Apparently, Nothing Exists

[Darth Wong]

The trouble with the solipsist position is that you can't actually prove it wrong with logic, because to a solipsist, logic is just another imaginary human creation, and as such only has bearing on reality if we decide to believe in it.

It's a position that can actually be consistant with itself, but it's a very boring philosophy to adhere to, since nothing useful can possibly come of it, whether the world's imaginary or real.

I would actually argue that it's a non-philosophy, insofar as philosophy concerns itself with understanding and knowledge, and the principal concept in solipsism is that we can't understand or know anything.

It's really a coward's version of philosophy; instead of seeking to improve mankind's understanding of any given subject, the solipsist seeks only the comfort and security of knowing that he has a ready-made rebuttal for any criticism of his position.

[Zero]

The trouble with the solipsist position is that you can't actually prove it wrong with logic, because to a solipsist, logic is just another imaginary human creation, and as such only has bearing on reality if we decide to believe in it.

It's a position that can actually be consistant with itself, but it's a very boring philosophy to adhere to, since nothing useful can possibly come of it, whether the world's imaginary or real.

I would actually argue that it's a non-philosophy, insofar as philosophy concerns itself with understanding and knowledge, and the principal concept in solipsism is that we can't understand or know anything.

It's really a coward's version of philosophy; instead of seeking to improve mankind's understanding of any given subject, the solipsist seeks only the comfort and security of knowing that he has a ready-made rebuttal for any criticism of his position.

As a recovering solipsist, I'd actually argue that it's really a kind of anti-philosophy, where any rational position that someone brings up to counter your position can be dismissed on the grounds that it may be imaginary, and logic is actually actively denied as having anything to do with anything. I also must say that it wasn't comforting at all, and was quite horrifying for me, since the notion that I don't know what's real or not has unhealthy side effects when combined with occasional delusions.

[Ariphaos]

It's really a coward's version of philosophy; instead of seeking to improve mankind's understanding of any given subject, the solipsist seeks only the comfort and security of knowing that he has a ready-made rebuttal for any criticism of his position.

Except for the fact that it's a useless viewpoint. There are plently of 'math light' philosophies you can infer some use from, especially with regards to more abstract concepts such as morality. Solipsism has no such redeeming qualities.

As a recovering solipsist, I'd actually argue that it's really a kind of anti-philosophy, where any rational position that someone brings up to counter your position can be dismissed on the grounds that it may be imaginary, and logic is actually actively denied as having anything to do with anything. I also must say that it wasn't comforting at all, and was quite horrifying for me, since the notion that I don't know what's real or not has unhealthy side effects when combined with occasional delusions.

It's actually considered a bit of a disorder, caused by people who have spent too much time in cramped conditions where things are too predictable. People fall into a dream-state with the feeling that your mind is preempting everything that's going on, even, in some cases, other human's reactions, because people can be rather predictable too.

[Wyrm]

I'm wondering one thing about the time argument. If time doesn't exist, then how can someone come to the conclusion that time doesn't exist. Coming to a conclusion, after all, is a salient change of state of the system.

As a recovering solipsist, I'd actually argue that it's really a kind of anti-philosophy, where any rational position that someone brings up to counter your position can be dismissed on the grounds that it may be imaginary, and logic is actually actively denied as having anything to do with anything. I also must say that it wasn't comforting at all, and was quite horrifying for me, since the notion that I don't know what's real or not has unhealthy side effects when combined with occasional delusions.

How is a logical argument defeated by the fact that it's arguer doesn't exist? A rational position's rationality is independent on the existential status of its holders, right? Isn't that usually how it works?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Doesn't solipsism in this case utilize a stolen concept?

[SirNitram]

Solipism is to real philosophy what stamping out of the room yelling at the top of your lungs is to moderated debating. It's a refusal to engage, it's throwing a fit.

It is, as I've oft noted, the angsty teenager form of Sophism.

[Spetulhu]

Hide his favorite possession and tell him it doesn't exist if he can't see it, so he can't bloody well miss it! Perhaps that will cure him from playing with philosophy.

[l33telboi]

Hmm, i guess i'm going to have to play the devils advocate here.

In a sense i think he's on to something. What he says is wrong, because there is a past and a present and therefore also time. This can objectively be seen in the form of causality. If we all live in our own worlds then what i do should not be able to affect someone else, but it does.

