstrate this by first showing OP's immense faggotry, which is so massive that it would simply be impossible for such a person to actually exist.

From there I conclude that if we can observe that OP is a faggot it stands there are observers, which do in fact exist. Hence someone can said to exist only if they think OP is fag.

[Anonymous No.10737435]

>>10737399
just other people being used to trick the POV you have, no different than the idea of other objects causing you to feel a certain way. you find the concept of simulating yourself alone feasible but boring, simulating yourself+bots is much more feasible and considerably less boring. it makes sense you’d want to immerse yourself in the sim as long as possible

[Anonymous No.10737438]

>>10737399
I'm a solipsist and I think I found a solution to this.
Remember the old riddle: If a tree falls down in a forest and no one is there to hear it fall, does it produce a sound?
The solipsist answer: No.
In my mind, people and objects only exist as long as there is an outsider(me) to observe them. I call this the observer effect. When I cease observing something, it ceases to exist

[Anonymous No.10737443]

>>10737415
I don't understand what you mean. Are you arguing for solipsism? How could you sense or experience anything if there weren't something to sense or experience? If there are data, that implies something that can be quantified abstractly, and homogeneous units, to be applicable, must apply to something, so the existence of sense data would seem to imply that there are objects in the world.

[Anonymous No.10737465]

>>10737417
What about when I'm in class and the professor says "he was a big guy" when describing someone's stature and I start laughing really hard and everyone stares at me?

[Anonymous No.10737472]

>>10737438
>When I cease observing something, it ceases to exist
Is that solipsism though? The act of "observing something" implies an external thing to observe.

[Anonymous No.10737493]

>>10737472
Let's put it this way. Imagine that you are in a procedurally generated video game. The only are that truly exist is the one you are in, anything outside a certain radius is just empty with no features or textures. When you begin walking in a certain direction, things start to appear, while the are you left behind ceases to be there. The same applies here. Things temporarily exist when i can observe them, and cease to exist when i no longer observe them. If I die, there is no observer, so nothing exists

[Anonymous No.10737503]

>>10737371
Lmao nice Cartesian problematic
you were lost from the start

[Anonymous No.10737508]

>>10737371
Kant, "The Refutation of Idealism" in the first Critique

[Anonymous No.10737521]

>>10737503
^

[Anonymous No.10737522]

>solipsist
>brings up video games
Why do they always do this?

[Anonymous No.10737528]

>>10737522
it's an easy metaphor that even brainless can understand

[Anonymous No.10737538]

>>10737371
and you still dont have free will

[Anonymous No.10737540]

>>10737371
The external world is literally bombarding you with data all the time, if you just don't start theorizing from retarded groundworks then you'll have no problem understanding that

[Anonymous No.10737553]

>>10737493
Grug no hear tree, tree no make sound when grug not there

[Anonymous No.10737599]

>>10737553
Here, have this

[Anonymous No.10737605]

>>10737493
I get all that. But the problem remains: where are these other things popping in from? If it all comes from the brain, why is there a factor of spontaneity at all? It's a very strange idea to me.

[Anonymous No.10737609]

>>10737371
What about Jordan Petersons take on William James's pragmatism?

> It's true if holding it (acting in accordance with it) gives reproductive advantages over huge swaths of time.

At least it makes free will real and nuclear weapons untenable. And numbers are real. And it makes the outside world is real.

I might be basing this on some silly assumption (aside from taking Memeson seriously). If so, please point it out.

[Anonymous No.10737617]

Ravaging aliens with malnutritioned intentions raining down the skys with funky songs being played in their invasion cells and there being tribal dance to which the aliens vibed clearly and undoubtedly males and females and their hands being raised above their heads waving left and right in rhythm to the music with little electro birds chirping rhytmically in cute high-pitched tones, this was the invasion dance. And as the cells broke through the skin that kept the world from suffocating the presidents on all of earth were putting on their rollerblades and entered the hidden caverns that lead to the SUPER HQ beneath the world, among the core and their woman were tending the babies, the babies were very demanding and one of them was Baby Mambo a baby with the genetic code to provide him supernatural strengths as if god himself had invested all of his powers into the forming of this baby, but it died because a virus entered it's system and all physical strength which is strength that exerts itself can not help you when your internal system is invaded by viruses and this death was seen as a foreboding side for the imminent decay of mankind under their new rulership of the aliens and female media people had hysteric breakdowns because they were afraid of what the aleins could do to them and insulted and scratched the males faces because why weren't they able to do anything and why were they so weak and unmanly and all the man were resigning to their fate and tried to make impressions of obedient slaves but not the presidents who ran down the stairs with their roller blades which made 3 of them slip and fall down the stairs breaking their necks. One of them was the president of the united states who screamed OUCH very loudly and broke various bones. The aliens heard this scream and now found out where the presidents were hiding as to organize the resistance so they sent down drills through the earth crust crushing the whole beneatheworld-place and all the presidents died terrible deaths without even having met for their first resistance meeting. It was very clear now that EARTH was defeated by the aliens. The aliens were very happy about their conquest and all the men laid down their weapons and put their hands up because they always recognize when a new alpha male is in town even though the aliens were lean and had no consciousness of the radical temporality of fatness, they didn't know fattime yet but the men of earth did and so they commited to feeling the fat, to witness the space expanding outwards and engage in this new temporality which denied all notimeness of capitalism as being an empty and dehumanized temporality. The Aliens didn't care about fat time at all though and organized a concert at the capital of earth: New York, and there Ryuichi Sakamoto appeared and exposed his face by ripping away the fake mask that made him look like a japanese for half a century and he stared playing the alien hymn a song named plastic bamboo, aliens dancin

[Anonymous No.10737620]

You want proof of the external world?

Try ignoring it and pretending it doesn't exist. Enjoy getting fucked over.

Seriously, how retarded are some of you?

[Anonymous No.10737623]

>>10737599
>Big man in sky maybe see tree all time, grugg think ok

[Anonymous No.10737632]

>>10737438
really?
so all the planets in the solar system aren't there? what about China, does that exist or is it not happening?

[Anonymous No.10737643]

>>10737632
it exists as longs a I observe it. I'm not observing it at the moment, so it doesn't exist
>>10737605
They are formed from the subconscious to maintain a world with an internal consistent logic

[Anonymous No.10737664]

>>10737643
>it exists as longs a I observe it. I'm not observing it at the moment, so it doesn't exist
That's a bold statement coming from something as small as a human being
this is why its important to be humble

[Anonymous No.10737666]

>>10737443
You can just call it experience then. I'm saying that nothing is necessary to explain our experience and that we just have it. Solipsism is very possible.

[Anonymous No.10737668]

>>10737643
>I'm not observing it at the moment, so it doesn't exist
Is this solipsism meme the true mark of the brainlet?

[Anonymous No.10737674]

>>10737503
>>10737521
>implying anyone has overcome Descartes

And don't bring up Heidi because he just avoids the problem.

[Anonymous No.10737676]

>>10737371
You forget Beowulf

[Anonymous No.10737679]

>>10737620
t. never studied philosophy

[Anonymous No.10737685]

>>10737664
>human being
The entire universe revolves around me. If I die, there is no observer, so the universe stops existing. I'm an analog to God if you will
>>10737668
I understand your frustration that you're really just an NPC for me to interact with, and that you only have a small role to play and limited script to contribute to the grand narrative epic that is my life.

[Anonymous No.10737694]

>>10737685
>he doesn't realize that he's just an npc in my world

[Anonymous No.10737698]

>>10737679
Have you tried walking onto the highway with your eyes shut, not observing the world around you so it doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.10737708]

>>10737694
umm, sorry sweetie but the false narrative that your parents taught you that "everyone is the protagonist/hero of their own story" is false. I can't put myself in anyone else shoes, so how can I confirm that anyone else possesses a consciousness? For all I know, my life is the grand narrative, spanning for ages from my birth till my death, interacting with a myriad characters, some small, some big.

[Anonymous No.10737717]

>>10737371
but you just accept that language can express things? or is the 'external world' nutt more than some symbols that cause you to feel ('think') something?

[Anonymous No.10737738]

>>10737708
right but I also have a conscious the same as you, am I lying?

