What if? A sort of philosophical question.

Medusa said:
Well... it's the view that I can only prove that I exist to myself and to no one else, which is slightly different.

So, you're not saying you've solved the problem of Solipsism, but that you're of the opinion that, at it's core, it is a problem of mind/body dualism and if that could be solved, Solipsism would then be solved.

What's the point in this statement? I'm not being snarky. I'm openly wondering as it seems a restatement of the problem and it's insolvability.
Click to expand...
Of the three possible options, only the first allows for the possibility of solipsism. There is no possibility of solipsism if you are an idealist or a materialist.

I don't think mind/body dualism is defensible, so I think we can dispense with solipsism. It is too mysterious and has too many problems with issues like interaction between the material and immaterial, the origin of immaterial substance, which sorts of bodies have immaterial substance--- do dogs have it?

Nobody seriously defends Idealism for similar reasons.

So we are left with materialism, and no problem of solipsism.
 

oldlongwalker said:
Chomsky isn't really relevant to this particular discussion. He is only relevant when it comes to overall theories of semantics. He thinks there is a built-in grammar of sorts that explains how we acquire language. People like Quine and Dennett think nothing is built-in and we need a fully empirical explanation.

As for how language is useful. There was a reaction to the metaphysics of Kant and Hegel which seemed to have no way of being tested for whether they were true. The original idea was that the meaning of a statement is determined either empirically through the senses, or it is a statment of logic and the meaning is asserted by definition. Any statement that cannot be verified through the senses is thus meaningless. So the statements of metaphsyics are either meaningless, or are merely true by definition.
Click to expand...
Well, you brought Chomsky up in the post to which I am responding above, which is why I asked about it as it didn't seem all that relevant to me either, but I'm a bit out of my depth here, so asked.

"The original idea was that the meaning of a statement is determined either empirically through the senses, or it is a statment of logic and the meaning is asserted by definition. Any statement that cannot be verified through the senses is thus meaningless."

Forgive me for copy/pasting parts of your post here; I don't usually do that as it seems a bit confrontational and borderline rude, but I'm trying to parse out your intent here.

How is the second sentence above supported by the first?

"So the statements of metaphsyics are either meaningless, or are merely true by definition."

This, the third sentence above, seems more inline with first. However, what you seem to be saying (and forgive me here, but it's sometimes difficult to see where you are drawing from others and where speaking in your own voice) that metaphysics, if not provable empirically, is meaningless. Which doesn't make sense because metaphysics, ironically, is not provable empirically.

I understand that that is your goal and also of others, but has not yet been ascertained definitively so it seems a hardline statement to make, under current circumstances.

It's odd; at times you seem to be attempting to blind with science and others you're all about the philosophical approach. If your idea is the blending of the two, can you speak from that platform?
 
I never took Solipsism seriously, like many philosophical views, it doesn't change my life in any meaningful way. If you think Solipsism is credible, take out a mortgage on a new house and don't pay it back. See what happens. What!? The bank is still there.
 

JustDave said:
I never took Solipsism seriously, like many philosophical views, it doesn't change my life in any meaningful way. If you think Solipsism is credible, take out a mortgage on a new house and don't pay it back. See what happens. What!? The bank is still there.
Click to expand...
I agree; it's not credible in any real-world application way. It's a thought experiment which is fun because it's a bit creepy to contemplate. But, in the end, it's a circular and thus, dead argument.
 
oldlongwalker said:
Of the three possible options, only the first allows for the possibility of solipsism. There is no possibility of solipsism if you are an idealist or a materialist.

I don't think mind/body dualism is defensible, so I think we can dispense with solipsism. It is too mysterious and has too many problems with issues like interaction between the material and immaterial, the origin of immaterial substance, which sorts of bodies have immaterial substance--- do dogs have it?

Nobody seriously defends Idealism for similar reasons.

So we are left with materialism, and no problem of solipsism.
Click to expand...
So, if I'm understanding you, you're saying Solipsism is unprovable and so not worth discussing. Yes?
 
Medusa said:
Well, you brought Chomsky up in the post to which I am responding above, which is why I asked about it as it didn't seem all that relevant to me either, but I'm a bit out of my depth here, so asked.

"The original idea was that the meaning of a statement is determined either empirically through the senses, or it is a statment of logic and the meaning is asserted by definition. Any statement that cannot be verified through the senses is thus meaningless."

Forgive me for copy/pasting parts of your post here; I don't usually do that as it seems a bit confrontational and borderline rude, but I'm trying to parse out your intent here.

How is the second sentence above supported by the first?

"So the statements of metaphsyics are either meaningless, or are merely true by definition."

