What is reality?
Is reality what we perceive? is it what we think we perceive? or is what we perceive just not real?
I am an objectivist so I say reality is the entities we (man) perceive that only an active consciousness can achieve by a process of choice. Existence exists, and “man’s power of volition is the power to seek such awareness of reality (existence)”
I am reality.
I truly want to prove Solipsism as being perfectly valid… which would explain why it’s a problem that pretty much all philosophers cannot deny. (Sartre tried, but failed to bring it down). Perhaps now is the time to see all of reality as part of itself, and that you are reality, as much as I am…that I am reality. That the “you” I see is really “me”.
Everything I see is just an extention of myself. “The sooner you realize that you are a dream figure in someone else’s dream, that’s consciousness.” (Waking Life) I think I exist, but the part of me that writes this is not the end of my reality. You (the general you) is also part of me, almost as though you’re dreaming of me dreaming of you.
Most see this as a flaw, or infinite regress, but what if it’s just an ouroboros. I can’t exist without the reality I exist in, so why is it so wrong to say that the reality I exist in needs me as much as I need it?
I am reality…
But you are fake.
“all of reality is part of itself, and that you are reality, as much as I am… that I am reality”
What the heck are you saying?
You are dreaming of me dreaming of you?
You sound like a crazy person.
Who’s dream am I part of? That person is very fortunate to be able to dream me up you know…
Consciousness is the realization that I have no consiousness because I am part of someone elses dream? What a contradiction!
Get this. As soon as you decided to think about reality you are implicitly accepting the axiom that existence exists as THE primary. Otherwise what is it you are trying to prove. You are trying to prove something right? That something implies that something exists. What would be the contents of a dream of a mind that is conscious of nothing since nothing exists but the dream? You say that I am dreaming you and you are dreaming me but we both do not exist without eachother. What was first you dreaming me so I could dream about you? You know the whole thing you said is absurd.
Uh takes an asprin
Apparently it does take someone like Descarte to even try and disprove the idea that I am someone else’s dream.
I’d tell you to think outside of the box, but you’ve boxed yourself in so tight that the perspective change would be minor, to say the least.
Ok, think of it like this. What if you are a part of me that I materialized in defense of myself? Or to test myself (more likely my patience), or to just try and affirm my beliefs.
I don’t know you exist. You could very well be an illusion. I don’t know God exists, there is no logical firmness in that. I do know that I exist, for it’s a contradiction for me to state otherwise. However, I cannot deny that I percieve you. As we all know, perceptions can be decieving. Would you say I see the “real you”. Probably not, and I’m inclined to agree with you on that. Would you say you see the “real me”? Lord, I hope not. So, perhaps we don’t see each other as we are, we dream of each other. If you know you exist, and I know I exist, we’re never going to agree that each other really exists in the form that we see…right? Sooo…we don’t know that we’re both even human. We don’t even know if we’re not dreaming right now. I could be dreaming you.
Descarte said that the idea of a dreamer being part of someone else’s dream who is part of the original dreamer’s dream is impossible because God cannot fool man without being imperfect in some fashion. Since he believed God had the inherent trait of existence, all of reality has some face value.
However, Descartes proof of God is flawed, and really, is completely wrong. As a result, much of what he said on this still leads to Solipsism.
You probably do not understand what I said so far. That’s ok. One day, you’ll probably consider undertaking the task of diversifying your philiosophical repitoire, but until then, you’re stuck with what you know… so work on seeing the flaws in that first, and stop telling everyone else that they are wrong and you have the answer.
Normally I wouldn’t say this as I hate it, but remember what Socrates said… “The wise man knows nothing.” Doubt yourself before you doubt others… especially on matters you have yet to completely ponder.
What are you saying, that I should open my mind up to nonsense? Please give me a breaK FOR TRYING TO USE REASON AS THE TOOL FOR KNOWLEDGE. A diversification of philosophic ideas is not like a portfolio of stocks. “I’ll carry enough of them to mediate my conflicting ideas” you must say. Stuck with truth is what I am. Not a series of conflicting ideas like you.
If you are so well informed than inform me on this! Where is the logic in this dream crap. This I have got to see you try to do because I know what you will do. You will deny that reason is even potent and that knowledge is not attainable right?
Explain just one thing, what does “what if you were are part of me that I created in defense of my self” mean. This I would love to see you try to make real sense of.
THE OBJECTIVIST CANNOT BE DEFEATED!!!
Where is the reason in what I just stated?
In that very post you are refering to.
What did I mean by “what if you were created by me as a form of defense of myself” ?
Ask a schizophrenic what they mean by what they see.
Now ask them if what they see is real.
Now ask yourself, are you schizophrenic?
How do you know for certain?
Good day, sir.
Rafajafar,
If you are unsure of your existence, if you don’t know if you exist, how can you be sure of your philosophy? How can you believe in your beliefs? Do you not find this perception impossibly hard to live by?