[Anonymous No.10737740]

>>10737620
this desu. I get derealization only when I've been comfortable and smoking weed for too long. A headache, a phone full of missed calls or a loud grating noise is all it takes to pull be back in to the external world. I'm not saying the philosophical debates are a waste of time or that the external world is real, it's just damn real enough that it's pretty hard to dismiss it when it's punching you in the face.

[Anonymous No.10737748]

Ortega Y Gasset

[Anonymous No.10737761]

>>10737679
You don't have to study philosophy to see that his point is just retarded.

>>10737740
my brain is fucking rotting from reading this post

[Anonymous No.10737763]

>>10737738
most likely. Anyways, i can't prove either way

[Anonymous No.10737775]

>>10737761
>You don't have to study philosophy to see that his point is just retarded.

You'd be surprised.

[Anonymous No.10737784]

>>10737761
t. comfy faggot who has never faced hardship

[Anonymous No.10737793]

>>10737777

[Anonymous No.10737809]

>>10737784
What the fuck are you talking about? What does my living condition have to do with solipsism?
Read a book, nigger, start with Sophie's World

[Anonymous No.10737819]

>>10737438
>In my mind, people and objects only exist as long as there is an outsider(me) to observe them.
My non-existent ass rose from the chaos to tell you to go tongue your mother's salty clam, dumb solipsist anon.

Goodbye world, I return to nothingness. *poof*

[Anonymous No.10737826]

>>10737438
>>10737472
>>10737643
Read Berkeley, you absolute plebs. esse est percipi.

then read Hume sweep the floor
then read Kant open a can on Hume

[Anonymous No.10737843]

>>10737493
Suppose this is actually the case. Things only exist if you are aware of them. Suppose there are two open rooms, and a long wall in-between them. You have no means to observe what's behind the wall. The wall itself is not in-between the rooms, but the space behind it is. You go into both rooms and see that they are enclosed, and that their edges closest to our wall are perpendicular to the wall.

Because you cannot observe the space behind the wall, those two rooms have nothing between them, and are adjacent. But the wall has a distance that is non-zero. How is this resolved?

[Anonymous No.10737845]

>>10737819
it is to be expected. Everything and everyone that exists has a purpose. Everyone has a role, including you. Your role was to insult me, you are an obstacle or villain, in the hero's journey. Solipsism is actually a great philosophy. All those hard and complicated ethical dilemmas become simple to me. Since I'm the hero of this narrative, all my actions are moral and anyone who opposes me is amoral/evil.

[Anonymous No.10737849]

>>10737438
You don't really believe this though

[Anonymous No.10737852]

>>10737465
Bane?

[Anonymous No.10737862]

>>10737435
This is the best response to that. Good job, anon. Gold star.

[Anonymous No.10737873]

>>10737843
I'm confused as to your enquiry. As i understand it, there are two rooms separated by a wall. I cannot be in the two rooms at the same time. If I walk into one room, I cannot observe the other, so it does not exist and vice-versa if I enter the other room. Is that it?

[Anonymous No.10737893]

>>10737845
I think you missed the bit where that anon rose out of nothingness MUST ALSO HAVE BEEN an aspect of you, since you are the only thing that exists.

>mfw freud was right and you're quite literally a forever alone fag with mommy issues

[Anonymous No.10737895]

>>10737849
Solipsism is stupid, but he's right about the tree in a forest: a vibration is created, sure, but only an ear can turn that vibration into sound. Sound literally does not exist without perception. In the (surprisingly scientific) phrase of Wordsworth:
> of all the mighty world
>Of eye, and ear,—both what they half create
>And what perceive

[Anonymous No.10737904]

>>10737522
Videogames are the only thing fedoralords are most familiar with.

[Anonymous No.10737911]

>>10737893
no one said I was perfect. The grand narrative would be quite boring if I was amaro Sue that did everything with ease. But that will remedy with time and character development, meanwhile, you ceased to exist

[Anonymous No.10737927]

>>10737911
Stevie this is your conscience. You can't really believe in solipsism, because that would mean you are crazy. A crazy person. You would treat others strangely because the viral idea that you can't trust them is implicit in your genetics and now also growing fiendishly in your head.

Stop being a brainlet. Engage with reality AS IF IT WERE real, and not just an ultimate quality vidya gaem where you are right and everyone else is NPCs. Or continue, and discover that you were the NPC all along.

[Anonymous No.10737938]

>>10737371
Daily reminder that solipsism is a mental illness.

[Anonymous No.10737939]

>>10737620
>implying you can't be killed by an idea
Nice try though

[Anonymous No.10737941]

>>10737873
You can look into both of them and inspect their contents via mirrors.

[Anonymous No.10737949]

>>10737927
I cannot. Solipsism gives my life meaning. It acknowledges my existence and everything that has happened until now is important. It posits that there is an end goal that I'm moving towards to and that we don't live in a cold, chaotic and uncaring universe

[Anonymous No.10737957]

>this whole idea makes my derealization worse

It's been a year and two months and I still don't feel like I'm even in my body.
I have no control and I barely feel I exist myself.

Suicide soon.

[Anonymous No.10737970]

>>10737438
Um... ok all you did was explain what solipsism, is now qualify it

[Anonymous No.10737976]

>>10737949
but anon, I am here. you don't need to wear my armor Patroclus. I am the only thing that is important, and you share in my experience. You're the cream in my coffee anon. I love you, and I have a plan for you. As I do for everyone.

[Anonymous No.10737981]

>>10737674
It's like you haven't read any philosophy from the past 300 years.

[Anonymous No.10737984]

let's have a song, anon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-6m2CC0pPM

[Anonymous No.10737993]

>>10737949
Are you being completely sincere? I feel like you are just pretending you believe this to help yourself cope with whatever angst you are feeling. Either stop this delusion now before you end up completely mentally ill or provide some irrifutable proof for your claim.

[Anonymous No.10737995]

>>10737976
>I love you
Then why did you let all those horrible things happen to me? Why did you make my parents divorce? Where were you when I almost killed myself after the relentless bullying in high school? You turned your back on me, and so I turn my back on you. You'll have to send a sign or an outright miracle to make me believe you care for me again

[Anonymous No.10737999]

>>10737949
I realize you're baiting, but no, it doesn't give you an end goal, or meaning. Ignoring its internal contradictions, solipsism makes everything completely arbitrary since there is no external reason for you to make anything exist other than "I wanna." The end goal doesn't exist because you haven't observed it yet. All the important things that happened don't exist because you can't currently observe them. Causality doesn't exist because there can be no connection between events in time, since the preceding event doesn't exist. There is no great moment that you can be moving towards, because there's nothing to move to and nothing to push you there necessarily. If something cool happens it's completely arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.10738007]

>>10737957
That feeling is positive considering your body never actually belonged to you. Consider this experience an advantageous perspective you have over other persons.

[Anonymous No.10738014]

>>10737995
The idea that you are even still conscious at all is proof that our God is a merciful God.

[Anonymous No.10738017]

>>10737957
What's the point of suicide if you aren't in your body?

[Anonymous No.10738021]

>>10737438
i just realized you and every other fag that takes philosophy seriously is no different from religious retards

pick up a science book you backwards retards

[Anonymous No.10738027]

>>10738014
Not really. My existence is miserable, it would be more merciful to end it or to stop my suffering. The things that happened to me haven't made me an atheist. I believe a higher power does exist, but it isn't benevolent, and I will not worship it until it proves otherwise

[Solipsists WILL NEVER RECOVER No.10738028]

>>10737508
>I am conscious of my own existence as determined in time. All determination with regard to time presupposes something permanent in perception. But this permanent something cannot be something in me, for the very reason that my existence in time itself is determined by this permanent something. It follows that the perception of this permanent existence is possible only through a thing without me, and not through the mere representation of a thing without me. Now, consciousness in time is necessarily connected is necessarily connected with the possibility of this determination in time. Hence it follows, that consciousness in time is necessarily connected with the existence of things without me, inasmuch as the existence of these things is the condition of determination in time. That is to say, the consciousness of my own existence is at the same time an immediate consciousness of the existence of other things without me.

