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/
