To save you all some time - solipsism:

-The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.

-The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

Anyone have any intelligible arguments against this? I have yet to hear one.

it sounds like to me that its based on only believing in yourself and being completely self centered

Thanks for the insightful reply you fucking idiot. I said any intelligible arguments - not stupid opinions.

He didn't lie. I was under the impression that solipism also was under the notion that reality was under your control, like that of a lucid dreamer.

This could easily be verified. You could kill yourself. Or just do something stupid that will get you killed. (ie. drink several gallons of drano and will yourself to live, walk through the ghetto and slap everybody you see, put your dick in the mouth of a sleeping cannibal, etc.)

quote:Originally posted by chaski86:

To save you all some time - solipsism:

-The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.

-The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

Anyone have any intelligible arguments against this? I have yet to hear one.

I havent heard anything to convince me otherwise either. Once you hit that wall there is no going back really.

Technically...

but its more fun to pretend otherwise.

If that's true then why do so many people have conflictions about who they are and what they should do with themselves?

I have yet to fully know myself and cannot prove that I'm real.

Most of the time I like to think I'm not real.

Cheers,

Lost

It not relevant. Solopisim is the "whole picture" all your doubts, experiences, ideas, thougts, perceptions etc... are in that box. You cant get out of the box.

Note most people, i have found, have great difficulty fully grasping the idea. Its a very philosophical and not intuitive notion. But like I said, once you realize what your actually talking about, there arent really any arguments against it.

Now keep in mind also that whether or not the world is purely sunjective or not has little bearing on the normal events of living. It doesnt pay to have this belief one way or the other.

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-03-2005).]

Are you sure you're grasping this philosophical concept. The three points of it are

1. Nothing exists

2. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it, and

3. Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others

So it seems like a pretty pointless system. If one believed in it....then they wouldn't believe in it because it couldn't exist. Some of the objections (ignoring the fact that it is completely self-refuting for the sake of arguement) are Death (like I've already mentioned), Pain (why would we create pain for ourseles?), and besides all that it can create potentially dangerous levels of dillusions of granduer.

[This message has been edited by I_Like_Traffic_Lights (edited 03-03-2005).]

Solopisim means that the only thing we can prove is that our own minds exist, it has nothing to do with being able to "control" reality. Its the belief that we can only make sense of the existence of something within the subject - that goes for objects as well as other minds.

It is pointless, and its not a system at all. Its a perspective. But once you FULLY grasp it, its one you cant shake.

You dont have your definition or your understanding down. Solipisism is purely philosophical, whether you accept or not has no real impact on the practice of science, or anything else - only how it is ultimately to be understood.

Its not about negating what you see or experience, its about recognizing the ontological limitation of our understanding.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-03-2005).]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=solipsism

sounds like your more talking about existentialism.

No, we are talking about solipsism although the differences between it and existentialism are pretty slight.

And, yep, once you've fully understood the idea of 'solipsism' you are unable to refute it. That's what I have come to realize after thinking about this 'theory of life' (if one could call it that) for quite some time.

I'm glad someone brought up this point, which seems to me is the only way to discover any truthfulness in the idea of solipsism: the point that placing onesself in a dangerous situation (or myself, in accordance with the theory) is the only way to see if I am the only one who exists and if I can control that which happens around me, or that which is. This is potentially risky if one considers that they may be wrong.

Existentialism relies upon a communal reality upon which only one of an infinite facets can be viewed epr person. As such, no one can truly understand any other view, though they are all looking at the same general thing. My thought had always been that if this world is truly just a false reality created by my mind, then how would I know what certain things are before I arrived at them. The Matrix answers that with the scene in which Mouse explains how the Matrix decides taste, though it is hard to concretely prove in any other direction. As they say, it is infinitely harder to prove something either doesn't or can't exist than to prove that it does.

quote:Originally posted by chaski86:

I'm glad someone brought up this point, which seems to me is the only way to discover any truthfulness in the idea of solipsism: the point that placing onesself in a dangerous situation (or myself, in accordance with the theory) is the only way to see if I am the only one who exists and if I can control that which happens around me, or that which is. This is potentially risky if one considers that they may be wrong.