BUT.

If you wanted to sound philosofical you could say that for us, as individuals, only the present truly exists. We can't live in the future, we can't live in the past. We can't make decisions in the past, we can't make decisions in the future, we can only do that now. We can choose to make a decision in the future, but that would have to wait untill the future becomes the present, get it?

As such the past and the present for us, is entiry dependant of our memory, without our memory, the future or the past wouldn't exist to us. It would however exist from an objective viewpoint, so saying that the future or present dosn't exist is false, while saying that the future and the present exist for us only in our minds is correct.

I'm guessing my explanation wasn't too good and most of you are probably wondering what kind of drugs i'm on. Having said all this i'd like to point out that thinking about stuff like this is in my mind quite useless as it's all just based on how you define stuff and thus has no practical use.

[Ryushikaze]

Solipsism is such a boring 'philosophy', though there are several ways to counter it- usually countering the infantility of the philosophy with some form of separation of the fool from his goods- and for your buck, the exceedingly anthropic principle is so much more amusing.

The exceedingly anthropic principle dictates that the universe exists for the sole purpose of keeping (whoever is using the principle) moderately entertained. That it existed before (whoever) and will so after is merely a bonus for everyone else.

[Drooling Iguana]

Stick him in a shack on a small planetoid surrounded by an improbability field with a cat and periodically consult him on how to run the universe.

[SirNitram]

I'm guessing my explanation wasn't too good and most of you are probably wondering what kind of drugs i'm on. Having said all this i'd like to point out that thinking about stuff like this is in my mind quite useless as it's all just based on how you define stuff and thus has no practical use.

You're on the drugs called 'I think I know about philosophy because I read one crank book about it' or something similar. Having heard this dozens of times, I still can't help but mock those who thinks it's clever, insightful, or worth the bytes it takes to express. For christ's sake, people. The presense of your mind or your body does not validate something's existance, or reality would end at the moon.

[l33telboi]

Having said all this i'd like to point out that thinking about stuff like this is in my mind quite useless as it's all just based on how you define stuff and thus has no practical use.

For christ's sake, people. The presense of your mind or your body does not validate something's existance, or reality would end at the moon.

And here i was, thinking i just said the exact same thing. How about reading my post first.

[Surlethe]

As such the past and the present for us, is entiry dependant of our memory, without our memory, the future or the past wouldn't exist to us. It would however exist from an objective viewpoint, so saying that the future or present dosn't exist is false, while saying that the future and the present exist for us only in our minds is correct.

Say you get your mind wiped. Does the past no longer exist to you?

[l33telboi]

As such the past and the present for us, is entiry dependant of our memory, without our memory, the future or the past wouldn't exist to us. It would however exist from an objective viewpoint, so saying that the future or present dosn't exist is false, while saying that the future and the present exist for us only in our minds is correct.

Say you get your mind wiped. Does the past no longer exist to you?

Well, nothing can ever happen in the past, everything that happens happens in the present if you use the line of thought i used. Because when an event happens it happens in the present, it's only later that it becomes the past and then it can no longer change. And if we have no memory with which to recall it, then from your point of view it hasn't happened. (note that what you mean by point of view may vary also depending on definition, does your pov mean simply the things that you have precieved, or also stuff that has affected you without you knowing it, or does that count as a objective thing?)

It has of course happened from an objective point of view which can be proven by the effects the event has had on the surroundings.

Although, if the event has had an effect on you, what then?

In any case, the whole thing is a useless word and logic game that has no real life appliance, so it's all rubbish in my mind.

[Surlethe]

Well, nothing can ever happen in the past, everything that happens happens in the present if you use the line of thought i used. Because when an event happens it happens in the present, it's only later that it becomes the past and then it can no longer change.

It can no longer change, but its consequences still exist, which is where the idea that if you don't remember it, it didn't happen breaks down.

And if we have no memory with which to recall it, then from your point of view it hasn't happened. (note that what you mean by point of view may vary also depending on definition, does your pov mean simply the things that you have precieved, or also stuff that has affected you without you knowing it, or does that count as a objective thing?)

I define point of view as simply the union of all perceptions.

It has of course happened from an objective point of view which can be proven by the effects the event has had on the surroundings.

