parmenides & slopism

the basic grand achievement of parmenides was that he took current philosophy (focused mainly on natural philosophy – accounting for what is) and twisted it. early ionian philosophy accounted for the world by poisting that it was made up of one substance, to which everything is/exists according to the varying stages of the substance (what resulted: that the earth was made of water, air, the limitless, fire/flux, and God).

so paramenides wrote this account of the Truth. he claimed that what it is consisted not in what is/was, but what could be thought. because, he argued, to think of what is not (or to think of nothing) is to think of something, that means everything that is is and what is not is. everything exists! watch out!

so this was a major problem, all the presocrtics fought to deal with this. leucippius and democratics produced the atomic theory, which is kinda important. empedocles and axagoras also came up with answers, but all of these were evasions to the dilemma.

plato discovered this, and solved the problem. it was in the Sophist that he does the damn thing. his solution works quiet well, actually, in the theory of forms. i suppose solipism works quiet well with rationalism, overall.

it just seems to me that this little problem of having to refute existence of existing beyond the human mind has been around for a hell of a lot longer than one would like to believe. i actually haven’t seen the debate gone much past these initial stages. but i’m willing to believe that maybe wittengenstien contributed something, i’m not sure.

anyone think that solipism is a new thing, they’re wrong. is it worthy of so much of our attention, i wonder?

Hey, it’s not new at all! I agree, it’s been around for as long as I was born! laughs

Seriously, the issue I have with the philosophical community is labeling solipsism as a conundrum, a problem, if you will. So many have attempted to disprove solipsism, so many have tried to explain it off… has anyone tried to support it?

Nope, no one.

Why not? That’s my problem. I have yet to hear a decent answer. Everyone states, “Hey! Do you really wanna do that??!!?? People will think you’re insane!”

Well, people already think that about me, so who cares, right? I, personally, think it makes a whole lot more sense to me that Solipsism IS the answer (at least how I’ve staged it) than anything else does. It’s sure a lot nicer to think that you’re the master of your world than some invisible man, some random happenings, or by pure deterministic truths…yes? Well, for me it is comforting, at least. And what is philosophy but the search for the security blanket in a world of toddlers?

i suppose the irony that i find is that for a pursuit that largely invovles the mind, western philosophy is largely steered by the paranoia that all we have is the mind.

maybe this indicates to philosophers, and other thinkers, that the mind isn’t enough. a world were everything is of the mind is not good.

but paramendies, i guess, prooves how the discussion is halted when we say that all we have is all that we think (or I think, rather). there’s no use in arguing, continuing the discussion. there’s simply no point.

so solipisim and idealism a good conversation killers. but philosophy’s refusal to accept this, and indeed, solipisim and idealism’s desire to contribute to the conversation, i think is rather self-refuting.

yeah, i would paramendies, etc. other greek thinkers. as well, idealism really fits naturally into this.

i think there is a different from trying to assign responsibility to actions and trying to determine actions. the latter is not solipism, necessarily. the former is. you seem to have mixed up the two.

you crazy nut

Oh, I very much disagree. If I’m the only thing in existence, and everything I see is a manifestation of myself, then who is responsible for my life and the life of “others”? Me, yup yup. Makes me the ethical center of my universe. It’s an implication of the extreme monism of Solipsism.

By the way, to state that Paramendies supported and promoted the idea of Solipsism is absolutely untrue. He viewed it as a problem, himself. He thought it was undesireable as well. He said that it was a brick wall in philisophical discussion, not that it was ultimate reality. There IS a point to me discussing Solipsism, but you have to understand how I desire to account for reality.

I state that there is one substance. This substance is my consciousness. I also state that other substances must exist in conscious space as all of reality is derived from this space (see the other post, I was going to call it NULL space and derive our number system from sets of NULL, but I’ll just reference Sartre for the benefit of all you “lovers of knowledge” who dont love math). This being the case, then all functions of reason much act upon all consciousnesses the same. If they did not, then it would contradict reason, as reason would no longer be stable. This being the case, there can be no God, for God would need to both obey reason and be separate from man, and be separate from me. Since he cannot exist separate from me without having the same functions of reality work the same on him as me, then he either doesn’t exist or I am Him. You, very much in the same way, must exist as a manifestation of myself if you consider yourself of a separate “substance” (again, supporting the idea that consciousness must be the only valid substance). Since God’s consciousness (by definition) is not like my consciousness (I’m limited consciousness, he’s all-knowing), then God cannot logically exist. Since you, as well, are a separate consciousness by definition, and are said to function on varying levels of reason, then you cannot exist.