There is nothing you can do to "test" solopsism. Once you get it it is self evident and irrefutable. Any "test" is still within consciousness - any, belief, thought, contradiction, affirmation, feeling, understanding etc....

Its not that there is no meaning, Its that meaning is personal and not objective. Life is full of meaning, its just not relevant beyond our consciousness of it.

Existentialism is not solopsism. Existentialism is a very defined movement in philosophy, it is not a "state". Solopsism is more of a truism. Existentialism has an agenda, Solopsism (should you accept it) is more of a fact. There is no purpose to solopsism, its merely a comprehensive framework within which other philosophies can ultimately be interpreted. But in and of itself it was little value.

Existentialists are not solopsists.

You really need some foundation in the history of philosophy before you can realize what all these terms mean and how they are applied. Alot of stuff may appear similar on the surface, but are actually very different.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-04-2005).]

Oh, I'm sorry. I guess you're full of shit then, I'll leave you alone then.

what?

If you dont want to be criticised try at least reading the defintion of what you're talking about, if not getting a basic grasp of it.

Philosophical discussion is not about appeasing your fragile ego. And you dont have to act like a little baby just because someone pointed out where you were mistaken, which you were. This is WHY we discuss these things after all.

If you dont like being told you're wrong, put some effort into being right.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-04-2005).]

Why should any arguments against Solipsism hold any water with you?

quote:Originally posted by Ich:

Why should any arguments against Solipsism hold any water with you?



Are you talking to me? What do you mean exactly?

I assume that he means that if you were so convinced of solipsism why would anything we or anybody else have to say about it concern you? You don't even know that we exist, so if our very existence could be bullshit thne obviously anything we'd have to say would be bullshit.

This, of course, means that it's founder is bullshit as well.

Trafficlights, please attempt to remain logical. I'm not seeing the crediblity of your arguments.



Dagnabitt, I would have to disagree (but am open to discuss) with your statement that death, or a near death experience, would not prove or disprove the idea of solipsism. My reasoning is this: the solipsist creates his own world (or the world perhaps). For this reason, if the solipsist were to die, then the entire 'universe' would cease to exist (since all that exists is created by the solipsist).

This definition of solipsism may be incorrect (that the solipsist creates the universe), so please correct me if I'm wrong. Sidebar - do you have a phd in philosophy or a related field?

Continuing on with the death or near death test, if one were to die then he or she would be wrong (as far as solipsism goes). But, if, as they fell from their 30 story apartment building, the traditional laws of physics broke down and the solipsist started flying or fell on the asphalt softly without being harmed, then this would support, although perhaps not prove, solipsism.

Feel free to ask me for some clarification - I'm not too good at explaining such abstract ideas.

Last time I checked, solipsism can't even be discussed; if you accept it there's no point in discussing it, and if you don't accept it there's no point in discussing it.

What is the point of anything? Humans basically eat, shit, and sleep - nothing goes too far beyond that except thought. And this is what we are doing: thinking. It is a form of entertainment and helps us pass time until we die. Discussing solipsism is no more pointless than arguing about global warming or racial injustice. Everything in life is pointless, including you and me.

So, what's your point?

quote:Originally posted by I_Like_Traffic_Lights:

I assume that he means that if you were so convinced of solipsism why would anything we or anybody else have to say about it concern you? You don't even know that we exist, so if our very existence could be bullshit thne obviously anything we'd have to say would be bullshit.



This, of course, means that it's founder is bullshit as well.



Noone said anything about bullshit. Your confusing "subjective" with "false". A belief in solopsism doesnt effect practical living at all. People nowadays are so addicted to dualisms they have difficulty grasping the concept of a singular phenomenology. But given the limitation of both the senses and reason, we have little choice but to accept otherwise without falling into contradiction.

quote:Originally posted by chaski86:

What is the point of anything? Humans basically eat, shit, and sleep - nothing goes too far beyond that except thought. And this is what we are doing: thinking. It is a form of entertainment and helps us pass time until we die. Discussing solipsism is no more pointless than arguing about global warming or racial injustice. Everything in life is pointless, including you and me.

So, what's your point?

