[MD] Clouds

[Micah]

Case,

If you really took it seriously, you would try to resolve it. And it should
be resolved, and I think it can be. Now go have your beer.

Micah


-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Case
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:08 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Clouds


Micah,

We have been through this several times already but one more time:

No "I" can not prove anything without "I". Solipsism is one of the perennial
problems of philosophy. It has never been resolved definitively. While no
philosopher has successfully dismissed it, none has actually embraced it
either.

You seem to want to be the first. The biggest problem I have noted in your
formulation is that you appear to think you can add others into your world
uncritically while at the same time saying that the world can not be
"proved" to exist in your absence. From this point of view others are mere
objects in your self centered world.

They do not form the basis for "objectivity" They are just more stuff that
can not be "proved" to exist.

I take the problem of solipsism seriously. It is not so much that I dismiss
it as that I set it aside. As a matter of fact I tend to regard all this
talk of mystical oneness as a form of solipsism.

But I can think of two ways to justify setting to issue aside. They first is
that the idea is absurd and in any event without practical consequence. It
is not that the "evidence" of my sense is any different whether I am
manufacturing it or simply absorbing it from outside.

A second end run around the problem is involves considering what one's
standard of "proof" consists of. You seem to imply that without some
absolute proof that a world devoid of people can exist, it must not. I
submit that no such absolute proof exists for anything. Proof is
approximate. It is a best guess. It is probabilistic. It is an
acknowledgement that we have to start somewhere; we can not continually
demand justification for every single thought and statement. If we do that
we do nothing else.

So in short as I have said many times I do not reject solipsism I just
ignore it. I accept reason as a good guide to truth on faith. That is I
choose to believe in certain assumptions. That the world exists independent
of me for example. That the present is like the past and provides good
evidence of what will happen in the future. In short the basic assumptions
of science.

I do not make these assumptions blindly or absolutely. Like a good
pragmatist I judge the results of these assumptions by their practical
consequences. I am prepared to discard them if evidence suggests the wisdom
of doing so.

The benefit derived from this position is that it lets me get on with the
business of engaging the world. The disadvantage is I can no longer answer
people with smug one liners. I can not affect an air of smug superiority and
win bets in bars from drunks unable to "prove" the existence of the rounds
of beer we wager.

Case




Case,

I must have missed it. Please re-print. I'll rephrase to jog your memory.
If, yes please explain how - if no, are you then a Solipsist (according to
your own definition)?

Can you prove anything after your death?

Thanks for your patience
Micah



[Micah]
"I" can't prove anything without "I", can you? I can't prove anything after
death, can you?

[Case]
That is as good a statement of solipsism as I have heard yet. Thanks.



moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/