/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20035241]

If solipsism is true, how can you be informed of something you didn’t already know?

[Anonymous No.20035263]

>>20035241
You already knew it but you forgot. That's why Plato said that all learning is just remembering the primordial experience of the Forms. But you already knew that.

[Anonymous No.20035268]

>>20035241
For the same reason I tell people I have a girlfriend even though I don’t. It’s fake and I’m lying.

[Anonymous No.20035269]

>>20035263
> That's why Plato said that all learning is just remembering
But Plato doesn’t exist. And neither does his forms. Only I exist. So there wouldn’t be anything to remember except myself.

[Anonymous No.20035271]

>>20035241
cute thread.
have some free attention

[Anonymous No.20035622]

>>20035241
It's not true and there's obviously a self-other distinction in modern science. What you learn is dependent on your environment, the stimulus in front of you, how you respond and its subsequent response to you. There is no 'intuitive' or innate talent anyone has, there is no innate knowledge people are born with either. You can make unconscious connections between previously learned information and new information - that does not mean you are 'remembering' or taking part in some mystical experience
>>20035263
That's not true though. Why is there empirical evidence explicitly showing us how we learn then? You can say it's all just intuition and mystify everything, but clearly there's a relationship with matter and relational framing in terms of how we learn and integrate new beliefs. What do you count as intuition? The term itself is too vaguely defined and we're just *guessing* whether we're discussing the same thing. This is also quite narcissistic to believe you have some divinely given gnostic knowledge within you

[Anonymous No.20036302]

>>20035263
jfc OP is a fuckin retard

[Anonymous No.20036313]

>>20035622
>That's not true though. Why is there empirical evidence explicitly showing us how we learn then?
Kek, that implies other people exist to begin with, that's the only way you could collect said "empirical" data.

[Anonymous No.20036475]

>>20035241
because you just invented it
>>20035263
That's not solipsism though
>>20035622
And I don't even know what the fuck you're on about. There is no unconscious or stimuli in solipsism, because it's all the metaphysical equivalent of animated film. The squiggly lines are not some symbol of a physical entity, the perception of them is the entity. There is no sign-signified distinction in solipsism since the sign is wholly identical to the signified.

[Anonymous No.20036485]

>>20035622
Studying the brain activity is just more tautology. It's showing more that's you.

[Anonymous No.20036487]

>>20035271
I am going to fuck you

[Anonymous No.20036512]

>i am thinking
>thinking equals existing
>therefore i am existing
but how do you know you're thinking?
and why does thinking equal existing?
and why would i am thinking and thinking equals existing mean therefore i am thinking?
bonus joke: what did I say to the the bespectacled potato that tried to smell my (girl) feet?
I stink there four-eyed yam

[Anonymous No.20036520]

>>20035241
language refutes solipsism

[Anonymous No.20036539]

>>20035622
>It's not true and there's obviously a self-other distinction in modern science.
This is not actually true. Speaking strictly, there is only "other" in modern science, and the subject is left as a big question mark in this large pool of "other." Incorporating the subject into scientific investigation would be tearing it out at the roots. Which is why no one does it, and most scientists who try their hands at philosophy usually seek to erase any notion of it (usually because they come to the "Protagoras problem" and then feel very uncomfortable, and unable to solve it without becoming unscientific).

[Anonymous No.20036579]

>>20036539
It's also why I love Aristotle, as the penultimate scientific philosopher. When he comes to Protagoras, in the Metaphysics, he simply states, "and as for Protagoras's dictum, he is correct." And moves on to finish his inquiries. He never tries to avoid it through the deduction of transcendence like Plato did, but still propagates an entire philosophy which does not boil down to either solipsism or subjectivism.

[Anonymous No.20036612]

>>20036487
Are you coming on to me? or just making a generic threat?

[Anonymous No.20036644]

>>20035263
I thought Socrates said that in one of the dialogues, but I wouldn't be too surprised if Plato agreed since it's objectively true.

[Anonymous No.20036676]

>>20036612
The former

[Anonymous No.20036721]

>>20036512
>but how do you know you're thinking?
Because there is a product of thought left afterward, either a statement or an experience reflexively available.
>and why does thinking equal existing?
An act requires an actor. This is eidetical.
>and why would i am thinking and thinking equals existing mean therefore i am thinking?
Try again?
>>20035241
As for OP, solipsism isn't true (despite the fact that idealism is true) because the content of our consciousness is in a large part intersubjective. Consciousness is shaped at least in some part by formation and culture.
>>20035622
>Why is there empirical evidence explicitly showing us how we learn then?
NTA, and Plato was wrong about the whole recollection thing, but we do have intuition, categorical intuition. The reason we need empirical experience for certain forms of knowledge to emerge is not because knowledge is bound to materiality, because knowledge is rather about the successsion of intentional acts that leads you to entertain an objectivity in a certain way. In the case of hyletic sciences, obviously, you need matter to guide you through the succession of intentional acts, because matter is the objectivity in question.