Because by your logic we only have X time, we ought to make best use of that time; wasting away minutes talking about something that can't possibly resolve in enjoyment is wasting that time. That's my point.

quote:Originally posted by chaski86:

Dagnabitt, I would have to disagree (but am open to discuss) with your statement that death, or a near death experience, would not prove or disprove the idea of solipsism. My reasoning is this: the solipsist creates his own world (or the world perhaps).

There is nothing in solipsism that says the person "creates" anything. Only that any experience exists within the subject. It makes no claims to the origin of the existence at all. If you feel you are "creating" fine, if you feel you are passive to reality, also fine. ANY experience, near death, mundane, significant, insignificant, can only be intellectually resolved WITHIN the subject, even if intuition states otherwise.

Emotion, perception, intelligence, experience, history, education. sense, reasoning etc.. are all in the subject. We infer there is an "out there", but we can never prove it intellectually. All we have to work with is our subjectivism.



quote:For this reason, if the solipsist were to die, then the entire 'universe' would cease to exist (since all that exists is created by the solipsist).

True, even though every instinct will tell us otherwise, we cannot comprehend a world without a subject to experience it.

quote:This definition of solipsism may be incorrect (that the solipsist creates the universe), so please correct me if I'm wrong. Sidebar - do you have a phd in philosophy or a related field?

I have an honors Bsc in psychology, with a double major in Philosophy and an undeclared major in sociology. I also have some credit in comparative religion. I'll do grad work when I have the money.

quote:Continuing on with the death or near death test, if one were to die then he or she would be wrong (as far as solipsism goes). But, if, as they fell from their 30 story apartment building, the traditional laws of physics broke down and the solipsist started flying or fell on the asphalt softly without being harmed, then this would support, although perhaps not prove, solipsism.

Its irrelevant (although an interseting experiment). ANY conscious experience, regardless of significance or interpretation, still falls within the subject. Even if you have the most profound and epiphinal revelation that there is in fact a world beyond the senses, ths is still only experience. Experience cannot be transcended.

Like I said its a philosophical truism that really cannot be effectively argued against. Any attempt to confirm a real duality between mind and body, subject and object, falls prey to the same state of affairs.





[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-05-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

Because by your logic we only have X time, we ought to make best use of that time; wasting away minutes talking about something that can't possibly resolve in enjoyment is wasting that time. That's my point.

Its a good point. Yet here we are....

There are better ways to spend the day than philosophising and arguing. But it is interesting.

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

Its a good point. Yet here we are....

There are better ways to spend the day than philosophising and arguing. But it is interesting.



Right. So it's not particularly utilitarian, but it's better than nothing. Then again, can you really say it's interesting if it goes nowhere? Most of us have already gone through the thought loops regarding this particular philosophy, so it's just re-iteration.

Meh. I wonder why i argue anything. Who knows. Why this abstract shit becomes important is beyond me.

I have no argument against that, because that is so simplistic in its fundamental intent, that it is not even worth having a definition.

It is like saying, "We exist."

There's nothing to debate.

The only thing I would like to add is that an essential part of that definition is missing...something that represents the very thread that binds us together into this garment we call Life...

GOD.

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

Meh. I wonder why i argue anything. Who knows. Why this abstract shit becomes important is beyond me.

Because we all have this nagging little voice inside our "guts" that tells us we have a purpose in existing.

WHAT IS IT ?

*looks under a rock*

Solipsism, doesnt take away or add to the concept of god. God can be intuited in the same way in solipsism (if you adopt a sort of solipsist pantheism). However, the typicaL take on the western God, as transcendant, doesnt take because it implies a dualistic metaphisic. Solipsim is a singular metaphysic.

Gearch Berkeley had wrote of the idea that you have sort of a solipsist state, but then God can be intuited as the direct cause of sensation, experience, etc... But god not need actually exist outside the subject (why would he need to if he was god?) So it makes more sense to see god in the way Berkeley saw him, as the driving force behind reality, but without the extra appendix of a duality between experiencial reality and god. Experiencial reality and God are more succinctly equated than speparated.

Self = Experience/Percepetion = God (Driving force, or apparent "cause").

Or, as the buddhists would say "Atman is Brahman".

