There is a Rhino in your room... - Russell & Wittgenstei

[more_or_less]

@Impenitent

@more or less

I wonder what Wittgenstien would say after said rhino gored him.

he’d say “your propaganda and junk science is not proof of global warming”

-Imp

I believe you meant to type “global climate change.”

And then, I’d point out Wittgenstein still has not proved he exists yet.

[Pearlsbeforeswine]

"I would like some of our doubting Thomas’s to tell me just what is causing my perception / sensory experiences. "

It doesn’t matter. As a doubting Thomas I want you to tell me why you think experiences must be caused and why we have sensory experience?

[Bane]

@Pearlsbeforeswine

What?

You seem to have got an ‘observer’ from somewhere. I want to know where because it seems like you’re making an assumption about its existence.

Of course I’m assuming ‘an observer’ exists, namely me. Are you proposing there are NO observers? How can we go anywhere without this assumption?

You seems to be more of a Contradictic than a Skeptic to me. A Contra-dic-dick!

@Pearlsbeforeswine

Are you arguing that observers, other beings, and subjectivity do not exist?

No. I’m arguing that they don’t necessarily exist. Unless you can give an argument for subjectivity’s existence, then you’re simply assuming it.

Tell me, does anything ‘necessarily exist’?

Hooray, you have established that we are simply assuming everything. yay! Nothing can be proven to anything. It doesn’t get us any further in dialog if a response to everything is, “You’re assuming that. You can’t prove it”. Can’t I establish grounds and assumptions then prove something with that framework?

On another note, though I obviously am not well read on skepticism, it seems a glorified version of simply responding “WHY?” to everything. I supose I see some good in being skeptical, but at some point you have to come down right? You can’t ‘suspend belief’ on every single thought, otherwise… you’re not thinking at all!

@Pearlsbeforeswine

If I am not a subjective observer in an objective world, then I am objective and I am the world. (Solipsism).

That’s a false dichotomy. There are not only two opposing positions. For example, you claim a solipsist must say “I am my world”. I could reply “Give me an argument for the existence of the ‘I’!” The solipsist will have to give an argument like “it is self-evident”. Such arguments never work.

In short, could a consistent sceptic not be both sceptical of realism and solipsism? Why can’t a sceptic say “I don’t have enough evidence to believe in either” and simply suspend believe in metaphysical claims.

Suspending a belief is not a belief itself… it is turning your mind off. In a way, you are showing a skeptic to be an null-position. One cannot have a skeptics belief or position. It is a non-position or nonbelief. Does a skeptic believe in skepticism or can they ‘suspend belief’ on that as well? Is a skeptic skeptical of skepticism, or do they not question it? Eventually they will have to suspend all belief on everything, indeed suspend all thought on anything!

@Pearlsbeforeswine

And I agree with you as well on the point that we should keep to the realist side, as solipsism errors in the wrong direction. Simply in the name of pragmatism or progress, we should take the realist road, because the road down solipsism leads NOWHERE

.
No, we disagree here. I don’t think we should be realists because solipsism “goes in the wrong direction”. I’m saying if you care to be a realist, then you are just as justified in holding that metaphysic as the solipsist is in holding theirs. Therefore, the solipsist has no right to ask you for proof of your position.

I am completely against rejecting solipsism on pragmatic grounds. The solipsist need not accept that realism is the more pragmatic option (though they probably should!). But, if I am correct (about scepticism denying solipsism as much as it denies realism), then the solipsist must accept that their metaphysic is just as reasonable as mine. This is a much better knockdown of the solipsist than “your road leads nowhere”.

On what grounds are you rejecting or knocking down solipsism, may I ask?

BTW, I am enjoying our dialog; be it slightly annoying, as I am skeptical of skepticism.

[Bane]

@Pearlsbeforeswine

“I would like some of our doubting Thomas’s to tell me…”
It doesn’t matter. As a doubting Thomas I want you to tell me …

That response says a lot. The nature of a true skeptic can never ‘come down’. The moment a skeptic begins to establish ground or belief… they are no longer a skeptic, are they?

Here is my skeptic response to any idea someone might present to me…
“Why would you assert that?..”
“On what grounds?”
“Tell me this…”
“PROVE IT!”

The skeptic never has any burdens. It is not a position to defend because it doesn’t believe in anything. It can’t even believe in skepticism.