[Anonymous No.10738043]

>>10738021
if you hate philosophy so much and love science so much, I have a board that you'll love
>>>/sci/

[Anonymous No.10738056]

>>10738028
no

[Anonymous No.10738057]

>>10737995
Being an Infinite... all things come to pass, and they do pass. Sensory experience is suffering. You are such a small creature, anon, and the world I made is so big. I'm sorry. Mortals should have tossed away the problem of evil, or better not stolen it from me. I have faith in you, anon, and I hope you find comfort in me.

[Anonymous No.10738058]

>>10738043
but how will he strawman and misunderstand people's positions all while maintaining a smug sense of superiority on /sci/? i don't think you thought this through anon.

[Anonymous No.10738068]

>>10738056
Kant BTFO

[Anonymous No.10738077]

>>10738057
you should be responsible for your own creation. Otherwise you give the impression that you do not care if your creation destroys itself or not

[Anonymous No.10738081]

>>10738027
You are forcing your eyes shut out of spite anon. The state of being you are currently in is proof enough. Enjoy this subjective experience while you have it and you might finally get laid.

[Anonymous No.10738085]

>>10738027
Benevolence, Goodness, Right, and Wrong, these are things that can only objectively exist on the basis that there is some final arbiter who (or that, if you don't believe in a personal God) defines what they are. To say that this arbiter is not benevolent is an inherent contradiction. Benevolence is not some higher law that the arbiter is subjected to, Benevolence is whatever the arbiter wants it to be. God is good because God is God, God is not just good because God does good things.

I'm sorry to hear that you're suffering.

[Anonymous No.10738086]

>>10737371
>"hurr durr I kik a rok, is reel

[Fenix Down No.10738097]

>>10737371
You have died of dysentery.

[Anonymous No.10738099]

>>10738058
youre looking for objective truth through an outdated medium for questions that have already been answered

[Anonymous No.10738104]

I have hands

[Anonymous No.10738111]

>>10738077
Except it is impossible for the creation to destroy itself. The only thing an object can do is change form.

[Anonymous No.10738117]

>>10738027
>tfw ive had my moment of clarity when i realised that as much power i was using to destroy myself i could use to build myself and others

[Anonymous No.10738125]

>>10738081
Hardly able to enjoy the experience when all I experience is pain, with small moments of respite. Those are the cruelest ones.
>>10738085
even if God is above human morals, as far as I'm concerned, I will not worship a deity who does not work for my own interests. Even if you are above us in the grand scheme of things, we are not. Your nature has blinded you to the plight of lesser beings.
>>10738111
There is a 100% chance that at one moment humanity will cease to exist. The Bible says we are special among His creation. God contradicts himself

[Anonymous No.10738128]

I can't help but think that when solipsists deny an external world they are just broken egos seeking to wall themselves in from some terrible secret anxiety they harbor. No one who actively participates and competes in the world denies it, so who would do such a thing, other than people with a chip on their shoulder?

[Anonymous No.10738130]

>>10738117
It is a great feeling.

[Anonymous No.10738134]

>>10738125
We have Reason. We have language, and civilization, and the compassion. WE ARE SPECIAL. How much more special do you want to be really.

[Anonymous No.10738142]

>>10738125
>the Bible is the word of God
There's your problem sir. Humanity will never cease to exist because it never existed in the first place. Our merciful God gifted you with the form of an object and you will always remain an object. No object can end, only change forms.

[Anonymous No.10738165]

>>10738134
if we are special, then God would put extra care in our future
>>10738142
if we are objects, then we are not special. There are innumerable objects in this universe he created. He doesn't care

[Anonymous No.10738178]

>>10738128
so this is the power of pop psychology...

[Anonymous No.10738185]

>>10738178
Seems fitting, since solipsism is pop philosophy at best.

[Anonymous No.10738188]

>>10738165
We are special because we get to experience being at all. There are not innumerable objects in this reality. There is one whole object which we are all a part of. That object is God and the sooner you recognize that the sooner you can get over your juvenile angst and move on to the interesting stuff.

[Anonymous No.10738197]

>>10737399
What is there to explain? "Perceiving" someone laughing doesn't mean that someone is laughing in the external world, it just means they are laughing in my mind.

[Anonymous No.10738202]

>>10738128
I actively compete in the world. I'm still unable to say any of it takes place outside of my head. Your generalization is a failure.

[Anonymous No.10738205]

>>10738185
Then it should be possible to refute it with something other than, "Well they must have an anxiety problem, so there."

[Anonymous No.10738215]

>>10737981
Recommend some

[Anonymous No.10738217]

>>10738188
>we get to experience illness, misery, back-breaking labor, war, cruelty and death
I feel so fortunate for existing.
>There is one whole object which we are all part of
>That object is God
>In other words, we are God
Why would God inflict this on himself?
>the sooner you can get over your juvenile angst and move on to the interesting stuff.
I long for death so I can ascend to a higher plane of existence. I don't fear going to hell because I can't imagine a more hellish place than this dimension

[Anonymous No.10738223]

>>10738217
>I am ungrateful I don't appreciate what I have
why are middle class like this?

[Anonymous No.10738226]

>>10738205
It's the simplest thing to refute. For there to be one, there must be another to observe it. i.e. in reality there is actually no negative numbers, no zeroes, and no 1s, these are all just ideal abstractions.

And there you go. "Only my mind exists" thus makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.10738227]

>>10738215
How about The Strolling, Autistic Virgin of Konigsberg?

[Anonymous No.10738228]

>>10738223
>Why don't you like eating shit? If you didn't have it you'd go hungry!

[Anonymous No.10738231]

>>10738215
Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.10738232]

>>10738215
Everything this woman has written.

[Anonymous No.10738234]

>>10738228
You wouldn't eat shit even if you were gonna die of hunger?

[Anonymous No.10738235]

>>10738226
>i.e. in reality
You're begging the question as your explanation relies on an external world existing.

[Anonymous No.10738238]

>>10738223
What I "have" are brief moments of happiness in a world constructed to inflict as much pain as possible. If you don't believe me, then try spouting your little gratitude spiel to a third world local

[Anonymous No.10738240]

>>10738234
I certainly wouldn't appreciate it.

[Anonymous No.10738242]

>>10738226
>For there to be one, there must be another to observe it
If I cannot reconcile my observation on a visceral level with this "other one," how can I say their experience is valid?

[Anonymous No.10738245]

>>10738217
>why would God inflict this on himself
He is unfeeling (and so are you)
>I can ascend to a higher plane when I die
There is no higher plane. Your body will return to its unconscious state it was in before it was conceived then born.
>I don't fear hell
That's good. you ought not fear something that doesn't exist. There is one reality of experience and it is inescapable (while maintaining material form).

[Anonymous No.10738249]

>>10738240
true story natives of the Coahuilan desert would pick seeds and other undigested food out of scat, including their own. they called is Second Harvest, and they did it out of necessity. when life is hard, humans rise to the occasion.

[Anonymous No.10738254]

>>10738245
>he is unfeeling (and so are you)
Cut off your dick then. It shouldn't hurt right?
>Your body will return to its unconscious state it was in before it was conceived then born.
Still pretty good. At least people won't have to suffer after they die

[Anonymous No.10738255]

>>10738249
>when life is hard, humans rise to the occasion
That's a hell of a way to romanticize eating shit in the name of the reproductive drive for survival.

[Anonymous No.10738266]

>>10738249
I'd rather just give up.

[Anonymous No.10738284]

>>10738254
Pain is an abstract idea and abstract ideas don't exist. An object is as unfeeling as the elementary particles that make up the object are. Your subjective experience isn't true just because you happened to have it, it is a reflection of the state of your object (your body) and because of this you have 0 (zero) obligation to suffer. Stop torturing yourself anon before you waste your opportunity.

[Anonymous No.10738287]

>>10738125
I mean, Christianity does have God literally coming down to earth and experiencing life as a human if that's what floats your boat.

Speaking from that perspective, I definitely went through a phase where my life sucked and I was kind of angry at God because of it. What eventually spurred me out of it was reading Job. Job suffers horrible things, he loses his children, his property, etc. Then the overwhelming majority of the book is about him arguing back and forth with his friends. They try to say that he must have sinned to deserve something like this, and he tells them that he did not do anything wrong. While this is going on he keeps saying that he wishes there was someone who could go to God and tell him to fix this, that there was some higher court he could appeal to.