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-06-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by chaski86:

To save you all some time - solipsism:

-The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.

-The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

Anyone have any intelligible arguments against this? I have yet to hear one.

how is the self verified?

I can't believe this is still being discussed. Especially after deptstoremook so succinctly stated what should be blatantly clear.

I'm not knocking abstract concepts, nor am I an advocate of dualistic notions. My beliefs have little to do with this discussion. I do, however, suggest that the creativity your mind would like to harvest should do so in other regions of existence then this solpsism nonsense. Because, regardless of your position on it, it is hardly worth the time.

Well, why do YOU seem to care so much then.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

how is the self verified?



The self is equated with phenomenolgy itself. There is no "I", just experience.

Sort of like "I think therefore I am", but moreso the philsophical truism "something exists"

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

Solopisim means that the only thing we can prove is that our own minds exist,...

You mean because a mind thinks that it exists, then that means it has therefore been proved that the mind actually exists?

I guess you have to modify the definition of "proof" for this to hold true? I don't see any proof in this belief/faith.

The phrase "something exists" is a philosophical truism. It is not a logical conclusion, its a logical beginning. When we consider this something as a unity, and not a duality, we call it mind. Thats it in a nutshell.

If you really dont believe "something exists", noone can "prove" it to you. But I think, IMHO, that you would have to be either retarded are trying way too hard to get in an argument to deny it.

Solipsism is just the idea that our perception of the world as "self/other" is an illusion. No matter how much evidence you supply that it isn't this way, it can always be discarded as an illusion. It's sorta like how creationists can claim that God made everything look like it had gone through the process of evolution for millions of years, but had really been created in 6 days. For example, take starlight. Normally you'd think that light from stars over 10,000 light-years away would be proof of an old universe. But no, God created the starlight in midstream as if it was that way. Solipsism can do the same thing by declaring any evidence contrary as part of the "grand illusion."

I'm not going to say solipsism is as ridiculous as the creationist's illusion is, but it seems to be in the same category to me. Sure, you can't show any way for it to be wrong, but that doesn't mean it's true.

Solipsism is true...it's skepticism at its absolute peak. The only thing that cannot be rationally doubted is that the observer, the entity that you call 'I', exists on some level. Aside from that, everything has a level of doubt that can be rationally (but for the most part utterly uselessly) applied to it. Solipsism is the ONLY absolute truth; it takes retardation to doubt it.

Edit: Just to clarify, solipsism isn't the belief that only the observer exists, simply that the observor is the only thing in existence that is absolute...everything else MAY exist, or it may not.

[This message has been edited by Hexadecimal (edited 03-11-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

The phrase "something exists" is a philosophical truism. It is not a logical conclusion, its a logical beginning. When we consider this something as a unity, and not a duality, we call it mind. Thats it in a nutshell.

If you really dont believe "something exists", noone can "prove" it to you. But I think, IMHO, that you would have to be either retarded are trying way too hard to get in an argument to deny it.

Just because someone decides it is a "truism" means nothing, except that they refuse to ask or answer any further questions.

My belief is not in existence, but in the fact that things can be seen both to exist or not exist.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

The only thing that cannot be rationally doubted is that the observer, the entity that you call 'I', exists on some level.

Your insistence that this cannot be doubted is not an argument of any sort, and shows that you will not question this any further. No different than any devout religionist.

quote:Solipsism is true...it's skepticism at its absolute peak. The only thing that cannot be rationally doubted is that the observer, the entity that you call 'I', exists on some level. Aside from that, everything has a level of doubt that can be rationally (but for the most part utterly uselessly) applied to it. Solipsism is the ONLY absolute truth; it takes retardation to doubt it.

I looked this up on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

From what I read there, what you're referring to is a variation of Solipsism called "materialistic agnosticism." I agree with that idea, but plain ol' Solipsism states that all of reality is in your head. That's what I was talking about in my last post.

Trust me, what I said is solipsism; if the only thing you cannot doubt is your own existence, then everything else is simply an experience in your head, whether it objectively exists or not, all you will ever have is the experience.

Edit: Before anyone even says it, I'll admit it-I'm arrogant, contentious, and pretentious...and I fucking love it.

