(September 9, 2010 at 9:50 pm)padraic Wrote: I read that as implying that Descartes' argument is true because it has not been proved to be false. Not entirely sure that using solipists is an appeal to relevant authority as I think solipism could reasonably be described as a failed philosophy.
However,I'm a dilettante,not a philosopher,so am happy to be corrected if I've made an error in reason.
Disclaimer: As am I. That acknowledged...
I was saying "even crazy people don't dispute this." Kind of like saying, "Even Sarah Palin is to the left of these people." Solipsists, as I understand them, say we can't be sure of anything other than we have these sensations and we have these memories, all of which may or may not be true. We can't be sure of anything outside our own mind.
While I can't disprove solipsism, I regard it as an extreme position, taking skepticism to irrational lengths. We have to assume that the reality we experience is real unless evidence shows us otherwise in order to have a rational discussion about anything.
Even this extreme position acknowledges that one's own thoughts prove that one exists to oneself. It's hard for me to take seriously anyone who takes it to the next step and suggests that maybe our own thoughts aren't real.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
