> It's just that you can't really settle the > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > possible.
I'm not sure it was ever intended to be used as an actual possibility though. It is more like talking with a physicist about the math used. The math isn't an end in itself in the context of physics. Solipsism was never championed by anyone as an explanation for our life. It is more like the end of a slippery slope in a certain direction of thinking. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > > > > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > > > > I wouldn't. It is an extreme philosophical position that is > > used as a thinking tool in philosophy. I can't think of a > > single great philosophical mind who proposed it as an actuality. > > But it is useful as a thought exercise. Guys like me, with > > barely enough mental dynamite to blow my nose, have more > > pragmatic issues to occupy my mind. I was only interested in > > this type of theoretical mental exercise in college. > > It's just that you can't really settle the > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > possible. > > > > >