[This message has been edited by Hexadecimal (edited 03-11-2005).]

I like the idea... I definitely think there's an argument for it, and I like thinking I'm the center of the universe, even if it's just my own universe. I would say, however, that this isn't my universe, because if I'd created this place, I would've definitely not imagined up geometric proofs, or PE.

*laughs*

I like it when the plot is less "thick" in here.

Would be nice to talk to some of you without the "religious" pretenses hanging over our heads.

quote:If you really dont believe "something exists", noone can "prove" it to you. But I think, IMHO, that you would have to be either retarded are trying way too hard to get in an argument to deny it.

And that is the only reason why people rebel against the idea of the Christian God, in my opinion.

People don't want to believe, so they don't allow themselves to see the truth.

Belief in God requires a complete and sudden denial of self, which is all that Americans are raised to think about.

In my opinion...

quote:And that is the only reason why people rebel against the idea of the Christian God, in my opinion.

People don't want to believe, so they don't allow themselves to see the truth.

Belief in God requires a complete and sudden denial of self, which is all that Americans are raised to think about.

So do you believe in solipsism? I mean, you said the same logic that dagnabitt is using for solipsism applies to Christianity, so it would seem that's what you're implying.

[This message has been edited by Clarphimous (edited 03-12-2005).]

The definition may be similar, but the two (solipsism vs. God) cannot be parallel in meaning, since they are absolutely nothing alike.

It is logical to say that if solipsism is true, then it is true because of it's similarity to God.

You know the 'Chicken comes before the egg' thing.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 03-14-2005).]

quote:The definition may be similar, but the two (solipsism vs. God) cannot be parallel in meaning, since they are absolutely nothing alike.

I don't mean that. I'm talking about the logical argument for why people don't believe in each of them, which dagnabitt stated earlier. If dagnabitt's argument means that non-Christians are really just in denial of the Christian God, then are dualists really just in denial of solipsism?

God is an inference no matter how you take it, as a religous deity, as a logical appendix, as a "cause", or as a "force". Belief in the "Christian God", a religous God, doesnt really apply here because its just another story of meaning, just another fable, as for the solipsist all metaphysical problems are fundamentally unresolveable.

How we arrive at the Christian God is through tradition and culture, and an anti-philosophical agenda. We arrive at Solipsism through relentless skepticism and analysis of ANY belief. Solipsism is the ultimate parsimony of reality/experience. The christian God is the ultimate appendix to reality/experience - philsophical baggage that not only goes against Occams Razor, but is, from the religous perspective, a complete invention. The idea of God reflects our desire for clarity and purpose in the only way possible - to go outside the box. But this, in any form we choose to do it, philosophically or culturally, is inferential at best, and therefore susceptable to all the standard logical criticisms of inference.

So we arrive at these beliefs in different ways. We arrive at Christianity "creatively", in that by ignoring its fallacies we "create" its truth. However with Solipsism we create nothing, we criticise everything, take everything uncertain away, until we are left with the only thing that can be said for sure. "Something exists", not body vs mind in some unresolvable duality, but one unity engulfing the totality of our experience -which we refer to as mind. Mind is not to be confused with "thoughts", which dualistic convention has placed "in" or heads. Mind is the totality of all experence, unresolvable from the "objects" of that experience.

Solipsism is a result of the brains (reality's) natural categorization. We cannot escape the idea of "the totality of things". That is everything that can, does , or wil exist - EVERYTHING - thoughts, objects, feelings, ideas, EVERYTHING. Then we take this everything and look at it, and we see it can only be logically seen as a UNITY. To add God as something exterior to "everything" is incomprehensible. God can only (*comprhensibly if not actually*) be a part OF everything. Within this schism we find solipsism, Because EVERYTHING, that is, is experienced by a subject. And the only subject that is, for us not another object, is our own subject.

In othr words, and I just woke up so forgive this long ramble, but when looking at experience philsophically all signs point to solipsism. No signs point to the christian god. Solipsism is a deduction, the philosophical God is an inference based on analogy that may follow this deduction, and the Christian God, the biblical God, is a storybook charachter no different than Cinderella and has little to do with the theory of solipsism one way or the other.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-13-2005).]

