Is the self all that can be known to exist?

[Excited Penguin]

I do experience other things. And they do certainly exist. The question is not whether they exist or not. The question is how they exist. Do they exist as concepts in my own mind, or do they exist independently of me? I think the latter is a necessarily illogic way of putting it.

Okay, so we've determined that other things exist (?)....this is a problem though, if you insist on calling them other things but also that they are merely things in your mind.    If that were true, they aren't other things at all.  Just more of yourself, more of the same thing. If they are things, if things even exist.

Why do you think it's necessarily illogical to think that things exist independantly of you, and have you ever considered that the choice between "in my own mind" -or- "independently of me" is one you needn't make?  A false dilemma?  They could be both, no?  Very roughly, that's what people who take these things to be referent think.

In a sense, we could argue, we don't know that our brains exist either. There I would agree with you. Every atom we experience, we can never tell for sure whether it exists or not. We can only ever tell that -something- exists. Call it whatever you like. Call it a process rather than an object. Not the self, but awareness. That is what is meant by the self, anyway, but I'm trying to walk you through it here. 

What atoms, what brains?  What objects....what somethings?  In any case, we're taking about awareness, rather than self?  

Awareness is real. Wouldn't you say? Even if you are a -zombie- with no conscience, R, you have to aknowledge awareness. If you don't, then we delve into utter nonsense. How are you typing right now if you're not aware? How do you respond to me if you're not there? Or is it that none of us is aware? What does it mean to be aware then, why do we have this idea? What does the concept describe? Does it describe it?

Us?  We?  Typing?  On what...keyboards? You're just talking to yourself, within yourself, by yourself.  Aware of what, yourself?  

I can't quantify it, Rhythm. But it is there. You have to aknowledge that. Language can only go so far. I can't show you what is hiding behind the symbol of language. I can only refer to it and hope you're going to play this language game with me in the interest of ... it. Once again.

Rhythm?  There?  I;m sorry, what could you possibly be referring to?  This is just you, in you, talking to you.  

It comes up again and again. 

Are you with me?

How can I be, there is no me, only you?

Things exist, yes. I have never doubted that.

Why is it a problem? They are only in my mind, but at the same time they are distinct to that which I call me, locally. Just because the whole world exists in one's mind, doesn't make it any less real.

But you're missing the point, really. Solipsism says that this is the only thing we can be sure of. And I agree with that. We are sure that there is something. We are aware of existence. I am, at least. And, presumably so are you. And this is where it gets further interesting. It is true that I will never be able to be absolutely sure of anything but of the fact that I am aware. But that doesn't mean the buck stops there. To function, we have to pretend like we are both just as aware, more or less. That we both exist. That the world does too. And we can do all the things we would've done anyway. This realization that nothing can be proven to be real, therefore to say tjat anything is, in an ultimate sense, is a mere qualitative statement, not a definite one, it is relative to something else, that is(e.g., this chair is more real than the one you are imagining, or at least it is for you, unless and until something disrupts that, such as some indication that you are, in fact, hallucinating that chair as well, albeit clearly more strongly so), doesn't have to affect you -too- much. It's merely about keeping all of your ducks in a row.


Definite knowledge there can be of only one sort. Self-referential.