[mdejess]

Just correct if I am wrong.


Solipsism is that idea that a guy who is thinking cannot come to any conclusion except that he alone is certain of his existence and can't be certain of anything else except that everything else and that includes himself is his thinking.

And idealism is that idea that the whole universe of being are an assembly of thoughts which all together make up one big thought and from that point onward that one big thought is the artifact of God and He Himself is also a thought, or there is no God but the whole existence of being is thought.


So, let's start by coming to some consensus on what is meant by the philosophy called solipsism and what idealism, if anyone thinks that for not being possessed of scientific knowledge I do not know what is solipsism and what idealism, and therefore I cannot be qualified to talk about solipsism and idealism, much less attempt any debunking if that is at all possible.



mdejess

[wacor]

well this should be interesting.

another thread where Mdjess drives home that "coming to a consensus" mantra.




Hi jack, how is it going. I know you will be here soon.

[iltos]

holy toledo, jess!!!

what'd they do....throw you out of that philosopher's forum?

looks like you got solipsism right....i don't know what you're trying to say about idealism....sounds like you're looking at it from an eastern pov, tho

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by wacor

well this should be interesting.

another thread where Mdjess drives home that "coming to a consensus" mantra.




Hi jack, how is it going. I know you will be here soon.

Like with his Buddha thrashing,
I think I'll just watch.

What we need here is Shamou. Ought to be right up his alley.

[Knotbored]

Barkeep-pour me one o what he's drinkin-HIK

[Ciberblade]

Sounds like Solipsism is a form of Existentialism with a bunch of pages torn out....and the Idealism definition seems formed by the missing pages that landed on a chair after being thrown about.

I just love an opportunity to use this word

Should we juxtapose these two concepts, we are left inescapably with a philosophical realism -- which interestingly enough brings us to truth.

CB

[Stoner]

Yes, but what does 'Big Tony' think on the matter?

[valis]

solipsism is simple. What exists in my mind is ALL that exists. This is why many serial killers are labelled solipsist; in their mind, they are not doing harm to anything 'real', as everything is simply an extension of their own mind.

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by valis

solipsism is simple. What exists in my mind is ALL that exists. This is why many serial killers are labelled solipsist; in their mind, they are not doing harm to anything 'real', as everything is simply an extension of their own mind.

Prove that everything is in your mind!

[valis]

memories of bladerunner suddenly come forth.....

so the question I pose to you, today, toobad, is who is stalking whom?

[mdejess]

Originally Posted by iltos

holy toledo, jess!!!

what'd they do....throw you out of that philosopher's forum?

looks like you got solipsism right....i don't know what you're trying to say about idealism....sounds like you're looking at it from an eastern pov, tho

I got into a discussion with some philosophy-minded chaps there in the Epigraphy Science Forums on pinching noses to ascertain reality, on my last post in that thread topic also from my authorship, there was no reply, it seems posters were dumbfounded how to rebut my thoughts in that last message.

Originally Posted by cotner

[cotner, that's me in Epigraphy.

http://forums.hypography.com/201947-post17.html


Re: Indicators of reality aside from pinching noses. - 12-30-2007, 04:31 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have discovered a new fallacy, I call it the fallacy of argument, or argumentum ad argumentum.

You see, since everyone has been conditioned in philosophy to establish facts by words through arguing, you can't convince anyone to see the fact of any particular case at issue by using words alone, if your opponent is a perverter of reason; because your opponent will just bring in more and more words to muddle the question, so that you lose your cool because you know that he is malingering, even though he himself might not know it for being himself the victim of his own argumentum ad argumentum fallacy, and believe himself to be very keen and logical.

That is why also Alfred Nobel, in my humble opinion, did not establish a prize for philosophy.


How do we expose the fallacy of argumentum ad argumentum?

Very simple: in our present context, the issue is your and my and his and every human person's factual existence distinct from any other's, you must go outside words and request of your opponent to do a simple harmless experiment, together with you, namely, that your opponent pinch his nose and your nose and you will do likewise; if he refuses to undertake that simple experiment, you can proceed to everyday questions about physiological functions like bowel movement and breaking wind.


Here is a story from yours truly:

Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!


cotner

So I tried some small forums concentrated purely on philosophy.

The owner of one and his lackeys threw me out in the course of my discussion with them why they deleted my thread as of low quality; obviously they could not out-reason me so they threw me out and erased all my posts there, to quench their vindictive hatred for me.

Then I introduced the same pinching noses thread in two other purely philosophy forums, small ones; the posters of one were also dumbfounded, the owner of another one experienced some days later financial distress -- the way I see it, because his web service provider kept intruding his own home page to elbow out the forum, whenever anyone clicked on any web link to the forum -- not my fault, it's certainly his server's way of telling him to pay up. Otherwise the owner there by the name of Scott, his real name, seems to all appearances sincerely appreciative of my presence and activity in his forum.


Everyone here, see if you can react relevantly to that post reproduced above; please, no smart remarks without any contributive substance whatsoever.



mdejess

[Empire2500]

Every time I read the first post I keep rubbing my eyes..reading it over and counting on my fingers

[valis]

Originally Posted by mdejess

I got into a discussion with some philosophy-minded chaps there in the Epigraphy Science Forums on pinching noses to ascertain reality, on my last post in that thread topic also from my authorship, there was no reply, it seems posters were dumbfounded how to rebut my thoughts in that last message.



So I tried some small forums concentrated purely on philosophy.

The owner of one and his lackeys threw me out in the course of my discussion with them why they deleted my thread as of low quality; obviously they could not out-reason me so they threw me out and erased all my posts there, to quench their vindictive hatred for me.

Then I introduced the same pinching noses thread in two other purely philosophy forums, small ones; the posters of one were also dumbfounded, the owner of another one experienced some days later financial distress -- the way I see it, because his web service provider kept intruding his own home page to elbow out the forum, whenever anyone clicked on any web link to the forum -- not my fault, it's certainly his server's way of telling him to pay up. Otherwise the owner there by the name of Scott, his real name, seems to all appearances sincerely appreciative of my presence and activity in his forum.


Everyone here, see if you can react relevantly to that post reproduced above; please, no smart remarks without any contributive substance whatsoever.



mdejess

well, I can certainly see why they gave you the door, but I'll be dipped if I can figure out what this has to do with solipsism.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Ciberblade

Sounds like Solipsism is a form of Existentialism with a bunch of pages torn out....and the Idealism definition seems formed by the missing pages that landed on a chair after being thrown about.

I just love an opportunity to use this word

Should we juxtapose these two concepts, we are left inescapably with a philosophical realism -- which interestingly enough brings us to truth.

CB

my guess is that is where this thread is headed, as the two philosophies that jess wants to discuss are simply one way to describe personal experience and what it might seek for itself.

in light of jess' difficulty accepting that folks here are only minimally capable of reaching a common ground (consensus) on some topics, i'm thinking jess is hoping that we'll all take a look at our own heads through the lenses of these two definitions, and reach his inevitable conclusion that we are not after "true understanding of the nature of the dilemmas we pose ourselves".

aka truth, at least as jess sees it

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by valis

memories of bladerunner suddenly come forth.....

so the question I pose to you, today, toobad, is who is stalking whom?

No stalking valis, just a friendly jab or two. You are fun to debate with, even if you don't like the rules I debate under.