RE: Is the self all that can be known to exist?
November 18, 2016 at 3:45 pm
(This post was last modified: November 18, 2016 at 3:52 pm by Excited Penguin.)
How something operates and whether it exists are two separate questions that require vastly different explanations. Yet you're pretending like in order to -know- that something exists, you have to first quantify it, which is nonsense.
if we can't allow for the self's existence, Rhythm, then neither can we allow for anything else's. This is why this mode of thought is so faulty. You do experience things. So something is there. Something. -You- are there. You are certainly there, experiencing things, whatever constitues you. That is an ultimate fact about reality. That is why we --solipsists-- say that this is all we can know for a fact.
It's like causality, Rhythm. If you don't accept it as an implicit, unexplainable premise, you can't explain anything else without it. Even non-causality or its absence are only explained by referring to -causality-.
Just so with the self. It's existence is self-justified and ultimately obvious.
if we can't allow for the self's existence, Rhythm, then neither can we allow for anything else's. This is why this mode of thought is so faulty. You do experience things. So something is there. Something. -You- are there. You are certainly there, experiencing things, whatever constitues you. That is an ultimate fact about reality. That is why we --solipsists-- say that this is all we can know for a fact.
It's like causality, Rhythm. If you don't accept it as an implicit, unexplainable premise, you can't explain anything else without it. Even non-causality or its absence are only explained by referring to -causality-.
Just so with the self. It's existence is self-justified and ultimately obvious.
