Is the self all that can be known to exist?

[bennyboy]

Imagining getting kicked in the nuts is a much different experience than actually getting kicked in the nuts; therefore, I think this reasonably demonstrates the existence of something other than self as a justified true belief; i.e., knowledge.

Not really.  Any theory of reality should conform to experience.  It is already our experience that things we imagine internally, and the things that seem to be "out there" aren't the same.  Saying everything is self is one thing-- saying that all the experiences of the self must behave identically or be supposed not to be of the self is a non-sequitur.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why do you think the self doesn't exist ? 

Our inability to find anything that matches our experience of it.  We may yet, idk, but it's looking pretty grim at present. What we have found that even approaches it is significantly unlike our experience/descriptions of it.

[Excited Penguin]

Why do you think the self doesn't exist ? 

Our inability to find anything that matches our experience of it.  We may yet, idk, but it's looking pretty grim at present.  What we have found that even approaches it is significantly unlike our experience/descriptions of it.

What the fuck do you mean?

[Excited Penguin]

That statement is just thirty kinds of stupid right there, Rhythm...

[The Grand Nudger]

Exactly what I said?  We all have this experience of the self.  We could describe it, and our descriptions would vary, almost certainly, but they would all share some commonalities as well.

In looking in the place where this "x" arises or exists, we don't find anything that matches those descriptions. At the very least, I'd say, if "self" does exist, it exists in a manner entirely unlike our descriptions or experience of it.

[Excited Penguin]

Exactly what I said?  We all have this experience of the self.  We could describe it, and our descriptions would vary, almost certainly, but they would all share some commonalities as well.

In looking in the place where this "x" arises or exists, we don't find anything that matches those descriptions.  At the very least, I'd say, if "self" does exist, it exists in a manner entirely unlike our descriptions or experience of it.

How can you doubt its existence even as you experience it? What kind of logic is that?

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

How can you doubt its existence even as you experience it? What kind of logic is that?

It wouldn't be the first time I've experienced something that doesn't exist, or at least doesn't exist as I experience it.  

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.

I can privately claim to "know" a great many things,but without a way to quantify it it remains private knowledge, and not at all like other sorts of knowledge. God botherers know their god is real too...they just have trouble quantifying it.

[Excited Penguin]

How can you doubt its existence even as you experience it? What kind of logic is that?

It wouldn't be the first time I've experienced something that doesn't exist, or at least doesn't exist as I experience it.  

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.

I can privately claim to "know" a great many things,but without a way to quantify it it remains private knowledge, and not at all like other sorts of knowledge.  God botherers know their god is real too...they just have trouble quantifying it.

This is not like god claims, though, Rhythm. If you do indeed experience reality, then the self, -your- "self" is a given.

It's true that we can't prove it objectively to others, but solipsism doesn't endeavor to make that claim. It makes two separate claims, rather. That there is such a thing as the self(it exists). And that this is the only truly certain piece of knowledge we can ever have about the world. Everything else is anyone's guess, but experience itself, and subsequently the experiencer, "the self", is obvious. It doesn't need explaining. It's self-explanatory.

Make sure to read my updated reply from above as well. Thank you

[The Grand Nudger]

This is not like god claims, though, Rhythm. If you do indeed experience reality, then the self, -your- "self" is a given.

Without quantification, it is.  The god botherers claim to have experienced god, too.  Does that make it a given?  

It's true that we can't prove it objectively to others, but solipsism doesn't endeavor to make that claim. It makes two separate claims, rather. That there is such a thing as the self(it exists).

Based upon what?  That you experience it?  You experience many other things as well....things which you are about to deny.  I asked this at the very begining. If experience stands as testament to the existence of the self, why does it not stand testament to the existence of the other stuff?

 And that this is the only truly certain piece of knowledge we can ever have about the world. Everything else is anyone's guess, but experience itself, and subsequently the experiencer, "the self", is obvious. It doesn't need explaining. It's self-explanatory.

Meh.  Like I said, I don't know if it's obvious..I actually do think it needs explaining (though, granted, not to exist)....and even if it is, it appears to be wildly inaccurate.