Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

EmuChance4523 t1_j7244iv wrote

Reply to comment by tkuiper in “All knowledge must be built upon our instinctive beliefs. If these are rejected, nothing is left. We can organize these beliefs and their consequences, modifying or abandoning them until they don’t clash, forming a harmonious system.” | Bertrand Russell on Epistemology by dbrereton

The point on my argument is that solipsism is not a position that can be hold rationally and consistently, because holding it implies not being alive, so no one can ever claim to hold that position in a rational and consisten way.

And also, it is not that it has no usefulness, it is that is impossible to hold. It is a fun mind experiment, but not a position that is rational in any way.

Besides being a suicidal position, it is also a position that implies that no discussion makes sense, because if you could believe in solipsism, there is no way that you can discuss anything with anyone else, because you don't believe that there is anyone else.

So, again, fun mind experiment, but if you hold that position, you are being inconsistent and irrational (not saying that you hold it).

1

tkuiper t1_j72611u wrote

You've got something wrong cause again the whole point is that it's perfectly consistent and rational. Seems like your getting into an is/ought problem. Solypsism is what you can prove the world is. Survival is an ought. Computers aren't illogical because they don't fight you when you go for the off button. You can't disprove Solypsism because you ought to survive. Even the concepts of life/death require a future, past and that your experience has any bearing at all in your existence. If you're desperate for a real cause of such a situation: you could be in a simulation, you could be a boltzman brain, you could have intense psychosis.

2