Eventually God responds to Job. He doesn't explain why he made Job suffer, he just points out to Job that Job wasn't there when God created the entire universe and decided how things should work. The book ends with Job repenting in dust and ashes, and then God blesses him with good fortune. There is no justification or explanation on God's part, except to point out how silly it is to expect such a thing. Job was angry at the person who defined the order of things, who created everything. There is no basis to criticize him; if your interests don't line up with God's, and you recognize this, the solution isn't that God change his interests. If your interests do line up with God's but you're suffering, then that's tough, but that's life. There is no moral obligation on God's part to do anything.

As to whether you should worship God, there's different reasons people worship God. Ideally you would do it from a place of love, but the fact of the matter is that his power is just as compelling. If you live in a monarchy, where the king has absolute power over you, and he tells you to bow, you bow, because the alternative is to be cast out of the kingdom. If you don't want to live in the kingdom anyways, this seems only fair. We often hear how awful Hell is, but I believe the suffering endured in Hell comes mostly from realizing you'll never be in Heaven.

The main point I want to get across is that it is in your interest to worship God. If worshiping God is really so detestable to you, then when you die you won't have to spend any time with him.

[Anonymous No.10738294]

>>10738235
>>10738242
The idea of "external" presupposes the idea of "internal". You can't have only an internal world without an external — they define one another. If there is no external world, there is no internal either; you are nothing at all.

[Anonymous No.10738302]

>>10738294
>If there is no external world, there is no internal either
As evidenced by what? "Source" I guess is what I want to say, buy I need to know this smoking gun proof of the external beyond "well, there's an internal." One doesn't logically lead to the other.

[Anonymous No.10738313]

>>10738294
get out Hegelian ontologist. What is external to the universe?

[Anonymous No.10738314]

>>10738099
>i'm looking for objective truth

no im not

[Anonymous No.10738323]

>>10738287
This whole post
The book of Job is a must read

[Anonymous No.10738325]

>>10737620
>>10737740
>>10737784
I only get derealization when I'm either experiencing real hardship for an extended period of time or something traumatic is happening to me in the immediate moment (e.g. violence). It's like the external world becomes impossible to bear so my brain shuts down and makes me feel like I'm floating in a movie. This is not an uncommon response. Believing that your personal experiences with derealization and comfort must hold for everyone else is ironically pretty solipsistic.

[Anonymous No.10738326]

>>10737371
>he thinks his consciousness is separate from the world
o iam laffin

[Anonymous No.10738338]

>>10738302
Place ice on your hand. Your hand has heat, which is transferred to the ice upon touch, hence the sensation of the cold. The presence of heat defines the sensation of cold — there is no understanding of cold without heat. And vice versa.

When we are first born, what do we see first: the "external" world or the "internal" world? The external. Once we understand it as "the external world," this compartmentalization creates acknowledgement of "the internal world" — without the one, there is no other in the mind, nothing for it to refer to. There is no referrer then. THERE NEEDS TO BE A REFERRER to understand the idea. "There is an internal but no external" makes no sense.

>>10738313
>What is external to the universe?
Nothingness.

[Anonymous No.10738341]

>>10738284
Again, cut off your dick then. It won't hurt you, it will just be a transition between states of matter. Of course, I willingly inflict pain on myself. I just have to wish to stop hurting and the pain will go away.
>>10738287
Seems like humanity is in an abusive relationship with God. God doesn't care and beats humanity but humanity is supposed to stay with him. No thank you, I'll take my chances.
>He doesn't explain why he made Job suffer, he just points out to Job that Job wasn't there when God created the entire universe and decided how things should work.
Even if Job wasn't there when God created the rules, He should be able to change them. Or is God capable or creating something which we cannot change? Is God capable of creating a rock he cannot destroy, or creating a being he cannot defeat? Also pic related

[Anonymous No.10738357]

>>10738341
>I willingly inflict pain on myself
Exactly.

[Anonymous No.10738370]

>>10738357
if I did, why am I complaining?

[Anonymous No.10738405]

>>10738370
>why am I complaining
For the same reason you willingly hurt yourself.

[Anonymous No.10738408]

>>10738341
>whence cometh evil?
Humans invented it. Or it was a gift from God.

[Anonymous No.10738409]

>>10738238
I literally have family in the third world who I got this perspective from. There are people all over, in the third world and first world who complain all the time and make life miserable for everyone. When people learn to appreciate what they have, it becomes easier to find a way to be happy. I know this for a fact and I've seen it with my eyes.
Obviously you've probably been in shameful situations, yet there's always someone who has been through worse and come out happier, you can't make that shit up

[Anonymous No.10738410]

>>10738405
Why? This is circular reasoning. Stop being obfuscating

[Anonymous No.10738430]

>>10738341
God doesn't do anything to humanity. Agents of humanity do things to humanity. Stop being a fucking crybaby. You have free will, but you'd rather be cucked out of that and made an automaton with no agency when individual agency is what defines the human experience. There is no finding or being one with God without free will to do, or to do not. Anything less is indentured servitude without awareness of the fact, at best.

[Anonymous No.10738438]

>>10738408
Even if humans invented it, why didn't God purge the world of it?
>it was a gift from God
In what way? Unless you're talking about the old meaning of gift, which means poison, and if so, why would God willingly poison mankind?

[Anonymous No.10738445]

>>10738430
>You have free will,
have some self-respect anon

[Anonymous No.10738452]

>>10738341
Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?" John 11:40, Lazarus raised from the dead
God wants to help, he just asks you repent and stop living destructively and he'll answer your call, as long as you have faith that he will. But if you don't believe, you'll never ask because sin has convinced you to make that decision. That's literally why Jesus came down to earth to rid the world of sin so that everyone could gain the benefits of his Word
It's really up to you

[Anonymous No.10738456]

>>10738430
I would unironically prefer to be a cold being of logic made of metal and circuits than a flawed misshapen piece of meat that gained conscience

[Anonymous No.10738457]

>>10738410
It's not. You willingly complain because you willingly inflict pain masochistically on yourself. You complaining is an easy and convenient way for you to wallow in your own self fulfilling pity without actually attempting to fix anything.

[Anonymous No.10738466]

>>10738456
lol but you're not
You are a very emotional being, you literally never make any decision without an emotional response

[Anonymous No.10738469]

>>10738456
Because you can't or refuse to do anything for yourself. You're a husk of a "human" which is why you get trampled on. Assert yourself and do something or die miserable. Nothing in life is free, and your desire to be given anything is an assertion of a will to want people to be enslaved to you. I'm not your nanny, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.10738470]

>>10738294
The problem is more about objects existing independently of experience. Perhaps on a solipsistic view we no longer have an internal/external distinction, but all that remains is a mind having an experience.

[Anonymous No.10738473]

>>10738438
They're the same thing. Man is an organ of God. Don't you see that we are all One, and in God? Man's problem of evil is both our invention (a feature of identity, cultural need, and reason), and a gift from the creator (a feature of identity, biological drive, and reason). I'm speaking of both the metaphor of the forbidden fruit that caused the fall (into wisdom) and the literal mortal philosopher's quest to return to innocence. Knowledge of evil is a gift in the sense that we should want to abandon it, it's a test in the best trickster god tradition.

[Anonymous No.10738481]

>>10738341
God could change them, but I imagine he doesn't want to, otherwise he wouldn't have made things work that way in the first place. As for God creating a rock he cannot destroy, it's a logically incohesive statement, just like asking if God can do bad things.

The answer is no, God cannot create a rock he cannot destroy, and the reason he can't do that is because it would be a logical contradiction, and the reason it matters that it's a logical contradiction is because God defined things so that logical contradictions can't exist. In a world where logical contradictions can exist, then things might be different, but that's not the case currently.

As for your picture, you can get into arguments about the ontological nature of evil (i.e. does it even have being), but I'll just say this: God is able to prevent evil, but chooses not to, and this is not a malevolent behavior, because anything God wills is by definition benevolent. Just because it makes us unhappy doesn't mean it's objectively wrong.