This, the third sentence above, seems more inline with first. However, what you seem to be saying (and forgive me here, but it's sometimes difficult to see where you are drawing from others and where speaking in your own voice) that metaphysics, if not provable empirically, is meaningless. Which doesn't make sense because metaphysics, ironically, is not provable empirically.

I understand that that is your goal and also of others, but has not yet been ascertained definitively so it seems a hardline statement to make, under current circumstances.

It's odd; at times you seem to be attempting to blind with science and others you're all about the philosophical approach. If your idea is the blending of the two, can you speak from that platform?
Click to expand...
I only mentioned Chomsky originally so as to round out the whole project of the linguistic turn.

There is some confusion in my first statement, and I returned and edited a bit since you posted. But here is some clarification.

Metaphysics aims to say what is true about reality. It doesn't aim to say just what is true by definition--math and logic. So if metaphysical statements can't be verified empirically, then they are either meaningless, or merely true by definition.

The goal of linguistic turn philosophers is to put philosophy on a footing like that of science. One way of doing that is with an emphasis on empirical data, to take philosophy out of the office and into the world. If it looks like there is a conflict between philosophy and science, the first instinct is always to look to the evidence to make sure the philosophy isn't contradicting actual experience.

The linguistic feature of the project is based on reconciling actual evidence with the way we talk about and explain the evidence. That is where semantics comes into play. A philosopher like Quine wants a thorough-going empirical theory of how words get their meaning. So my view is a philosophical approach that is scientifically informed. If an apparent philosophical issue can be satisfactorily anwered by science, then so much the better.
 
sch404 said:
Yes he is! Many important philosophical ideals, a lot of what shapes me, including a fundamental understanding (to whatever extent possible in my limited human brain) of the very foundations of 'life' and 'truth' and 'existence' often come from sci/fi.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree. Look at how prophetic sci/fi writing has been from past to now, how much of it has materialized. There's an argument for sci/fi not just predicting much of modern tech. but informing it, prescribing it (someone, gimme a thesaurus!)

I have great respect for sci/fi writers in this way. I've never read Philip K. Dick, but love Andy Weir and John Scalzi.
 
Medusa said:
Absolutely agree. Look at how prophetic sci/fi writing has been from past to now, how much of it has materialized. There's an argument for sci/fi not just predicting much of modern tech. but informing it, prescribing it (someone, gimme a thesaurus!)

I have great respect for sci/fi writers in this way. I've never read Philip K. Dick, but love Andy Weir and John Scalzi.
Click to expand...
When I was much younger I read a lot of sci/fi. Asimov, Heinlein and of course Douglas Adams. I recall giving an oral presentation of George Orwell's "1984" in my high school English class. That was in 1959, 25 years prior!
 
Last edited:
oldlongwalker said:
I only mentioned Chomsky originally so as to round out the whole project of the linguistic turn.

There is some confusion in my first statement, and I returned and edited a bit since you posted. But here is some clarification.

Metaphysics aims to say what is true about reality. It doesn't aim to say just what is true by definition--math and logic. So if metaphysical statements can't be verified empirically, then they are either meaningless, or merely true by definition.

The goal of linguistic turn philosophers is to put philosophy on a footing like that of science. One way of doing that is with an emphasis on empirical data, to take philosophy out of the office and into the world. If it looks like there is a conflict between philosophy and science, the first instinct is always to look to the evidence to make sure the philosophy isn't contradicting actual experience.

The linguistic feature of the project is based on reconciling actual evidence with the way we talk about and explain the evidence. That is where semantics comes into play. A philosopher like Quine wants a thorough-going empirical theory of how words get their meaning. So my view is a philosophical approach that is scientifically informed. If an apparent philosophical issue can be satisfactorily anwered by science, then so much the better.
Click to expand...
I'ma hit ya with a quote here (which I don't often do as I like to discuss from whatever is my current knowledge base on the subject at hand. However, as I'm out of my depth): metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/...ek meta,objective studies of material reality.

I like to think of their being a space between philosophy and science rather than a conflict. I think you and I touched on this a few days ago. Philosophy being the questioning and science, sometimes, finding concrete answers for those questions.

I like the concept of approaching this topic through the lens of linguistics, but it's - that's going to get very deep, into symbolism, the ability to think, as opposed to communicate thought, simply think, without language, what a symbol actually is, what it means and why. That's such a rabbit whole with so many offshoots, a laser may be required to keep it focused on metaphysics, throughout.

This was, by the way, a favorite topic of my erstwhile English Professor.
 
sch404 said:
When I was much younger I read a lot of sci/fi. Asimov, Heinlein and of course Douglas Adams. I recall giving an oral presentation of George Orwell's "1984" in my high school English class. That was 1964, 20 years prior!
Click to expand...
I freaking forgot Asimov! And Adams (don't think I've read Heinlein). Have to say though, Weir and Scalzi are still my faves.

