--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> 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.
I don't think we need to rule it out. Its use in philosophy is specific to the branch it is used in, but I haven't heard it expressed as an ontological realty, just as a cautionary tale concerning epistemological inquiry. As you probably know it has a lot of implications about the limits of human knowledge and some of it makes sense to me. As a psychological condition it would be viewed as a profound pathology. In Eastern thought some of its perspectives are used in a different way which takes it out of the context of its use in Western Philosophy. But if I wanted to discuss some of the concepts in this context I would drop the Western term entirely because I don't believe the concepts were built for that perspective as well as the Eastern concepts are on their own. But any discussion of whether there is really an "out there" out there beyond my perceptions goes over my head pretty fast. And I'm glad it does! > > > > 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. >