[Anonymous No.10738493]

>>10738466
Exactly, I'm human, therefore flawed. What a cursed existence
>>10738469
>Nothing in life is free
Why wouldn't it be? because God made it so is the one logical conclusion. And yes, it would be nice if people bended to my whim
>>10738473
If God corrupted mankind with evil, and mankind is a part of God, then God is evil

[Anonymous No.10738507]

>>10738338
I'm sorry what's external to the universe? You haven't given me an object.

[Anonymous No.10738510]

>>10738493
>If God corrupted mankind with evil, and mankind is a part of God, then God is evil
God didn't. Man did, and he blamed God. And big surprise here we are again repeating history. Read >>10738481

[Anonymous No.10738512]

>>10738493
>if God corrupted mankind with evil
>corrupted
That anon didn't say that. He said the opposite. He said it was a gift to motivate us to overcome (and eventually transcend)

[Anonymous No.10738524]

>>10738481
>God is able to prevent evil, but chooses not to, and this is not a malevolent behavior, because anything God wills is by definition benevolent
>God defined things so that logical contradictions can't exist.
So God allows evil to exist because he doesn't see anything wrong with it yet at the same time punishes sinners because what they're doing is wrong and evil? God is literally insane. We must commit deicide then

[Anonymous No.10738525]

this whole thread is brainlets.
anyway, solipsism doesnt exist because i still exist.
stop being a 80IQ and go out experience the world

[Anonymous No.10738528]

>>10738507
Nothing is external to it. Because there is no internal OR external; these are both just ideas. There is no "only my mind exists" — sorry, but that doesn't "exist" either. Existence is an idea which, in the same vein, must refer to its opposite to be understood; they both come into "existence" at the same time.

[Anonymous No.10738537]

>>10738525
good post

[Anonymous No.10738540]

>unfalsifiable claims
stop right there
I'm not wasting my time arguing with schizos

having said that, Big K provides a pretty thorough argument against idealism/solipsism

[Anonymous No.10738542]

>>10738493
>why shouldn't things be free
Because even fruit on a tree needs to be harvested. You want me to harvest it for you, wash it, and put it in your mouth? No, nobody is a slave to you. That means you have to get up and do it yourself, anything less is unethical and your entitlement is contingent upon denying someone else their agency because you refuse to exercise your own. Cease and desist at once.

[Anonymous No.10738548]

>>10738470
You can't identify a single object like "mind" however. All objects need referrers. If only the mind remains, nothing remains, because there cannot be anything without a referrer.

[Anonymous No.10738551]

>>10738548
>there cannot be anything without a referrer

doubt.jpg

[Anonymous No.10738555]

>>10738542
>mfw Eve stealing God's fruit of knowledge of good and evil violated the NAP
>mfw God is 100% justified in wiping us away with a flood or Tactical McNukes

[Anonymous No.10738556]

>>10738542
God is almighty. He could just make a universe with infinite energy and infinite resources. The only reason it ain't so is because he willed it that way. if his love is infinite and his wisdom is infinite he must have realized that such a system isn't conductive to happiness

[Anonymous No.10738558]

>>10738555
>God is a lolbertarian
Explains a lot actually

[Anonymous No.10738560]

>is reality real?
durr

[Anonymous No.10738569]

>>10738551
Denial does not mean things are not a certain way.

[Anonymous No.10738572]

>>10738338
Sorry, had to run to the store (I think!)

>Place ice on your hand
The shape, the cold, the slickness; All properties defined by my stimulus sensors. There's nothing saying the ice has to be real, I can catch a chill just picturing the experiment.

>When we are first born, what do we see first: the "external" world or the "internal" world?
Again, I have know way of empirically verifying that anything from my first bout of awareness until now was the result of anything but internal factors. I have "likelihoods," but those are based on the same mind that I am currently unsure of not being the only one, or "thing."

[Anonymous No.10738573]

>>10738548
An object can refer to itself

[Anonymous No.10738580]

>>10738524
If you really want to get into the metaphysics of it, typical Christian ontology is that evil, wrong, etc. have the ontological status of nothing. They are simply an absence of good, right, etc. So God allows "the absence of good" to exist, and the people commit actions that "lack goodness." Basically God makes it possible for people to fall short of the standard. If you decide to produce something that's not up to par, then unfortunately that means you yourself are not up to par. God then, eventually, destroys everything that isn't up to par, and then you get into the eschatology of Christianity.

Is it insane for a parent to let their kid make poor decisions and then punish them? Get over yourself.

[Anonymous No.10738581]

>>10738573
like when ur mom says her own name

[Anonymous No.10738584]

>>10738572
*no way of

hahaha, I'm retarded, sorry

[Anonymous No.10738592]

>>10738572
>There's nothing saying the ice has to be real, I can catch a chill just picturing the experiment.
Missing the point. You are not observing how the process of interpretation is working in your mind, a process which, as further understood, increasingly decreases the likelihood that the mind is all that exists.

[Anonymous No.10738596]

>>10738528
No, there are things internal to the universe, including you, me, the solipsistic poster. Being has no opposite, because it's opposite is nothing.

[Anonymous No.10738599]

>>10738569
Asserting that things are a certain way does not mean that things are that way.

[Anonymous No.10738604]

>>10738581
Exactly

[Anonymous No.10738605]

>>10738592
>You are not observing how the process of interpretation is working in your mind
That psychosomatic chill was a bad example, but the verifiability problem stands. I am asking in earnest, provide me with the resource that spells out how external processes can be shown to, without a doubt, be results of external stimuli.

[Anonymous No.10738618]

>>10738581
More accurately put its when my mom experiences consciousness.

[Anonymous No.10738624]

>>10738556
As far as our minds can conceive there are infinite resources, but you have to WORK to acquire them (move to Portland if that's really what you want to try). They don't just fall into your lap unless you want to subsist on a diet of rainwater. Besides, humanity is a trial to demonstrate yourself as a goodly and worthy spirit. There is nothing to be demonstrated in goodliness if everything is just given to you because then there is no tribulation or adversity, hence no method to demonstrate an aptitude of worthiness. Life is overcoming adversity to demonstrate what type of character you are or wish to be. Nobody's true colors can be shown without some sort of exigent circumstance summoning your potential from the depths of your constitution.

[Anonymous No.10738625]

>>10738555
trips of truth

[Anonymous No.10738626]

>>10738596
>No
Referrer: Yes

>there are
Referrer: there aren't

>things
Referrer: nothing

>internal
Referrer: external

>to
Referrer: not to

>universe
Referrer: individual, microcosm

etc.

If you want to truly "Be" in a solipsistic vacuum, you have to eliminate your mind as well. Otherwise, get used to there being two things as a prerequisite for at least one thing in the world.

[Anonymous No.10738628]

>>10738580
Yes, it is. If you didn't want the child to make poor decisions, you would not have given it the ability to do so. Not to mention that God doesn't just punish the wicked (which would never have happened had he not given them the capacity for evil) but also lets evil happen to the devout and innocent

[Anonymous No.10738635]

>>10738626
your referrer to things, I have no idea what it actually is, in fact it appears that there is no referrer at all.

[Anonymous No.10738641]

>>10738626
This is a Berkeley-tier argument

[Anonymous No.10738642]

>>10738624
There can be no infinite resources, at least in this universe. There is a finite amount of energy and matter, you cannot create something from nothing. And if this is a trial, then I want out

[Anonymous No.10738646]

>>10738605
>provide me with the resource that spells out how external processes can be shown to
You have to observe the way in which your own mind works for yourself. I can only give you hints. For example: there is no "I" without a "you" — examine the history of these ideas and you will find it to be the case. Or observe it in an infant just learning to use words and grasp things.

[Anonymous No.10738651]

>>10738641
this is a 4chan tier post

[Anonymous No.10738660]

>>10738628
If I didn't want my child to make poor decisions, and this was the highest good, I would never have fathered it, thus making sure the child made no decisions at all.

If the lives of the devout and innocent fail to meet the standard of goodness through no fault of their own, then they are justified. I fail to see the issue here.

