Denying a rational, meaningful definition of existence (and/or “affect”) is merely…
… irrational and meaningless.
What is the point in discussing the irrational?
Already done.
…didn’t take much.
But you might want to note that you have provided no distinction between the “self” and the “universe”.
Why bother with two words for the same thing when one is already defined as something other than the other;
The word “self” doesn’t mean the “universe”.
But that is just an additional note to keep in mind.
Yeah, that’s why I’ve gone into rational, meaningful definitions to the point that I’m sick of them. But if you still can’t understand them, I can’t help you. I feel we are yet again reaching an impasse. There is simply no getting through to you.
No. I refuted it quite simply and quickly in my “ADDENDUM” at the end of my last post.
…didn’t take much.
If that’s all you got then thank you and goodnight.
Because there is none.
Well you can carry on only accepting what the authorities tell you is true, and I’ll carry on refining insufficient existing definitions. Your attitude here reminds me of your insistence that you can’t dispute premises and axioms, as well as definitions. You’ll get nowhere.
I agree that the self in Solipsism loses meaning as anything other than the sum of one’s direct experience, but I already covered that so you’re not bringing in anything new here. There’s nothing wrong with having synonyms, such as with words like universe… you know, like “existence” or “everything”, “all” etc…
And the distinction between entities can be verified merely by the experience of their different affects upon the self. Thus the self cannot be both itself and also the entities affecting the self as well as each other in distinctly different manners.
I don’t think you realise that the argument you just repeated is an argument about meaning, not existence, and how meaning is reliant on causation, which I do not dispute. Your usage of the term “existence” at all is redundant. The fact that meaning and causation are concepts that exist doesn’t add anything to your argument.
To rectify this, what you ought to consider is unmeaningful existence - specifically pre-meaningful existence. Since existence precedes meaning (otherwise you are claiming some kind of non-existent meaning) you are not going deep enough. Solipsism is a doctrine ABOUT pre-meaningful existence, from the point of view of post-meaningful existence. Note that its examination of pre-meaning does not make it meaningless due to its evaluation necessarily being in hindsight.
In order for something to mean anything to someone it must be in the form of experience. Meaning itself is an experience, and it cannot occur without application to experience. Even abstract universals are (upon reflection) conceived as particulars in one’s imagination, taking sensory form in your mind. Even existence cannot be conceived in any other terms than those of experience. Experience is even more fundamental to existence than meaning, and this experience is simply summed together to form the Solipsist “self” that is all that the doctrine claims people can draw knowledge (meaning) from. You cannot use an “argument from meaning” that necessarily succeeds experience in order to undermine something more fundamental, such as experience - thus your argument is void.
I have these experiences all the time. Part of me wants to work on the novel. Other parts do not. One part keeps thinking about food. Another wants to call Jimmy. In dreams I encounter entities that seem not-I while I am dreaming, but upon waking I often find I can identify with them and their emotions, thoughts and intentions more than the dream I.