Christianity = Anti-Philosophical Agenda ?

Just think about that for a minute...

And don't cop out and blame it on your having just woken up.

*tsk*

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

I don't mean that. I'm talking about the logical argument for why people don't believe in each of them, which dagnabitt stated earlier. If dagnabitt's argument means that non-Christians are really just in denial of the Christian God, then are dualists really just in denial of solipsism?

Ok, I see where you are coming from now.

And it is a very good point.

The only thing I could offer as a response is that it seems solipsism is not accepted as a "fact" by anyone, whereas God is accepted as "fact" by at least some.

But I am a firm believer in the idea that just because something is popular doesn't make it "real".

I just happen to know God is real, and understand that those who don't are in denial.

*LMAO*

dagnabitt: that's great and all, but could you explain how individuality works according to solipsism? Because it doesn't seem to give any mechanism for how we have separate consciousness.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

dagnabitt: that's great and all, but could you explain how individuality works according to solipsism? Because it doesn't seem to give any mechanism for how we have separate consciousness.

There is no allowance for separate consciousness. This is caled "the problem of other minds". I can only infer that there are other minds in the universe because ultimately the idea of others is only part of MY consciousness. If you think about it, anyone you have ever known is just an idea in your consciousness. You know them relative to your own experience, biases, etc... You can never "know" another person the same way you "know" yourself. You can only have the idea of them. (Existentialism is founded on this schism, relating to the "other"). If "joe" cannot be distinguished philosophically from "our idea of Joe", then what grounds do we even have for saying joe exists in his own right, above and beyond our understanding of him?

In solipsism there is one individual - the conscious manifold of phenomenal experience. "Objects" within this framework are comprehensive only, they cannot be presumed to exist in their own right. Other minds are just other objects in the unity that is the perceptual/experiential manifold.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Christianity = Anti-Philosophical Agenda ?

Just think about that for a minute...

And don't cop out and blame it on your having just woken up.

*tsk*

I consider dogma to be the opposite of philosophy. I consider Christianity to be essentially dogmatic. Therefore I consider Christianity to be anti-philosophical.

Christianity is not about philsophy at all. Its about resigning yourself to dogmatism. Even if you dont see it that way because it implies a negative conotation, its still what you're doing. It is still dogmatic, and "truth" is simply a matter of "looking it up" in a big jumbled book that you refuse to question. This is not the way philosophers think.

Okay, I'm going to assume that you are the "mind." Are you eventually going to see things from the perspective of all the other "individuals" after* you die, or is the entire universe contained by the existence of your human body (and therefore brain)?

What I'm getting at is why the "mind" seems to view everything from the perspective of a human body.

* By "after" I don't necessarily mean time, but it's the most convenient way I could illustrate it.

[This message has been edited by Clarphimous (edited 03-14-2005).]

I think the fundamentals have already been quite clearly outlined. Maybe give the thread another read. That question just shows you dont quite understand whats already been said. No offence

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-14-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

I consider dogma to be the opposite of philosophy. I consider Christianity to be essentially dogmatic. Therefore I consider Christianity to be anti-philosophical.

Christianity is not about philsophy at all. Its about resigning yourself to dogmatism. Even if you dont see it that way because it implies a negative conotation, its still what you're doing. It is still dogmatic, and "truth" is simply a matter of "looking it up" in a big jumbled book that you refuse to question. This is not the way philosophers think.



You sound like you are afraid of anything being in control of you.

What you just said was not only uneducated (that is not an insult...if you don't know, you don't know !), but extremely egotistical.

PHILOSOPHY

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.

Hmm...sounds like Christianity, just from a less humanistic standpoint.

Love ? Check. Pursuit of Wisdom ? Check. Moral self discipline ? Check.

2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

Christians don't do this ? Why not ? How many have you truly known on a personal level ?

- http://www.irc.org

- http://www.creationministries.org

The point of those sites is to show you that Christians can and SHOULD be studying nature, causes and principals of reality. God created everything ! Why shouldn't we care about His creation ?

#3 didn't need to be addressed in my opinion. If you'd like me to, I will. Just seemed redundant.

4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.