[Anonymous No.10738665]

>>10738646
>there is no "I" without a "you"
I understand completely the importance of the "other" in developing thought and language, but there is a always a way of saying, in prettier terms than I can, that this was a conversation with myself; An "emergent property of the mind" for lack of a less-brainlet term.

[Anonymous No.10738667]

>>10737417
>When you cry, you cry alone
After reading Boom of Disquiet I stopped feeling this way somehow. "I've never done anything but dream. This, and this alone, has been the meaning of my life. My only real concern has been my inner life." The external is real and so is the world of our dreams. When you cry everyone cries, alone in their dreams.

[Anonymous No.10738669]

>>10738665
to add: A property that over time grew more sophisticated.

[Anonymous No.10738676]

>>10738660
If you really wanted the child to live, wanted it to never make a bad decision and had the power to ensure he never did, there is no logical reason not to do it.
>If the lives of the devout and innocent fail to meet the standard of goodness through no fault of their own, then they are justified. I fail to see the issue here.
So if I reach a certain level of devoutness and goodness, nothing bad will ever happen to me?

[Anonymous No.10738677]

>>10738665
For it to be a conversation only with yourself then there can be no time. If there is only one object, how is transformation possible? What is time then?

[Anonymous No.10738691]

>>10737371

Kant has been mentioned, but not really explained.

[Anonymous No.10738704]

>>10737371
>>10738691

[Anonymous No.10738705]

>>10738677
>For it to be a conversation only with yourself then there can be no time
Sure there can. The thing, whatever is happening to it from outside or inside, is bound by sequence. Both possibilities are the playing out of sequences, right?

> What is time then?
As far as my mind is concerned, it would look like the arena the dominoes are stood up in. The first "kick" didn't need to be caused by an outside factor, because the entity of my experience only relies on the fact that I perceived it happening. For all I know, I'm all there ever has been and will be, and there is no "arena."

[Anonymous No.10738712]

>>10737371
>>10738691
>>10738704

[Anonymous No.10738741]

>>10738642
The sun burns more energy in a day than humanity will use in its whole span before it kills itself. As far as we are concerned, there might as well be infinite energy because we can't even measure the actual numbers of galaxies in the universe nevermind the stars therein. And you're free to kill yourself at any time if you're really that abject a disbeliever in the beauty and miracle of creation. And if it's so hard psychologically to actually follow through will killing yourself, then getting up and making something of your situation is rationally easier: therefore just do it. You're enslaving people to you as long as you don't, and it seems as though you think it's okay to cry out in submission of being a slave to yourself whereas you hold other people to the expectation of being slaves to themselves PLUS you. Literally "I shouldn't have to do anyting and you should have to do twice as much". How juvenile can you be? How much more can a human "being" sink into debasement?

[Anonymous No.10738767]

>walk into forest
>make a square of twigs
>talk to your friend the next day and he mention an odd square of twigs
how is this not proof enough

[Anonymous No.10738770]

>>10738641
So an irrefutably true argument?

[Anonymous No.10738773]

>>10738767
I had a dream about this last night. Must've really happened. Strawman, I know, but the point stands; I can cook this stuff up if I want. Nothing saying it ever had to be impressed from without.

[Anonymous No.10738778]

>>10738741
I just want to stop hurting. Maybe I should engineer a situation where I get killed accidentally by someone else

[Anonymous No.10738782]

>>10738676
Suppose I don't want the child to make bad decisions, but I give it the ability to. Have I caused the child to make bad decisions? If the child has the capacity to make bad decisions, but makes good decisions, is this not better? And if the child makes bad decisions, how does this reflect on my goodness, since I gave it the means to do good?

It is better to do good when not doing good is an option, thus it is better to give the child the ability to not do good.

I never said the devout will not have bad things happen to them, I just said that they are justified if bad things happen to them, and that if bad things happen to good people, they are better in their continued goodness despite adversity than they are being good without adversity.

Believe it or not these questions have already been answered in a fairly systematic way by Augustine, Aquinas, and Anslem. If you want the short answer to the problem of evil according to these guys, it's just that "God is not morally obligated to prevent evil, and we take on faith that by allowing evil it will be towards some greater good." The explanation that good things are better when compared against "not good" things is a common theory on what that greater good might look like.

One other common idea is that God could have created a world with evil or one without, but that creating one or the other (or both) is not better or worse. So creating the world with the absence of some good is morally equivalent to creating the world without the absence of good. A slightly updated version of the above saying is that "We take on faith that by allowing evil it will be towards some greater than or equal good".

[Anonymous No.10738783]

>>10737371
You're the one who claims it doesn't. Prove it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.10738809]

>>10738782
>Have I caused the child to make bad decisions?
You're responsible for the child, so indirectly, yes
>If the child has the capacity to make bad decisions, but makes good decisions, is this not better?
Wether the child makes good decisions on its own or is made to be incapable to not make good decisions leads to the same results. The only difference being one method has a 100% chance of success while the other is a crapshoot.
>And if the child makes bad decisions, how does this reflect on my goodness, since I gave it the means to do good?
You are still responsible if the child made bad decisions.
>One other common idea is that God could have created a world with evil or one without, but that creating one or the other (or both) is not better or worse.
This is absurd. Who wouldn't want to live in a world where nothing bad happens?

[Anonymous No.10738843]

>>10737371

[Anonymous No.10738862]

>>10737438
Maybe one day you'll grow up into a big boy and finally understand object permanence.

[Anonymous No.10738869]

>>10737399
I've laughed at things with people in my dreams who doesn't real.

Now what?

[Anonymous No.10738879]

>>10738773
>still referring to an I and denying the other simultaneously
Stay delusional m8

[Anonymous No.10738887]

>>10738809
The results are not the only determinant of the goodness of an action. If I pay for your college tuition because I throw a 50k check onto the street and you pick it up, I haven't done something good. It would be better if I gave you the money specifically so you could get an education, or because I care about you or something.

I would rather live in a world where its possible to fail, because then my success is all the greater.

[Anonymous No.10738889]

>>10738879
Saying the "I" creates the "other" is verifiable, though. It's all I can safely say.

[Anonymous No.10739037]

>>10738028
fuck, it's been hundreds of years and people are still too retarded to even read the britannica on kant.

[Anonymous No.10739047]

>>10739037
Are you saying that it's retarded to quote directly from CoPR or that it's retarded that this thread has over two hundred fucking replies?

[Anonymous No.10739172]

Lets dance around the self-world dichotomy for 23 centuries and call it, "Philosophy"!

[Anonymous No.10739263]

>>10738028
Does this really prove the world is real and not just that other things exist (potentially as illusion)

[Anonymous No.10739266]

not reading this retarded thread but i will just say for sure that no one can definitively prove the external world exists in the face of radical skepticism.

that said, taking a stance of radical skepticism is retarded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

[Anonymous No.10739296]

>>10739263

You'll have to study his critiques and judge for yourself.

[Anonymous No.10739316]

>>10739266
>here is one hand
>here's another
>????????
>the external world is real

I'm looking, man. I got one hand, there's two, also got two feet and a dick. Still not seeing how my perception of them confirms their existence outside of said perception. Although, I would have made the dick larger if I did have some measure of control, such is life

[Anonymous No.10739326]

>>10739316
it doesn't, retard.

the traditional argument goes like this, where S is a subject, sp is a skeptical possibility (brain in a vat, evil demon), and q is a knowledge claim about the world:

>If S doesn't know that not-sp, then S doesn't know that q
>S doesn't know that not-sp
>Therefore, S doesn't know that q

Moore shifts the argument:

>If S doesn't know that not-sp, then S doesn't know that q
>S knows that q
>Therefore, S knows that not-sp

He changes it from modus ponens to modus tollens. An argument only works insofar as its initial premises are plausible

[Anonymous No.10739348]

>>10739326
Yeah, I read that too. Why present is it as anything? It just seems like rehashing more "this is out there, and so is this, so it must be REALLY out there."

>>Therefore, S knows that not-sp
If the subject can't know the claim, doesn't that make it just as valid that his claim, the metaphysical solipsist position, could be the correct view?

It all comes back to the same perceiver, who can be said to be the only one.

