How does one justify believing in a reality external to one's self? That other minds exist and are not figments of one's imagination?
if something occupies space and you can touch it and feel it and smell it and they affect their surroundings, they exist.
Existentialism has a place among rational thought, but it serves no purpose to try to prove the nothing exists and never did, nor ever will.
I agree with cosette. Reality is always subject to interpretation and argument, but I'm real. People in my life are real. I've been to real places. Even dreams are "real." They may not be part of the material world, but they exist. As do thoughts, ideas, etc.
Here's one for you, Dg, who are you without your thoughts? Can you get to a place and not have thoughts, and just "be?" That boils it all down to existing because we exist. Can you get to that place by going beyond thoughts and just "be?"
What do you think, Dg?
You are making assumptions about the reliability of your senses which have not (at least in this thread) been justified. So is cosette, which is I think what she missed when posting in this thread.
I believe that thoughts are a function of the brain. I think as long as a brain is alive and conscious it will have thoughts, or if you can completely clear your mind of conscious thoughts it's not for very long at a time, at least not without considerable training.
To address your question specifically, I don't believe I am identical to my thoughts, therefore without my thoughts I am still me. I can't explain what I am in much more detail than that, but the fact that I am is one which I cannot dispute. However I am looking for a sound justification for believing that other people exist independently of me.
Mmmmmm, those are the ones with the chili all over the hotdogs, right?
I have five senses to perceive reality.
How can other minds be a figment of my imagination?
Can you perceive minds, apart from your own?
Only five? Do you not consider say balance to be a sense?
Other minds could be a hallucination of some kind.
Now you're playing semantics.
"Balance, equilibrioception, or vestibular sense is the sense which allows an organism to sense body movement, direction, and acceleration, and to attain and maintain postural equilibrium and balance."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense#Bala … celeration
Vestibular sense : A property of the body
are you joking with me ?
Please tell me!
I hate to waste time.
You seem to be coming up with all the punchlines.
If there is no "self" to make meaning of "reality" there is, no "self" to consider "solipsism."
So I think we have to go back and consider Descartes quote: cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am. Hmmm?
"I think therefore I am"; presumably whatever the word 'I' refers to in this quote is the 'self' which the solipsist claims is all that exists. Descarte seems to arrive at the existence of one's self as a self-evident fact which cannot be denied.
That was my point.
if there is no "self" to make meaning of anything, solipsistically speaking, nothing exists.
But we can be certain there is a self. The only question is: is there anything else?
Only if "it" can be sensed and made meaning of by self.
Of course the reality of "all" is indisputable...but if there is no conscious self, there can be no "awareness" of that reality.
Solipsistically ( there is no reality but self) speaking, if the self doesn't exist nothing exists....even tho absolute reality "IS."
By "it" do you mean one's self?
But the reality of "all" is not indisputable, only the reality of one's own existence is indisputable.
But this is an impossible if, since the solipsistic world view assumes the existence of one's self.
my hehehe, semantics indeed..
how about things exists because you think of them not experiential at times but then you can feel it like LOVE
If the "you" doesnt exist, love cannot exist.
Only if "you" exist can "it" exist.
So in ref to the term "solipsism" the only reality is you.
At some point you have to accept that you are and reality is. What possible benefit comes from deconstruction to the point of absurdity?
if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? yes. its ability to make a noise is not dependent on the presence of a hearing creature. i mean if a phone rings and no one is home, it still makes a noise.
well you've come home, and when you're unlocking the door, you can hear it ring, although technically you're not home, right?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|