Do you not find your reality to be totally unstable?
from dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=solipsism
sol·ip·sism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slp-szm, slp-)
n. Philosophy
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
Where, exactly, did I state that I do not exist or am unsure of my own existence. I’ve actually been stating quite the contrary, that YOU only exist as a manifestation of myself.
I like this Solipsism, or the sophists. Its quite arguable and benevolent in comparison to nihilism or existentialism; what would you say is the difference between solipsism and nihilism Rafajafar?
“Nothing Exists” - Nihilism
“Only I Exist” - Solipsism
It’s generally considered an undesireable problem in philosophy. Personally, I don’t see the “problem”. No one has yet to explain it to me without saying “well do you really wanna be that lonely” in which case I respond “don’t you?”.
Edit: And yes, I see the so called “irony” in stating “Don’t You?”. The question is, do you see that it’s as though I’m asking myself and begging my own question by asking my manifestation.
i tend towards solipsism myself too.
if i am reality and you are in my world, you are in my reality too.
truth is subjective… we cannot know any other except that of ours.
anyway, how is existentialism not benevolent?
in a way, nihilism and solipsism is connected. the nihilist considers his own reality and world only.
Isn’t there a probabalistic side to things in this issue? I’ll grant that it’s impossible to prove the existence of anyone other than myself, or that other people have minds like I do, or that my house continues to exist while I’m at work, or all that stuff. But just because something cannot be absolutely proven, doesn’t mean that taking the opposite track is automatically just as valid!! For example, I can’t prove whether or not the core of the moon is made of caramel or not, but that doesn’t mean believing it is is just as reasonable as believing it’s not. It seems like in this argument, we have the realists, who have a boatload of intuitive evidence for realism- which will never quite add up to %100 certainty. On the other side, we have a solipsist who’s only argument is “You can’t definitively prove me wrong, so neener neener.”
Im not too sure why.
Well theres alot of that going on.
Isnt the Self just something invented and projected as the cause to everything in sophism anyways? Its possible that even this isn’t certain, simply a belief needed for your own survival. I still prefer nihilism, though a nihilist does not ‘believe’ in nihilism because nihilism offers nothing for anyone to believe in.
Cynic:
Yeah, seriously, I cannot support something that tells me I do not exist.
Even Neitszche said that his ideas were not meant to be taken literally…they were intended as a guideline for reality. Act with the idea you are nothing, but still act. Most nihilist these days aren’t following what he intended, IMHO. They picked its ethics and ignored its metaphysical ramifications.
Uccisore:
I am formulating a response to this… you’re right, I need to start writing proofs of justification for why I feel Solipsism is more valid than taking things at face value. I have them outlined in my head, I just don’t write them down.
Rafajafar 
I am certain that existence exists. Not just you or me, but all things.
By now you should at least accept the fact that we disagree, right?
What if I said to you that we do agree because people always agree about everything.
Would you say that that would be absurd, people disagree about things all the time? And if so, what if I would reply back “how can people disagree, there is no subject matter. After all nothing exists.”
Clearly things do exist. You must accept this axiom just to utter the word ‘disagreement’ Existence exists :o
Now, you know that you have an idea different than mine, correct?
That means you also must admit that you are conscious. Unconcious people do not have ideas. This is another axiom - Consciousness.
Finally, what if I said that both our ideas are right and so it does not even matter if we disagree. I am right and so are you. Meaning you says things do not exist and I say they do, ok? Well, you know I don’t really think it is possible to exist and not exist at the same time. That is a major contradiction. If you accept this conviction that things cannot contradict in reality than you must accept the third basic axiom. Things are what they are, all things have identity that do not contradict themselves. A is A.
there is nothing wrong with the logic here. The example was made by Leornard Peikoff of the Ayn Rand Institute.
The conclusion is that existence exists, consiousness and identity are irreducible primaries. They are presupposed by any statement you make.
So be careful, because the next statement you make just makes me more right.
No, because I’m done speak to you…so it doesn’t matter. I’ve already purged myself of your objectivist shite. I’m not in the mood to relive some of the shitty cult-like Ayn Rand arguments I’ve had in the past.
I wish I could block you, that way, you could continue to post, and I wont have to read anything by accident and get all pissy, and I don’t stop you from talking.
You Loose…
And you are a soar one too. Adios you mindless freak.
Even so sophism is about the closest thing there is to nihilism from what ive seen. The self gives existence to anything that exists and which itself transcends these very existents to itself. Nice. Though these existents are never permanents. By acting as you pointed out, activates the will, the terra incognita, so if to separate body/mind they would act in seemingly different ways: the mind uses language and logic in certain subject/verb, subject/object categories as if positing some inbetween (ontological) sense to a thing; at the same time seeing no self or will beyond the completely surface phenomenon of the body. Great. Are human nature of opposites: mind/body, infinite/finite, truth/false, Me/You, Conscious/unconscious.- If the mind and body are both apart of the same physiology cant both be nothing? Invention.
Rafajafar i appologise i misread your post forgive my haste.
regards scorpio