[Anonymous No.10739359]

>>10739348
how are you not fucking getting the argument? the point is that you do not have ANY reason for me to accept your skeptical premises than i have for you to accept my common sense premises.

it's challenging the skeptics claim to the initial plausibility of their premises

[Anonymous No.10739369]

>>10739359
There is no need to get angry, friend. My beef is forever and always with the end-runaround. I agree it's a whopper of a claim, and that now both views are equally scrutinized, but if the "safe bet" for being correct falls on the claimant, does that not bolster the solipsist position?

[Anonymous No.10739380]

>>10739369
>if the "safe bet" for being correct falls on the claimant, does that not bolster the solipsist position?
literally how would that be possible?

[Anonymous No.10739391]

>>10739380
>literally how would that be possible?
Well, I'm obviously unfamiliar with notation, and I appreciate the primer, I'm going over it all right now.

Something like this: One claimant believes the external world nonexistent, requiring proof to an opposed claim (the external world is there separate of the... experiencee). The original claimant has his or her awareness as smoking-gun proof of their position, so they're intellectually, um, beyond scrutiny, sorta?

So I guess maybe that blows the solipsist argument out of the realm of consideration.

[Anonymous No.10739606]

>>10739296
I understand this and largely agree, but it just doesn't seem like a convincing counter argument to the Cartesian demon. Then again I don't think a real argument agaisnt it exists.

[Anonymous No.10739711]

>>10737438
literal toddler tier philosophy

[Anonymous No.10739721]

Solipsism feels like having a mental illness akin to schizophrenia. Whenever I think about the possibility of being true, I feel like I'm going insane

[Anonymous No.10739919]

>>10737438
>walk into traffic
>turn away from the oncoming car
>still get hit

Good going anon, sure showed 'em you have it all thought out.

[Anonymous No.10739929]

I don't think this issue matters. It's a purely theoretical problem that has no practical value. The reason I say that is that one has to behave as if the external world is real even if it isn't. The world isn't something which we can exert our will over or alter it with our mind. It's not something that's subject to our dominion and so we have to act "within" it regardless of what philosophical position we hold.

[Anonymous No.10739930]

I had a very intense existential crisis in 2015 related to solipsism which fucked me up for almost half a year. I felt like having panic attacks all the time, and the feeling derealisation didn't help.
I'm pretty much fine now, but I still get the feeling of a panic attack rising when I'm out of my comfort zone and start thinking about this stuff. I still believe it's a possibility, but I just don't give a shit anymore.

[Anonymous No.10739936]

I think I have cracked this.

When a tree falls, it produces physical changes in the universe.

We know of two: light and sound. We see the tree fall, and we hear it fall. But who's to say other effects don't take place that we just don't have the sense to perceive.

What if the tree produces a third effect which no being can perceive? Imagine no creature in the universe had ears, and thus could not hear sound. We could simply say "when a tree falls, it produces vibrations", but "sound" implies a listener, for if there isn't one, then it can't possibly a phenomenal product since it's not perceptible.

So no, it doesn't make a sound.

[Anonymous No.10739940]

>>10739929
I'll add to this by saying that I don't think it's demonstrable that there is an external world. The only thing which we can "perceive" is what's in our mind, not the actual objects being "perceived", so there's no way to know if those things are actually there. But what does that matter? If I "perceive" myself getting punched it's going to "happen" whether some external objects interacted or not. My manner of experience doesn't change either way.

[Anonymous No.10739979]

>>10737371
OP is a faggot
Therefore OP exists
Therefore there is an external world
(Sorry, this argument only works for people who aren't OP.)

[Anonymous No.10739994]

>>10737399

An other's Phenomenal ripples are illusory even if they are Objectively real. Empiricism only invokes the "external world" as part of its self-denial tirade, its actual Ontology of such a purpoted world in and of itself is null.

[Anonymous No.10740052]

>>10739930
I read about solipsism back in my last year of high school and it triggered a massive panic attack. I thought i was fucking losing it. I've trained myself to not think about it though.

[Anonymous No.10740080]

>>10738028

Not only does this start with a tautology, but a random one at that.

>>10738691
>>10738704
>>10738712

Solipsism is a "false flag" idea. It takes the Empirical-Materialist Self and then explains away the world on which this Self in contingent on. It's not so much that it can be refuted but that it makes no sense within its own parameters. It does NOT describe the Self as immanent, nor does it describe anything else as illusory. It's just reverse Dennettism, idiocy. Whereas the Self is truly described as immanent and exclusively so from many vantage points - Platonic, Hindu, Christian.

[Anonymous No.10740092]

>>10737438
People are shitting on this but it's basically German Idealism

[Anonymous No.10740133]

>>10740080
I can't know any world which I can be contingent upon. I have the things that are in my mind, or my experiences, but what those correspond to outside of my mind, if anything, is unknowable and I have no means of directly interacting with it if it exists. No one can get outside of their own head.

[Anonymous No.10740316]

>>10737386
He's quite literally right though

[Anonymous No.10740650]

>>10740080

> Not only does this start with a tautology, but a random one at that.

Are you claiming it’s tautological to say that self-consciousness is temporal? How?

You’d have to show that a logical analysis of the concept of time reveals that all instances of time are also instances of self-consciousness.

And a premise isn’t random if it’s shown to relate to the rest of the argument. If Kant started by saying “Frogs are frogs,” then that would be a random premise in this argument, as well as a tautology.

[Anonymous No.10741035]

>>10739936

[Anonymous No.10741045]

>>10737371
>the external world does not exist
>i must tell the external world this profundity
relativists and solipsists btfo

[Anonymous No.10741052]

Define external world

[Anonymous No.10741083]

>>10737371
what difference does it make if the external world is "outside your head" or if everything you see in the real world is "inside your head"?

the real world is still the same thing in both cases

[Anonymous No.10741143]

>>10741083
only phenomenally, not in reality

[Anonymous No.10741146]

>>10741143
>reality
Define reality

[Anonymous No.10741154]

>>10741143
reality is just a meme

[Anonymous No.10741159]

>>10738028
and people say this brainlet btfo hume

[Anonymous No.10741185]

>>10737609
>jordan peterson

[Anonymous No.10741238]

>>10737957
Relax my man, it goes away after a while, trust me. It took about 2 years for me. Sure I still get it once in a while but only when I’m extremely stressed or anxious, and alcohol fixes that right away.

[Anonymous No.10741544]

>>10737415
Even if only mind exists (idealism) that's still "the world". It's just made of mind stuff instead of physical stuff.

[Anonymous No.10741551]

For anyone interested in a scientifically and philosophically rigorous defense of solipsism, I'd suggest Caspar John Hare's "On Myself, and Other, Less Important Subjects".

[Anonymous No.10741564]

>>10741045
Just because one believes the external world does not exist does not only they will or should act as if it doesn't. Even if I was a solipsist I'd still behave largely as if I was wrong or else I'd have a bad time enjoying the company of all the mean mind people.

[Anonymous No.10741590]

>>10737957
you smoked the weed didn't you?

[Anonymous No.10741917]

If the external world does not exist and is merely an illusion, an image, how does an image come into existence of something that does not exist?

[Anonymous No.10741930]

>>10741544
IT TOOK TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY POSTS FOR THIS TO GET POSTED

[Anonymous No.10742084]

>>10741544
Cut off your head and see how much of "the world" remains.

[Anonymous No.10742101]

>>10742084
>Cut off your head and see how much of "the world" remains.
Every idea perceived is still present without me because it is also perceived by God.

[Anonymous No.10742111]

>>10742101
If God exists outside your mind then your mind is not all that exists.

[Anonymous No.10742149]

>>10741930

Nah

>>10738691

[Anonymous No.10742158]

>>10742111
>If God exists outside your mind then your mind is not all that exists.
Me and God share our mind. My finite perception limits me while God is infinitely perceptive.

[Anonymous No.10742173]

>>10742158
>Me and God share our mind
So then explain what happens when you cut off your head.

[Anonymous No.10742199]

>>10742173
It's just like when you break the antenna of your tv, it fails.
>But I have digital
Still an antenna
>But I have cable
Like when you are plugged out and converted to pink slime to make hotdogs from.

[Anonymous No.10742223]

>>10742199
So then what is this that it's currently connected to and why?