Ah-hah! It has had an objective effect on its surroundings. Thus, even if you don't personally remember it, you can infer a past event from current evidence. For example, how many humans remember the KT asteroid impact at the end of the Cretacious? None. However, we are able to infer its existence from the huge crater on the Yucatan Peninsula, among other pieces of evidence.

Although, if the event has had an effect on you, what then?

In any case, the whole thing is a useless word and logic game that has no real life appliance, so it's all rubbish in my mind.

True.

[Mad]

ok... I've recently found myself talking to a brick-wall in the form of a guy who thinks he's smart (smarter than me, in fact) because he thumbed through a philosophy textbook at some point...

this guy's position, roughly speaking, is that he's smarter than me because he... ahem... realizes there is no past, cause it only exists in our memories.

I then point out to him that if there is no past, there is no present, because the present is merely the future's past.

He agrees with this and says there's no time at all, no past present or future, because they're ALL only concepts that exist in our minds...

yes, I know, the stupid BURNS on this guy.
which one of us at least managed to make it through high school, huh bitch?

but I digress... this morning, in some unrelated matter, he appealed to the laws of physics. I then pointed out to him that this goes against his own belief system, as the concept of time is intrinsic to physics as we know them. "that's just cause we made it that way!" no shit, sherlock, we came up with the entire study of physics and you can't just pick and choose which parts of it you want... not that there's gonna be much left after you gut time anyway!

is there ANY way to talk some sense into this guy (he is, despite all this, smarter than a lot of the idiots around here), or should I just accept that he's immune to logic?

Is he saying that time doesn't exist as an attribute of the universe? That the present is all that exists. Time as we know it simply being a concept we use to make communication easier. The same way that numbers don't exist (there's no such thing as a "three"), but are simply concepts to make communication easier (something that I've seen taught when math is being introduced).

The argument would be that time travel is impossible, because no other time other than now exists. There'd be nothing to go back or forward to. It doesn't mean the events didn't happen; it just means there's no way to get to them again.

If that's his argument, then you may want to discuss relativity and time dilation with him. Why do two objects going near-lightspeed relative to each other experience time differently? Why does light always travel at lightspeed relative to anything else in a vacuum, regardless of something's change in velocity?

If he tries to take this further, such as to the "nothing exists except what is in my mind" angle that's been discussed in this thread [or if he already has], then you can go with the things being discussed in this thread.

Perhaps some of these ideas would work:

"If nothing exists besides what's in your head, then you're saying I don't exist. But to me, I exist. How can something exist to something that doesn't exist?"

Or turn the tables: "How do I know you exist?"

Or just make him take it to the ultimate conclusion: "If I don't exist, then why are you trying to impress me with your philosophy?"

[Darth Wong]

What I hate about arguments like this "time doesn't exist" bullshit is that even the author knows it's bullshit. He knows perfectly well that he existed 10 seconds ago, and that something has changed about the universe over those 10 seconds which forces us to track those changes relative to some kind of timeline.

People who make arguments like this make them not because they believe they're actually true, but because they think it makes them look smart to say some ridiculous bullshit which is tricky to refute to their satisfaction because they simply refuse to recognize most of the terms you'll try to use against it.

[SirNitram]

Having said all this i'd like to point out that thinking about stuff like this is in my mind quite useless as it's all just based on how you define stuff and thus has no practical use.

For christ's sake, people. The presense of your mind or your body does not validate something's existance, or reality would end at the moon.

And here i was, thinking i just said the exact same thing. How about reading my post first.

I did. Apparently, my comprehension of what you wrote was higher than yours, as you spent a good paragraph blathering on about how the present exists only because we can't prove the past or future, we only live now.

[l33telboi]

For christ's sake, people. The presense of your mind or your body does not validate something's existance, or reality would end at the moon.

And here i was, thinking i just said the exact same thing. How about reading my post first.

I did. Apparently, my comprehension of what you wrote was higher than yours, as you spent a good paragraph blathering on about how the present exists only because we can't prove the past or future, we only live now.

Deliberatly trying to missunderstand someone is not exactly a good way to debate stuff. And when you have to resort to it you should ask yourself why the hell you're even debating in the first place.

"The present exists only because we can't prove the past or future?" Where the hell have I written that?

"It would however exist from an objective viewpoint, so saying that the future or present dosn't exist is false"

That however is a direct quote from my post. So where your getting your material from, i have no idea. Perhaps it's the whole POV that confuses you, the difference with objective viewpoint and personal viewpoint?