[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 54 KB, 1500x1000, 1487514938190.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9183808 No.9183808 [Reply] [Original]

ask yourself honestly

can you even disprove solipsism?

>> No.9183813

>>9183808
No, and you can't prove it either.

Unfalsifiable waste of time.

>> No.9183814

ask yourself honestly

can you even prove solipsism?

>> No.9183820

>>9183813
like art

>> No.9183823

>>9183820
Yes, that's why you should only read what you enjoy and not get spooked by the canon.

>> No.9183833

>>9183808
>>9183820
>when you try to bait but forget it's not pol9k

>> No.9183837

i cant but others have presented convincing arguments against solipsism.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/davidson/

>> No.9183870

>>9183823
i often ask myself what this despooked enjoyment is supposed to look like. What is the source of the despooked man's pleasure ?

You have a spooked man deriving pleasure "by association" from canon, bragging rights.. vanity. Of course also learning some useful life lesson here and there

Then you have a despooked man.. well how does that work anyways, Would a despooked man ever read the canon just for vanity? Utilitaristically so to speak?

confused

>> No.9183899

>>9183833
No bait

>>9183837
This assumes I buy into commonly accepted philosophical language games. Irony intended.

So I'd rather hear it in your own words and without any isms if you know what I meanism.

>> No.9183915
File: 44 KB, 397x387, Houellebecq.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9183915

>>9183808
I can disprove anyone elses claim of solipsism to myself

>> No.9183945

>>9183915
This.

>> No.9183951 [DELETED] 
File: 78 KB, 1200x687, 1488364805531.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9183951

The way I see it philosophy's problem is it's inherently sophistic in an age where you """prove""" something so you can make smartphones work reliably. Of course outside of analytic statements about closed systems, whatever their nature, no one really proves anything in the proper sense. The best proof you can get is not a conscientious proof, it's reliability (always works), robustness (works in many situations and under difficult circumstances) and simply just doing it better than the guy before you (axe < chainsaw, ok let's use the chainsaw instead, thanks dude)

This is the reason why philosophy's only job should be to make inspiring ethical and metaphysical arguments.

Solipsism is kind of meh in this regard.

>> No.9183970

>>9183870
If he really enjoys the bragging rights, sure. A despooked man is just lad who is aware of the games he opts into rather than getting tricked into playing and forgetting the rules are made up.

>> No.9183976

I know that I am conscious and what it is like to conscious. Others act as if they are also conscious. Why should I assume that they are not and I am uniquely conscious?

>> No.9183984
File: 70 KB, 559x836, tfwtoosmart.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9183984

>>9183808
>tfw too smart for reality

>> No.9183992

>>9183808
I mean who are you even asking?

>> No.9183994

hypothetically someone else could but I can't

>> No.9184000

>>9183808
>can you even disprove solipsism?

Of course not, but this doens't tell me anything about its implications.

>> No.9184009

>>9183808
>Boy's first attemp at philosophy
How do I know youre 17?

>> No.9184030

I don't even understand why this is considered such a tough nut to crack by some. Which is likelier, that there are 7 billion robots/simulations that act as if they are conscious and you happen to be the only real mind, or that you are only one of many?

>> No.9184037

>>9184030
If baiting, than hats off to you, this is very good. If not you should consider killing yourself.

>> No.9184040

>>9184030
What's likeliness have to do with anything

>> No.9184049

>>9184037
then* :^)

>> No.9184068

>>9184030
>Which is likelier, that there are 7 billion robots/simulations that act as if they are conscious and you happen to be the only real mind, or that you are only one of many?

Both are absurd prospects that have no right to be

>> No.9185665

>>9183823
I assume what is meant is the genre(s) one enjoys, else one winds up re-reading the same few books again and again..

>> No.9185667

>>9183813
Scientism at work
Kill you are self

>> No.9185694
File: 6 KB, 225x225, index.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9185694

>>9183820
Groovy

>> No.9185702

>>9183970
Very well said.

>> No.9185769

How about because it can't hold up to basic empiricism? We gain our ideas based on impressions of the world and we can't call to imagination anything that isn't drawn from that experience in some way (we can imagine a lion head on a giraffe body, but not without first knowing giraffe and lion). If we had no prior experience of some world in any form we wouldn't have the sufficient capacity to imagine a world out of nowhere. So by necessity, the world and everything in it must exist independent of our individual thoughts.
d-did I explain that correctly anons?