Again, Christians don't do this ? Which Christians have YOU been observing to determine that this is lacking ?

5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.

Please refer to the websites I posted above.

Christians incorporate philosophy into their beliefs, just like anyone else does. To do so is human. I can't believe you would even dare say that this fundamental aspect of our humanity is missing, simply because we're Christian. (or that when we choose to become Christian, we don't allow ourselves to philosophize anymore)

6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

Christianity and the Metaphysical - http://www.mustardseed.net/html/tometaphysics.html

For the sake of the argument, doesn't religion attempt to create comprehensive philosophical structures within theology ?

Epistemology - the study of human knowledge. How is this separate from the study of God's knowledge ? Even God tells us that we are made in His image. If we do not understand ourselves, we cannot understand Him.

I am not saying all Christians include these aspects of humanity into their beliefs, but to say that NONE of them do is complete ignorance.

So you are saying that Christians aren't logical or ethical ?

Have you looked up Ravi Zacharias, yet ? I don't post these sites for the giggles of it. I make sure that the incredibly intelligent Christians are known here on Totse, because it seems to be a common misconeption that all Christians are idiots.

- http://shop2.gospelcom.net/epages/rzim.storefront/42352cee04ee764c271e455 79e7c0693/Product/View/CD307 (http://shop2.gospelcom.net/epages/rzim.storefront/42352cee04ee764c271e45579e7c0693/Product/View/CD307)

Listen to him here: http://resources.christianity.com/ministries/rzim/main/searchItems.jhtml

Or on the radio: http://www.rzim.org/radio/map.php

As usual, I expect you to completely ignore my suggestions. But if you really want to be informed about Christianity, you should try and listen to those who are not only intelligent, but impressively informed about this faith.

If you don't, then you can't really have an opinion, because you haven't got a clue. Right ?

7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory.

That alone can be applied to the faith of Christianity. The entire concept is based on a set of ideas and beliefs pertaining to God, as outlined in the Bible.

8. A system of values by which one lives.

So, a Christian's system of values cannot be practiced, and still be considered valid ?

Based on these definitions alone, I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that you have.

You should consider MAN to be essentially dogmatic.

To be Christian means to be saved by Christ's blood...which atoned for our sin on the cross at Calvary.

Everything else is religion...which is dogmatic.

You have obliterated the line between man's personal responsibility for himself, and God's purpose for man.

Church and religion separates people. If any church is allowed to become more important than God, then it is not following God's doctrine, and is guilty of what you claim.

If this is a predominant affliction within Christianity, I don't see it. All religion is dogmatic. You speak as if Christianity were the model by which all other religion finds itself drowning in dogma.

And that is ridiculous.

Even if that were true, how does that make Christianity (as a whole) anti-philosophical ?

It doesn't.

Of course Christianity is not ABOUT philosophy, as philosophy is a man-made entity.

But since God created all things man, I would have to say that philosophy is very much a part of the Christian faith.

Not in a humanistic sense, but in a general understanding of the universe.

The two could not possibly be separated.

I am not disagreeing with you because what you say is seemingly against Christianity...I am disagreeing with you because you are completely wrong.

If unbelievers are going to dislike Christianity, they should do so for the RIGHT reasons, based on actual truth about it. Not for whatever BS reason they can think of.

Do you honestly think that I don't question God, and the Bible ?

You have never been to a Calvary Chapel church, have you ?

You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

And that offends me.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 03-14-2005).]

Your right. Where are my meds, I must be making all this up out of thin air. Christianity, why its obviously the most open minded, inquisitive, non-dogmatic system of thought there ever was. Why reading a bible verse is much more rational than actually applying logic and reasoning. And the above post, why that isnt the most labored and completely retarded avoidance of an issue I've ever seen. Do you really believe any of what you wrote up there is the least bit analytical? I have 4 years study of academic philosophy under my belt. Do not tell me i'm ignorant of these topics and then provide nothing but the self serving bullshit in that above post.

Digita_Savior, can your fucking rhetoric. You've been ruining alot of otherwsie really good threads with out of context bullshit. Whether you agree or not, do not insult my intelligence. Most of this shit involves at least some sophistication in philosophy and other traditions of thinking that you obviously dont have. And whether you want to believe it or not, Christianity does not need to be brought into every conversation.

