Can you refute solipsism, anons?

[Anonymous No.16535966]

Descartes and Gorgias both admitted that they knew nothing, and anybody who calls them solipcucks for it is coping with their own idiocy.

[Anonymous No.16535975]

>>16535966
based solipchad

[Anonymous No.16535984]

>>16535975
Solipcucks are ultimate fags. Get oot

[Anonymous No.16535987]

>>16535966
The transcendental subject contains within it the totality of the world and every other subject. Your death is thus THE death, and this is the only sense in which solipsism can be true.

[Anonymous No.16536000]

>>16535984
I always laugh when figments of my reality like you screech about solipsism. My mind is the only thing that exists, and no one can disprove it, because you don’t exist in an ultimately real sense. Cope

[Anonymous No.16536030]

I can't but Kant can.

[Anonymous No.16536079]

>>16536030
Kant can't.

[Anonymous No.16536220]

>>16536079
He did.

[Anonymous No.16536313]

>>16536220
but he literally can't. nobody can. not even kant.

[Anonymous No.16536497]

didnt Descartes himself refute it? I believe his argument was basically "god wouldn't play a nigga like that" because hes all good and deception isnt his thing

[Anonymous No.16536519]

>>16536497
Yep. Anon only seems to have read about the omnipotent malicious genius and cogito ergo sum but skipped the part where Descartes proves the perfect being, god, exists.

[Anonymous No.16536535]

Descartes is one of the monst enjoyable philosophers to read I have no idea why /lit/ shits on him

[Anonymous No.16536672]

>>16536313
I did, it's a bit of a fun problem for your metaphysics as well. Mine isn't perfectly formalized but it's intuitively correct

[Anonymous No.16537022]

>>16536535
He is easy to strawman, and it's trendy to shit on the fundamentals, even though most people just rush through the discourse and move on. Passions of souls is pretty interresting, some letters are interresting but you gotta dig through his correspondence

[Anonymous No.16537032]

>>16535966
Solipsism is refuted by the fact that I'm not eternal god-emperor of mankind yet

[Anonymous No.16537045]

>>16535966
Language. It relies on conventions necessarily established and accepted by other people. These people existed way before you. Also, you need alterity to define your ipseity. You need to be perceived in order to recognize what you perceive. This logically cannot be made up by your own mind.

[Anonymous No.16537282]

>>16537045
but we've seen that language isn't necessary for intelligent thought. the fact that society, language, science, and whatnot seems to exist before us doesn't prove that the past exists; with respect to yourself as the observer, time begins and ends with your life.

[Anonymous No.16537833]

>>16535966
solipsism is axiomatic

[Anonymous No.16537841]

give her the dick

[Anonymous No.16538905]

>>16535966
>Descartes and Gorgias both admitted that they knew nothing,

You didn't get very far with Descartes, did you?

[Anonymous No.16538913]

>>16536535

So true. Descartes is brilliant and throws out gems page after page all along the way.

[Anonymous No.16538919]

>>16535966
perhaps nobody can refute it but that doesn’t mean it’s true. we can speculate it isn’t true but nobody could ever prove anything of that nature

[Anonymous No.16538926]

>>16535966
Easy
Premise: the laws of physics are true
Argument: If the laws of physics are true, the behavior of a bounded system must depend on an external energy source
Conclusion: solipsism contradicts the above premise. For a single mind/consciousness to run, it must be powered by an external energy source. Otherwise, literally nothing in the world can happen. Therefore, solipsism is false.

[Anonymous No.16538936]

>>16538926
>Premise: the laws of physics are true

Why do you assume this is true? It's a leap of faith and well it take a leap of faith to escape solipsism in a similar way it takes a leap of faith to believe in the God who isn't yourself.

When you're reading Descartes you have to really doubt everything and realize "IAM" is true - there's really nothing more indubitable than it.

[Anonymous No.16538938]

>>16538926

<Fart noise>

[Anonymous No.16538968]

>>16538936
First of all, Descartes was not explicitly a solipsist. There are two forms of solipsism: strong and weak.
The strong solipsist claim is that my consciousness is all that exists,
The weak version says it is all I can be certain of is my own mind. More beyond it might exist but it's all I can know for certain.
My syllogism disproves the strong version. Descartes almost certainly believed in a wider conception of truth rather than the existence of his own mind. He was also a mathematician who believed in the reality of geometry. He was seeking ultimate certainty; he was not trying to make a absolute ontological claim that his mind was all that exists.
>>16538938
I stand refuted.

[Anonymous No.16539113]

>>16538968
Have you actually read the meditations or are you just reading wikipedia?

[Anonymous No.16539545]

>>16537282
>language isn't necessary for intelligent thought
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.16539561]

There is only Being, Being cannot pass into non-Being, one's existence is Being itself then one's death could not result in non-Being, therefore one's existence is not Being itself. Refuted

[Anonymous No.16539888]

>>16535966
Descartes never admitted he knew nothing. Seems like you've only read the 1st meditation and didn't bother to finish the rest of the book.

[Anonymous No.16540634]

>>16539561
>There is only Being
thats what you want yourself to think

[Anonymous No.16540848]

>>16535966
This is not a refutation but he could have gone deeper and doubt even the self in the 'I'. 'Thoughts are occurring' is the only fundamental truth.

[Anonymous No.16540999]

The man who argues for solipsism makes use of human language, conventions, institutions and structures to convey his argument. He relies on other's existence for his message to be heard.
That's all you need to know. It's a performative contradiction and antithetical to consistency.

[Anonymous No.16541154]

>>16535966
Solipsism vs optical illusions.

[Anonymous No.16541499]

>>16541154
this shit aint working bruh

[Anonymous No.16541501]

Solipsism refutes itself through language.

[Anonymous No.16541699]

>>16541499

[Anonymous No.16541710]

>>16535966
What form of solipsism? Denial of other people's consciousness? Or denial of objective reality outside yourself?

[Anonymous No.16541734]

>>16535966
>can you refute solipsism
>can you refute trivialism
>can you refute round squares
the question doesn't make sense because solipsism isn't a possible state of mind.

[Anonymous No.16541747]

>>16535966
He literally admits in the end of his meditations that once he concluded and argued for the existence of a good God and dualism, the questions that he brought in the first meditation was laughable.

[Anonymous No.16541756]

>>16535966
>>16538905
This, lmao. Descartes never said he knew nothing, and I don't even think Gorgias was being serious when he was talking about metaphysics, I'm pretty sure it was a Sophist's joke.