It reminds me of an Anarchist trying to rally and organize a group together of Anarchists.
An “Anarchist-Organization”
“Jumbo-Shrimp”
a "Skeptic-Belief"or “Skeptic-Position”
Oxymoron!

[Pearlsbeforeswine]

Bane:

“Of course I’m assuming ‘an observer’ exists, namely me. Are you proposing there are NO observers? How can we go anywhere without this assumption?”

Oh, okay. You’re admitting it is an assumption. I thought you might have been saying the existence of an observer was self-evident, a Cartesian-type argument. But you’re not. Good.

I am not proposing there are no observers, but then I’m defending direct realism. All, I’m saying is there’s no need to assume the existence of an observer (me), and a sceptic does not make that assumption.

“You seems to be more of a Contradictic than a Skeptic to me. A Contra-dic-dick! ”

I’m don’t commit contradictions. But, I’ll happily admit I’m a dick .

“Tell me, does anything ‘necessarily exist’?”

No.

“Can’t I establish grounds and assumptions then prove something with that framework?”

Of course you can. You should. I do. But earlier on you were trying to ask for proof of objective reality and I was just pointing out that your sceptic tactic (asking the realist for proof) can apply equally to the solipsist/idealist etc.

“but at some point you have to come down right? You can’t ‘suspend belief’ on every single thought, otherwise… you’re not thinking at all!”

You’re getting confused about what scepticism entails. A sceptic doubts all knowledge claims. A profound sceptic might well, ‘think’, they just wouldn’t claim to know that they were thinking.

“Does a skeptic believe in skepticism or can they ‘suspend belief’ on that as well?”

A sceptic need not believe in scepticism. You’re forgetting that there is a difference between being something, and knowing you something. The fact that one is a sceptic is completely independent of whether one ‘knows’ they are a sceptic.

“On what grounds are you rejecting or knocking down solipsism, may I ask?”

On the grounds that I am just as entitled to be a realist as the solipsist is to be a solipsist. We both have equal justification for our positions, therefore I have no reason to drop mine. Your pragmatist argument requires you to justify pragmatism. Why should I be pragmatic?

[Bane]

I greatly appreciate your comments and input above.

@Pearlsbeforeswine

@Bane

On what grounds are you rejecting or knocking down solipsism?

On the grounds that I am just as entitled to be a realist as the solipsist is to be a solipsist. We both have equal justification for our positions, therefore I have no reason to drop mine. Your pragmatist argument requires you to justify pragmatism. Why should I be pragmatic?

I am rejecting solipsism on pragmatic grounds.
You don’t appear to be rejecting it at all. You certainly aren’t knocking it down. Your ‘defeat’ of solipsism is, “I am entitle to believe otherwise.”?
“… therefore I have no reason to drop mine…” and just the same, they have no reason to drop theirs. You have not made a position.

[Pearlsbeforeswine]

"You don’t appear to be rejecting it at all. You certainly aren’t knocking it down. Your ‘defeat’ of solipsism is, “I am entitle to believe otherwise.”? "

I’m rejecting and knocking down solipsism in the only relevant way. I’m rejecting the solipsists’ claim (as you presented it), that the realist has the burden of proving his position. I’ve shown that the realist bears that burden no more than the solipsist. I don’t really see how one can knock down an argument more effectively than that except if you show your opponent to be contradicting themselves or similar.

“You have not made a position.”

Of course I have. My position is that it is reasonable to say I ‘know’ that reality exists. That is no less a position simply because a solipsist is entitled to say "I know that only I exist’. As long as I have justification for my position, it matters not a whit whether a billion other positions are also reasonable, and I see no reason why it should.

[more_or_less]

@Pearlsbeforeswine

"I would like some of our doubting Thomas’s to tell me just what is causing my perception / sensory experiences. "

It doesn’t matter. As a doubting Thomas I want you to tell me why you think experiences must be caused and why we have sensory experience?

Actually, you are probably just a brain in a vat.

However, I am a human living in the thing people with common sense call reality, and I will go golfing in this reality tomorrow. If you think that sensory experience is not being caused by an external reality than your opinion of anything is worthless as well as all you are doing is parading around in an absurdist reduction.

If you can provide a reason for me to doubt my experiences, Sir Thomas, please provide your evidence and basis. Otherwise, your point is moot.