I read 1984 in 2012 (for the first time) at the request of my English Professor. Interesting to compare his ideas about what could happen to where we are are now.

(Might amuse you to know I was born in the year you gave your presentation.)
 
Medusa said:
I freaking forgot Asimov! And Adams (don't think I've read Heinlein). Have to say though, Weir and Scalzi are still my faves.

I read 1984 in 2012 (for the first time) at the request of my English Professor. Interesting to compare his ideas about what could happen to where we are are now.

(Might amuse you to know I was born in the year you gave your presentation.)
Click to expand...
I messed up my original post. The year was actually 1959, 5 years prior to your birth! And in 1959 the Cold War was still going on. Orwell was fixated then on the Soviet Union and the threat of Communism. He wrote Animal Farm as a parody on the Bolshevik Revolution and the terrible abuses of the early Soviet Union. And of course he had a rather dim view of humanity in general, and the idea that people could actually be conditioned to somehow put up with all this stuff.
 
oldlongwalker said:
I would be a little stronger. I think it is not worth discussing because the alternative is wildly implausible. ;)
Click to expand...
So, what I'm reading here is that your of the opinion that Solipsism isn't worth discussing because it's simply false.

The thing is that it's neither false nor true; it can't be proven or disproven, which is why it remains in the realm of philosophical thought experiment.

I think we've about beat this one to death. šŸ™ƒ
 
Medusa said:
I'ma hit ya with a quote here (which I don't often do as I like to discuss from whatever is my current knowledge base on the subject at hand. However, as I'm out of my depth): metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html#:~:text=Derived from the Greek meta,objective studies of material reality.

I like to think of their being a space between philosophy and science rather than a conflict. I think you and I touched on this a few days ago. Philosophy being the questioning and science, sometimes, finding concrete answers for those questions.

I like the concept of approaching this topic through the lens of linguistics, but it's - that's going to get very deep, into symbolism, the ability to think, as opposed to communicate thought, simply think, without language, what a symbol actually is, what it means and why. That's such a rabbit whole with so many offshoots, a laser may be required to keep it focused on metaphysics, throughout.

This was, by the way, a favorite topic of my erstwhile English Professor.
Click to expand...
That is exactly the type of metaphysics to which the approach I side with disagrees. But there is still a space for philosophy in the areas of ethics, politics, etc. There is also room for something akin to metaphysics, that is, epistemology and ontology. But again, they are highly empirical.
 
sch404 said:
I apparently missed the train on this solipsism thing. It left the station without me!
Click to expand...
No worries; it's about beat to death at this point and we are talking it in circles, which is of no use to anyone. That's the thing with Solipsism, it's actually a pretty quick process: Can I prove my existence to anyone other than myself? ... No. ... And, moving on. lol
IMHO, anyway. šŸ™ƒ

(For the record, the expansion of the above would be, I think, what does that mean? The "no." -- But it doesn't go anywhere, ultimately as there's no where for it to go. -- It's fun to think about, for a while, however. ) :)

Again, IMHO
 
Medusa said:
Absolutely agree. Look at how prophetic sci/fi writing has been from past to now, how much of it has materialized. There's an argument for sci/fi not just predicting much of modern tech. but informing it, prescribing it (someone, gimme a thesaurus!)

I have great respect for sci/fi writers in this way. I've never read Philip K. Dick, but love Andy Weir and John Scalzi.
Click to expand...
I never did like Philip K. Dick's work. I found it too dystopian! Give me Asimov, Heinlein, Silverberg, David Weber etc. In connection with this present thread. I am dreaming all of you, so don't wake me up! :) Idea stolen from a sci-fi short story I read a long time ago!
 
Last edited:
chic said:
What if reality is just what we BELIEVE it to be based on our traditions and teachings, culture and religion as opposed to it being concrete and tangible? I don't buy into the theory that the universe is just a hologram, but to some it is. :unsure: This makes me think about reality and how it really is largely subjective. If you think/believe something is so that makes it so for you and becomes your reality.

What do you think about this?
Click to expand...
I agree with you but there are other things to consider like History, and then how reliable is some of that? I ponder what you are talking about often too. I try to keep open to discovery of new and concrete things. One is archeology.... it's all so fascinating! I believe there is much more to learn that we are not aware of yet.
 
Ruthanne said:
I agree with you but there are other things to consider like History, and then how reliable is some of that? I ponder what you are talking about often too. I try to keep open to discovery of new and concrete things. One is archeology.... it's all so fascinating! I believe there is much more to learn that we are not aware of yet.
Click to expand...
Your post reminds me of another saying: History is written by the winners!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top