[Anonymous No.10742246]

>>10742173
>So then explain what happens when you cut off your head.
I lose my particular finite perception then I continue to exist as an idea perceived by God.

[Anonymous No.10742259]

>>10742223
For a lack of words, or better said language:
Me and 'why' is just a hindsight construction of NLP made to
*snippty snap blap*
distract me.
>Welcome to the turtles
>Where there is only one to blame
>You go and cry to me
>I'm still lighting the flame
>Welcome to the turtles
>Welcome to the turtles
>f.f.f.f.f.f.f.f.faaa aa got
>I'm all that's ever been begot.

To put it simply on a lewd-picture exchange.

[Anonymous No.10742265]

>>10742259
Cut off your head then and regroup with your God-Mind if you are so certain about this.

[Anonymous No.10742266]

>>10742265
>>10742259 is not >>10742158

[Anonymous No.10742270]

>>10737895
Tree still fell though.

[Anonymous No.10742290]

>>10742266
Thanks dubs of truth

[Anonymous No.10742292]

>>10737371
It doesn't matter. Even if this is all in my head, why wouldn't I want to be the Hero in my head?

[Anonymous No.10742296]

>2017
>Being a solipsist
You won't tell me that the external world isn't real after I'm beating you into a bloody a pulp. Are my fists not real kurwa?

[Anonymous No.10742299]

>>10737826
what about Husserl or Heidegger. I tried reading them but my mind became numb.

[Anonymous No.10742301]

>>10742296
It's *2018* take that you fucking slav monkey

[You've heard it here first(...) No.10742324]

Logic is a Jewish conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.10742333]

>>10742324
T.JIDF

[Anonymous No.10742337]

>>10742324
I heard it from Nietzsche first actually.

>For nothing is more democratic than logic; it is no respecter of persons and makes no distinction between crooked and straight noses.

[Anonymous No.10742338]

>>10742296
Eat lard.

[Anonymous No.10742355]

>>10739919
Kek

[Anonymous No.10742802]

Either way you accept that a world exist or than an entity outside of your desire doesnt let you transform the world as you wish it to be.

Either way you are subjugated by something you cant control and its opossing yourself.

[Anonymous No.10742824]

>>10742802
>Either way you accept that a world exists
No, my perception exists. Doesn't mean what I see is exists independent of my perception.
>and its opposing yourself.
No, one can't oppose it because it is a part of one.

[Anonymous No.10742825]

Time relies on external phenomenon

[Anonymous No.10742833]

>>10742825
read
>>10738704

[Anonymous No.10743411]

>>10742084
Presumably whatever existed prior to the beheading, minus my mind.

[Anonymous No.10743478]

>>10738843
>tfw no one will ever explain how Heidegger escapes Cartesianism

[Anonymous No.10743943]

>>10740092
t. Somebody who has never read the German idealists

Hegel's theory of self consciousness? Come on man, it's directly against solipsism

[Anonymous No.10743947]

>>10739919
do you tho?

[Anonymous No.10743955]

>>10742833
The post is wrong, and I do not agree the mind is anything but the being of the now.

[Anonymous No.10743958]

>>10743955
okay.

[Anonymous No.10744104]

>>10737443
Splinters of your ego?

[Anonymous No.10744118]

>>10737620
How do you know that will actually happen to you though

[Anonymous No.10744128]

>>10737664
To him, he is The Universe

[Anonymous No.10744129]

>>10743958
You sure

[Anonymous No.10744132]

>>10737685
>I understand your frustration that you're really just an NPC
I thought the solipsists think NPCs aren't conscious?

[Anonymous No.10744267]

>>10737371
Come on /lit/

>no philosopher has proven the outside world exists
>to make this statement is to imply that a philosopher can create proofs but hasn't yet in this case
>this statement implies an underlying assumption that philosophers and their proofs exist
>to ask this question is to affirm the external world

You guys let me down.

[Anonymous No.10744287]

>>10737371
Berkeley

[jim !!MTbcSiCtPYD No.10744316]

>>10737371
Let us consider what you ask about when you say exists. Your asking "does X exist" would not be in good faith unless you expected that we might be able to arrive together at an understanding of "the external world". Such can only happen if the concept of an external world were to exist. While not a proof of the corporeal "world", we might extend the same argument to the notion of the corporeal only being possible if there exists a notion of the negation. This notion of negation demonstrates an understanding of [thing] and not [thing]. Negation can only exist in a in an existence which is beholden to more than one object. Thusly, if you were to deny this argument would be to assert not [this argument]. Therefore we must acknowledge a multiplicity. I think if you will follow this argument in good faith you would admit the necessity of a world outside yourself.

[Anonymous No.10744371]

>>10737371
Solipsism is not computationally possible. There has to be an external simulation of the world around you. But such a simulation's thinking intelligent creatures are equivalent in value to your own value.

[Anonymous No.10744526]

Regardless of your position, Berkeley's argument in the Principles is one of the most elegantly presented philosophical views I can think of. It was a spot-on critique of Locke.
I tend to think that thorough physicalism only became a serious position after the development of Darwinism. There were simply too many explanatory holes to properly commit to it before that.

[Anonymous No.10744560]

>>10741590
fuck dude I've had pretty bad derealization and it all came down to smoking weed

[Anonymous No.10744574]

>>10738287
The problem with this view is that God is argued to have no responsibility, precisely because of his absolute power. This seems not only intuitively wrong, but also absurd in regards to human life. When a person occupies a position of power, we regard him to hold a weighty responsibility. A president of a state has a much more important responsibility than a blue collar.
In theology, this seems to go the opposite way - humans, with their limited powers of comprehension and action, are absolutely responsible in the way they approach God. In fact, for major religions this even becomes irrevocable after death. On the other hand, God who is infinitely power can't be held accountable for anything that happens to humans. Why should we hold such a view?

[Anonymous No.10744583]

>>10737399
>You're sitting in a movie theater. The seating is full. You are completely focused on the movie. Something in the movie makes you laugh. Several other people in the audience laugh as well.
>this is supposed to be evidence of the spiritual

[Anonymous No.10744585]

>>10744574
god is not real ,faggots! kek

[Anonymous No.10744715]

>>10737371
Brain in the vat thought experiment actually proved it can't be proven. Thread closed.

[Anonymous No.10744735]

>>10737666
Existence it is relative ? So basically
A observes B, but B does not observe A, then B exists from the perspective of A but A does not exist from the perspective of B. Like a computer game only simulating that part of the world which is interacting with the game, all other parts are on cold storage as as dataset describing a state.

[Anonymous No.10744753]

>>10737371
If you do know that here is one hand, we'll grant you all the rest

[Anonymous No.10744769]

That this thread hit the bump limit is a shame on all of us.

Go to bed, brain/lit/s.

[Anonymous No.10744794]

Here's a fun thing about proving that the external world exists. It exists whether or not you prove it. While you sleep, events occur in countries you have never been. Comprised of people you will never meet. Understood in a language you will never speak, or understand. We know this from news report, and historical record of the time that you were not there and could not have been there.

Whether or not we believe it to be false has no bearing on whether or not it actually is.

>>10744715

To this, if we have no agency outside of our perspectival reality, there is no difference between a simulated reality and actual reality. A bad render of reality might be exactly akin to the life of a mentally handicapped individual. Unless I have some form of agency outside of the simulation, I cannot but treat the immediate as real. What alternative could there be?

[Anonymous No.10744811]

>>10744794
Lmao just like, get out of the cave bro

[Anonymous No.10744817]

>>10744811

It's not Plato's Cave. One man standing up to go outside implies a revelation of knowledge and an -agency- in moving out of the cave. We cannot do this, neither can the perfect brain in the jar. There is no cave entrance, we have no legs and no eyes.

You need agency outside the system to perceive that the system is not total. Truth is not true unless it can be acted upon.

[Anonymous No.10744890]

>>10742084
This would require something to exist to cut off the head

[Anonymous No.10744954]

>>10744794
>While you sleep, events occur in countries you have never been.

You can even witness events occurring in realms you've never been to or even knew of during sleep, not to mention infer all sorts of things about such realms when you're awake. What does this mean? Does dreaming precede you and will it outlast you?