Taking one book as the base for all truth is not philosophy, as anyone who ever looked into it knows. Its dogma. Further, you are not a philosopher, you are a dogmatist.

To someone that is philosophically minded a dogmatist looks like a little child throwing a temper tantrum over "their own way" with no regards for circumstances that may necessitate otherwise.

There is no point conversing with you, because you have already stated you refuse to compromise your beliefs. That makes you nothing more than a bully, like every other fucking missionary out to save the world.

Quite frankly given the actual content of some of these threads I see very little difference between you and any of the other trolls that ruin decent conversations, imposing themselves out of context for no other reason than to interfere.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-14-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

I think the fundamentals have already been quite clearly outlined. Maybe give the thread another read. That question just shows you dont quite understand whats already been said. No offence

Okay, so at least tell me what form of solipsism you're talking about. Is it agnostic materialism, which simply states that nothing can be known but our own existence? Or are you going further to say that you are the only conscious being? I'm not really sure, since earlier you said that "there is no allowance for separate consciousness."

The term has been defined ad nauseum, by me and others. Not to mention 2 dictionary definitions. Read closer.

quote:The term has been defined ad nauseum, by me and others. Not to mention 2 dictionary definitions. Read closer.

The term is too vague, as different definitions have been given/implied all throughout this thread. That's why I'm asking you to specify what *exactly* you're talking about. You're the one who told me I had the wrong definition, so at least do me the favor of verifying when I get the right one you're talking about.

I cant tell you anything that i already havent said throughout the thread. I dont feel like spending a half hour quoting myself. The defintion is there, all you have to do is look.

Dagnabit vs http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/index.html

Edit: I'm a moo-moo cow

[This message has been edited by Clarphimous (edited 03-15-2005).]

Why dont you summarize the main points you want to get accross MIND. I'm not about to read that whole website. The guy did his grad work on the "cosmological argument" for the existence of god, or argument from first cause. I know how to dispute this argument, but I actually think its a good one. How you get from the argument from first cause to the legitimacy of the bible though is beyond me.

I'd also like to point out that I'm not an atheist philosophically, and one of my favorite philosophers, Berkeley, was actually a Bishop. I do however believe that you cannot transition from God to a dogmatic religion, because the "eithor/or" moral dogmatism of any religion compromises the omnipotent nature of the very being it claims to "worship".

So, if you would like to emphasize a point that this guy is making then feel free, but the mere fact that there are Christian philsophers out there is not a suprise. What would be a suprise is if he could a) Convincingly relate his philosophy with his religion deductively b) Do so without falling back on the same scapegoats ALL christians do in arguments (God works in mysterious ways, He's god he doesnt need to make sense, its a matter of faith, etc.....)

Feel free to drop some relevant quotes. It looks like a good site.

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-15-2005).]

I agree with you almost entirely, just postin some brain candy...

All right, I looked solipsism up elsewhere and I have a pretty good idea about it. That is, the same idea of it that I had when I first posted on this thread. I think I started getting confused when hexadecimal began telling claiming that solipsism was true and something different than what had been discussed. And then I began thinking that you (dagnabitt) were saying that is was true. Bah.

Because solipsism isn't falsible, the only way to decide whether solipsism is true is to compare it to all possible alternative theories. If it turns out that nothing but solipsism can explain reality, then that would be your answer. However, at present the alternative theories explain reality much better than Solipsism, and it would seem absurd to reject them for Solipsism. Just like it would be absurd to accept the idea that God magically made everything look like it was an old earth/universe, when an old earth/universe explanation works quite well.

Of course, that's probably obvious to most of you, I just wanted you to know I understand too. Okay then...

Like I said before, solipsism is less a philosophy than a truism. Its a perspective. It "explains" nothing in and of itself, but it is unshakable once you understand it. Further once you understand things as pure phenomenology, it is usefull as a starting point from which to criticize other dualistic interpretations of the world. Like I said though, apart from the most abstract philosophy, whether you are a solipsist or a dualist doesnt matter in the slightest, even if it is a powerful revelation in its own right.