The currently unsupported answer? You and I both exist but you are manifestations of me. What does this mean to you? I exist but only as a manifestation of you. We are both manifestations of each other, a dreamer dreaming a dream dreaming of someone dreaming the original dreamer. There is no one ultimate Solipsistic perspective, but I exist and you exist, but we exist together as one mind dreaming of itself.

Not only is it Solipsism, but it’s also not “pointless”. Think about it, it is undesireable to hurt you as I’d be hurting myself, it’s undesireable to kill you because I’d be killing my dreamer. It explains what I can do, as you are stopping me from myself, and I am stopping you from yourself, and together, we’re both masters of what we can do.

Life is all connected via the common NULL space in so far as…we are all the same life, and I am just the cell on the fingernail of a giant looking into its eyes, trying to see what he’s thinking, only to realize that he’s looking at me and thinking the same. What I say is heard, I am in control of my paradigm. The only reason I don’t do what I can or want to do is because I am limiting myself.

There is only one substance, and I am it.

okay. but know that you are saying that everything YOU see is tainted through YOURSELF – a viel of reality. in no way does this bear any connection to the real world.

i don’t know. you are responsible for your perception of life and reality. you are also responsible for your perception of other people. but this is just perception, and it is only yours. you have established no connection between perception and what must exist.

this would: “Make you the ethical center of your PERCIEVED universe”

this is the first thing you need to recognize. as for you arguement that you are the only substance in the universe, there is some major flaws.

second point need justification. how does the formal definition necessarily led to it being your consciousness? my fave def’n of substance is that which is in itself and by itself. you’re consciousness seems contained to me, by the very fact that it came into existence and (by your admission) will come out of existence – is limited.

other than that, i see your arguement as essentially being a rip-off of spinoza’s ethics. which leads into idealism, which is basically solipism.

lord, do i have to teach you everything? or just stuff pertaining to philosophy? the account of paramenides saying that probably was taking from the second part of paramendies surviving fragments, and if you read the first part then you’ll see my basic interpertation is right.

First off, I’m not getting into it with you, Trishy. I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove with this post, but I really could care less. This thread comes off as childish to me, and I don’t feel like writing out my proofs for a child . Perhaps when I’ve finished writing it, and checking it, and looking it over. You wanted a basic run down, and that’s what you got. Hell, I’ve even stated that there’s things that I’m intuiting as true.

As for your arguments:
The perceptions vs substance argument is already something I’ve accounted for, hon. Thanks for being soooo “perceptive”, but I’m way ahead of you. The nature of creation and the nature of mortality are not something that must be accounted for in order to take a solipsistic stance. They are a distraction. So stop distracting me. As for claiming that my argument is some sort of “rip-off”…well, let’s just say, I’ve yet to hear a truly original thought come out of your tiny little head. Hell, I’ve yet to hear you state anything of great substance. You go around trashing other’s arguments and making claims of absolute morality, then you quote some dead guys and act like you’re tough shit. I don’t take you seriously, Trishy.

Oh, and Trishy, your basic interpretation is wrong. Go interpret the meaning of a flower or something. Paramenides did not support Solipsism, nor did the idealists. There’s a BIG difference between idealism and Solipsism. I’m sorry if your books lied to you.

Look, I’ll talk about this when I’m ready.

But you can be proud. I now know you are a manifestation of my own self doubt attempting to destroy the truth.

Slopism – The philosophy that says that my sloppy consciousness is the only thing that the universe has slopped onto my plate.

Slopism – The insane desire to ski from really high steep slopes.

