Pie

This is what needs 'fixing.' We rational ones ought not care at all what lil' Rene smarty pants figures out just for himself. I persist, sir. It's 'we...

. That's one the main points I've been making, friend ! Reason is one and universal or we are just babbling here.

This is the 'veil of ideas' I had in mind. It only becomes plausible in the first place from because one person can sees the eyes of another point at ...

Funny you mention that. I was thinking about the edge case of the last survivor of a nuclear war. But then it's just a contingent fact that other mind...

To me that's a misleading analogy. If I claim there is a God, I'm saying that for both us there is a God. It's a fact about our world in common that t...

Fair enough, but I'd argue that it's incoherent to deny the sociality of reason. To be sure, the details are endlessly debatable, but it's absurd to d...

"Other minds cannot know there are other minds." They are describing an essential feature of the thing they simultaneously doubt. We can try to repair...

. If the solipsist is arguing a thesis as a philosopher, he's implicitly describing our shared situation, if only minimally in what assumptions or inf...

Consider though : their claim is about other minds. 'Other minds can't know whether there are other minds.' The keyword is we. They make assertions ab...

It'll help me if you spell out your general view. I don't think 'I am my world.' My position is that we humans are radically-primordially social, that...

So epistemological solipsists say that we might be wrong to think that there's something we could be wrong about ?

I'm trying to dig to the gist of the appearance / reality distinction, which seems tied in to the concept of the self.

It's a satirical translation of solipsism.

I confess that it's a toy issue, but I maintain that solipsism, asserted philosophical/rationally, is incoherent.

Wait a minute. Are we on the same page ? Anyone who makes claims about our world-in-common (such as what's in it or claiming 'it's all water' ) presum...

This one. "There's nothing that we can be right or wrong about." I put it this way, just to sharpen the point : "It's wrong to think there's something...

But people can and do talk about their dreams and fantasies, and not only about the importance thereof. "I thought I saw a putty cat" is a great examp...

I agree. It's better to say confused than false. The solipsist claims that it's wrong to think there's something we can be wrong about. .

I think you miss the point. It's not 'I think' but 'we think.' Or is it just you who thinks I haven't fixed it ? But why should I be bound by such idi...

Please clarify. Do you claim that it makes sense to argue against the force of logic ?

I see us as tribal, social animals, evolved to work as a group. I view the relatively isolated self as a kind of invention or development in the story...

Can we not just as easily make love primary ? I fear that harm will come to what I love. No love, no fear.

If 'external material world' means something very specific like atoms-and-the-void that bang on our sense organs, then I consider it reasonable or sen...

It seems to me that everything is up for debate except that there is something we can be wrong about. Or am I wrong about that ?

Excellent question ! But you have not yet caught me off guard. Philosophy is, among other things, figuring out WTF rationality is in the light of our ...

OK, but debating what 'exists' means is fair game, no?

What is the claim about ? An otherwise radically unspecified world. 'The world is atoms and void.' 'The world is overlapping dreams.' 'John did that o...

What is implicit in a philosopher's arguing a claim ?

It's good clean neurotic fun.

We need to go back to the absolutely minimal notion of whatever there is to make correct or incorrect statements about. We might annoyingly write this...

:up: I think my points go back at least to 'commonsense' philosophy, which reacted to Hume. https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-common-sens...

I understand what you are trying to defend, and I'm not trying to deny the soul. I'm saying there's a way of talking about it that's nonobviously conf...

Instead of asking people to read, I'm trying a more direct approach. Let them try and refute my proposed minimal foundation without performative contr...

Harsh but true in some way, I think.

. To me the point is roughly that the self and the other are comanufactured, like the North and South. Why didn't Descartes problematize the first per...

<salutes> Be great to get you in my new thread....

Just to be clear, and as mentioned before, I see no need to deny raw feels. I can speak with the vulgar, insist that I too have a soul. I'm just makin...

' Is there an external world? ' The challenge is making the absurdity of this question conspicuous. ' Is there something that we can be wrong or right...

I can relate. One can even start laughing in the swamp of misery, with the gods at the one's own folly and the folly of humans in general. Gallows hum...

:up: I love a good cup of coffee, a lonely bikeride on a cool night, snuggling my torty, laughing at a piece of a bit in an old book that only the agi...

All well said. I think there's a POV trick to be sussed out here. We see others from the outside and ourselves from the inside. So it's plausible that...

So it seems that sense organs (material objects among others, after all) are theoretical constructs, ideas we experience based on sensory input....wai...

:up:

Not unlike the ego...

I think it's just an intimate topic. Folks aren't that afraid. What's 'wrong' with someone might just be their timing or expectation of intimacy. Suff...

I'm pretty happy these days, but the older I get the less attached to life I feel. Does the fruit ripen on the tree? Is there less to prove ? I wrote ...

Amplifying, I think Wittgenstein (and not just him) already proved well enough that meaning is public, outside of and between individuals, not glowing...

Or be revealed as poetry that can't be combed into a formal system ?

:up: Of course. Time is just the most obvious variable.

I take what you mean, but I'd say it's both in that it's an hypothesis that's been argued for. Philosophy isn't math of course, so conclusions aren't ...