--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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.
The point is that you can't rule it out, which is quite startling if you think about it, given that not-solipsism is so basic to our assumptions about how it all works. 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" <jstein@> 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.