Slopism – The trendy wearing of cheap, ready-made garments. (from the British slops)

oh whatever. i spelt “cum” right in another post, what the hell do i look like, a spelling machine or something? bah.

i suppose this is the just of my citicism against your point; solipism, by definition:

(from ditext.com/encyc/frame.html).
it is a philosophy that leaves you with nothing but you, and if you want to hold this view, fine. but there is absolutly no way you can claim that everyone/thing is like this. the philosophy would then be self-refuting.

oh and, colin, is it? if you are a solipist, then it’s no wonder you can’t hear anything of substance coming from me; also, as an asshole, it’s really no wonder you can’t hear anything of substance coming from me…

Learn to spell!!!

There’s two ell’s in Collin, sukapants. And YOU STILL spelled Solipsist wrong. Do I have to teach you everything?

heh, actually, if you look at the definition provided from the site you just referenced, you’d see there is no definition on that page… there is, however, one off of THIS ONE which is linked off of the site you gave us:

philosophypages.com/dy/s7.htm#solm

While I was there, I looked up Idealism:
philosophypages.com/dy/i.htm#idlm

Ya Done Now?

you spelt my name wrong! i’m not complaining! bah.

post theory of solipisim in math, i’ll probably get the just of it. also, i’d be interested to see how you’d translate ‘suckapants’ into mathematical symbols, or take other cheap jabs at me.

and i do not act conceited. i AM con…no j/k

sukapants = term of endearment LOL It’s Collin-Speak. If I wanted to jab at you, I’d call you a chode or bastage.

lord…

rafa wrote:

trix wonders out loud where rafa thinks she got this this quote from,

wow. the last senentce of rafa’s quote seems to match the quote trix pulled, hmmm…hold on a minute, i’ll probably take a few hours to figure out what’s going on here.

…

about the idealism point, i know the definition, but i still don’t see it as that much of a stretch from solipisim, difference being that idealism recognizes the need to universalize thought as a valid form of existence. also a point solipism/you’ve overlooked. try fiddling with you digits to see if you can come up with an answer

You would think you two were a couple or something…

from the Cambridge dictionary of Philosophy second edition, “Solipsism, the doctrine that there exists a first-hand perspective possessing privileged and irreducible characteristics, in virtue of which we stand in various kinds of isolation from any other persons or external things which may exist. This doctrine is associated with but distinct from egocentrism.”
(Italics mine)

I’m afraid Trix is right. If you’re a pure solipsist, you’re in a club of one, you can’t assume any ‘external referents’. The above definition even specifically mentions ‘isolation’.

sukapants – Any one of various drunken sophists who either commit solecisms, advocate impossible syncretisms, or equate literature and religion with philosophy.

I think you got it from here ditext.com/encyc/frame.html because that’s where you said you got it.

Actually, Trix is wrong, because Trix stated:

(sic)

And, as you stated, Solipsism is not basically idealism, it’s basically solipsism, no? How does this make her right?

As for what I support, I think I’ve said often enough that my mind is your mind. Your mind is my mind. It’s the same mind, I am you, you are me. It’s not idealism, it’s me stating that you are manifestations of me reacting to me being the manifestation of you. It’s a tad like hive-mind, but without the hive and only one mind, mine. The material representation is immaterial (LOL). It’s just an avatar in my mind.

Crunch numbers on that…oh wait, you can’t. laughs and wonders how and when mathematicians and philosophers became exclusive

so i’m not a comp sci geek and can’t link properly to websites. listen, i’m rejoicing over the fact that the post has a link, and not just the words. forget about the fact that i can actually navigate my way through posting.

but my point still stands. which i’ve explained in other posts. which you’ve failed to grasp. which you think probably doesn’t matter, for a variety of various, but true, reasons. your solopisim stance does not need to be justified for you. in no way, however, does it explain the world. just your mind.

the point of this thread was that this view is inheriently unsatisfactory, and much of western philosophy has sought to disprove it.

i think it has acheived various success, to various degrees. heck, i’m happy enough not to believe it.

Stop it, Raf. You are hurting my feelings. This just isn’t fair. How dare you.

[sniffle sniffle]

Go practice falling down…I’ll be there in ten minutes.

Come on, trix, let’s go get a burger. Forget about Raf, he’s cruel and cold hearted.

searching insult database, please wait…

query results found: 378989890001
query results by category: Pot calling Kettle Black

D’oh! Well, I guess there’s no original way of saying this, Pot, but stop with the racist comments, k?