Is the self all that can be known to exist?

[The Grand Nudger]

Things exist, yes. I have never doubted that.

If by "things" (other things, lol, if you'll recall) you mean you by a million names, sure...but if by things you mean anything that's not -just- a concept in your mind, just some other part of you.....well.....?    

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.

Locality?  What locality?  Your mind is the only locality...unless you think there might be other places.  I;m not disputing that it would be any less real, only reminding you that it's all you.  Makes it kind of pointless to ask me a question.  What could I know other than what you know?  Are you hoping that some other part of your mind has knowledge that whichever part you identify as doesn't have?  

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 doesn't really get interesting until you step out of solipsism and invoke concepts and things that would argue against that famed lack of certainty.  Things like me.  Things like "other things".  Atoms.  Typing, keyboards, disparate localities, etc.

[Excited Penguin]

Things exist, yes. I have never doubted that.

If by "things" (other things, lol, if you'll recall) you mean you by a million names, sure...but if by things you mean anything that's not -just- a concept in your mind, just some other part of you.....well.....?    

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.

Locality?  What locality?  Your mind is the only locality...unless you think there might be other places.  I;m not disputing that it would be any less real, only reminding you that it's all you.  Makes it kind of pointless to ask me a question.  What could I know other than what you know?  Are you hoping that some other part of your mind has knowledge that whichever part you identify as doesn't have?  

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 doesn't really get interesting until you step out of solipsism and invoke concepts and things that would argue against that famed lack of certainty.  Things like me.  Things like "other things".  Atoms.  Typing, keyboards, disparate localities, etc.

Ok, forget about solipsism, R. I don't give a fuck about labels.

Let's talk ideas. 

What do you think is real, if anything, and why?

[Excited Penguin]

Oh, and don't hold it against me if my ideas evolve in real time. I am interested in thinking more clearly about -stuff-, because it feels nice. That is my purpose. Not disagreement for its own sake, not the kind of consistency where you stick with a broken argument not to lose face, no. I am interested in determining how to better describe the world. How to better place things. Isn't that a worthy goal? Sure it is, I'm sure you agree.

[Edwardo Piet]

They are. The definition of "false" is "not true".

She’s not talking about the definitions of “false” and “not true”.

The definitions are relevant because she said something could be neither true nor false. but that makes no sense because "false" means "not true" and "true or not true" is a true dichotomy.

She’s talking about the statements as a whole. Take for example, “Pluto is a dog.” Pluto is also a celestial body. She’s leaving open the possibility that a statement can be both true in one sense and untrue in another without being definitively false.

True in one sense and not true in another is proving my point about equivocation.

Which to my mind is a tangential side issue.  The real issue is that any attempt to define the referent of the subject, "this statement", in the Lair Paradox starts an interminable series:

This statement is not true.
[This statement is not true] is not true.
[[This statement in not true] is not true] is not true.

The five word sentence doesn't have that problem.

The way I see it is before "true" or "not true" is added the statement should already have meaning. What happens if you take away "true" or "not true"? You get "this statement is". Which is incomplete. When it's said that the statement is true or not true, I simply say "what statement? You're mentioning a statement without engaging in stating anything." Another example of a use/mention error.

[Edwardo Piet]

I am interested in determining how to better describe the world. How to better place things. Isn't that a worthy goal? Sure it is, I'm sure you agree.

Very much so.

The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term

My bold.

[bennyboy]

It doesn't really get interesting until you step out of solipsism and invoke concepts and things that would argue against that famed lack of certainty.  Things like me.  Things like "other things".  Atoms.  Typing, keyboards, disparate localities, etc.

I dunno, dude. If you have to "invoke" ideas in order to lay a foundation for reality, you're probably just making philosophical assumptions.

[Edwardo Piet]

We can be certain of the law of identity and self-identity. Self-identity includes both our own thoughts and all our experiences and qualia. We can be certain of A=A and we can be certain of the phenomenal world. A=A applies to all possible worlds.

[Excited Penguin]

We can be certain of the law of identity and self-identity. Self-identity includes both our own thoughts and all our experiences and qualia. We can be certain of A=A and we can be certain of the phenomenal world. A=A applies to all possible worlds.

Can you tell me what this post is in reference to?

[Edwardo Piet]

The OP.

[Silver]

The self, that which we know in our own minds, is all that can truly be trusted in a forever changing worldview.