Anyone here interested in philosophy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
JustinTimeCuber said:
Solipsism is fundamentally true, because the senses are not 100% reliable and can lie to you. This does not mean that you should live as if nothing is real, just that it is impossible to be 100% certain that anything is real, and instead need to assume things that could be viewed to have a 99.99999999999999% chance of being true or real.
Click to expand...

I don't think what you're describing, about senses and such, is exactly the problem solipsism refers to. Our faulty brains get some things wrong, to be sure. But for most people, it can also be demonstrated that they reliably get things right. So saying that "solipsism is fundamentally true" does not hold up. Unless there's a broader point you're making that I missed.

There is currently no solution to the problem of hard solipsism, but there's also no proof that a solution does not exist... so it remains an interesting question. But just to finish a point I was making in my previous post... while it's an interesting question, it doesn't seem to serve a function to pretty much any other question. It seems to me it's just an obstruction that people can and should avoid if they want to get anywhere else.
 
Well, if we can't trust our senses, then we can't tell what is going on around us. Our senses could be completely fake, and we wouldn't be able to tell. I'm not saying that that's true, but that you can't be sure anything other than the self actually exists.
 
Chree said:
Maybe I'm only speaking for myself here, but issues of solipsism shouldn't make a difference when it comes to proving things.

Whether or not this is an actual reality or only my perception of reality is irrelevant to the fact that I am apparently stuck dealing with what, by all accounts, seems to be "The Reality". And if you and I can agree that we're both chillin in the same reality, and can work together to figure things out, then solipsism needn't be a question when it comes to proofs.

That goes back to those presumptions you mentioned, of course. But if we're talking about what matters, then for all other things, solipsism is (IMHO) a useless consideration.
Click to expand...

My point is simply that there are some things that cannot be proven with mathematical certainty. They must instead be "proven" using observation and probability. The existence of the soul and other such questions are of that type, and any arguments can simply be answered with "well I don't believe that . . ." Refusing to believe in something unless it is proven is a very frustrating position to argue with. If we can agree on some basic facts about the universe we can get somewhere.

I'll outline a defense of the soul, then I have to go for now:
If people have an eternal soul, then our actions within our lifetime could have an effect for eternity, and it is therefore imperative that we live morally upright lives and treat our fellow souls with the dignity befitting an eternal being.

If people do not have an eternal soul, then it ultimately doesn't matter, but our solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short lives will be just that much better if we believe and act as though we do have eternal souls.

Therefore the existence of the soul is either an important aspect of humanity or at worst a very useful fiction.
 
One Wheel said:
My point is simply that there are some things that cannot be proven with mathematical certainty. They must instead be "proven" using observation and probability. The existence of the soul and other such questions are of that type, and any arguments can simply be answered with "well I don't believe that . . ." Refusing to believe in something unless it is proven is a very frustrating position to argue with. If we can agree on some basic facts about the universe we can get somewhere.

I'll outline a defense of the soul, then I have to go for now:
If people have an eternal soul, then our actions within our lifetime could have an effect for eternity, and it is therefore imperative that we live morally upright lives and treat our fellow souls with the dignity befitting an eternal being.

If people do not have an eternal soul, then it ultimately doesn't matter, but our solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short lives will be just that much better if we believe and act as though we do have eternal souls.

Therefore the existence of the soul is either an important aspect of humanity or at worst a very useful fiction.
Click to expand...
If there is an afterlife, then killing someone isn't really that big of a deal. It would only affect them by a few decades and they would have died anyway. If there is not an afterlife, then, from a moral standpoint, taking someone's life is taking someone's only shot at consciousness. 50 years is 0% of an eternity but 65% of a lifetime. If people live on after dying, then what's really wrong with killing someone - Especially if this "afterlife" is a sort of Heaven? I think we should act as though this life is all there is. If it gives you comfort to believe in an afterlife, do whatever you want, but don't waste this life, which is likely your only shot, at trying to get into the exclusive club of whatever God you believe in.
 
One Wheel said:
If people do not have an eternal soul, then it ultimately doesn't matter, but our solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short lives will be just that much better if we believe and act as though we do have eternal souls.

Therefore the existence of the soul is either an important aspect of humanity or at worst a very useful fiction.
Click to expand...

While I agree that believing in a soul/afterlife can improve your views on and quality of life (one cause for the suicide rate to be higher among atheists), not believing in one can lead you to value life more, and motivate you to experience life to its fullest while you can.
 
One Wheel said:
My point is simply that there are some things that cannot be proven with mathematical certainty. They must instead be "proven" using observation and probability. The existence of the soul and other such questions are of that type, and any arguments can simply be answered with "well I don't believe that . . ." Refusing to believe in something unless it is proven is a very frustrating position to argue with. If we can agree on some basic facts about the universe we can get somewhere.

I'll outline a defense of the soul, then I have to go for now:
If people have an eternal soul, then our actions within our lifetime could have an effect for eternity, and it is therefore imperative that we live morally upright lives and treat our fellow souls with the dignity befitting an eternal being.

If people do not have an eternal soul, then it ultimately doesn't matter, but our solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short lives will be just that much better if we believe and act as though we do have eternal souls.

Therefore the existence of the soul is either an important aspect of humanity or at worst a very useful fiction.
Click to expand...

You've essentially delivered Pascal's Wager... which puts us further down the road of talking almost exclusively about religion and not philosophy in general. To be honest, I don't really like religious debate (at least not on this forum). But I will say that "Crash Course Philosophy" did a pretty good job of discussing Pascal's Wager on Youtube. Basically everything you said and I would say is addressed there.

Edit: @Cale S also nailed it. I would also add that some beliefs come with enough baggage to do real harm to one's self or others (also addressed in the Crash Course video). And I don't think either of us are saying you're wrong... we're just saying is extremely subjective.
 
One Wheel said:
My point is simply that there are some things that cannot be proven with mathematical certainty. They must instead be "proven" using observation and probability. The existence of the soul and other such questions are of that type, and any arguments can simply be answered with "well I don't believe that . . ." Refusing to believe in something unless it is proven is a very frustrating position to argue with. If we can agree on some basic facts about the universe we can get somewhere.

I'll outline a defense of the soul, then I have to go for now:
If people have an eternal soul, then our actions within our lifetime could have an effect for eternity, and it is therefore imperative that we live morally upright lives and treat our fellow souls with the dignity befitting an eternal being.

If people do not have an eternal soul, then it ultimately doesn't matter, but our solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short lives will be just that much better if we believe and act as though we do have eternal souls.

Therefore the existence of the soul is either an important aspect of humanity or at worst a very useful fiction.
Click to expand...

Two things:

First, I think if we go back to the original context that this whole debate was brought up in, (if you are buried, is it YOU that it is being or is it your body) you don't even need to prove the existence of a soul in a metaphysical or religious sense to prove why it is not you that is being buried, it is merely your body. The self is only the self because of our identity (which could technically be argued to be the soul), and identity as we know it would cease to exist if there is no life to sustain it.

However, that's relatively semantic. The second thing I want to bring up is that you justified why believing in the existence of a soul is a pragmatic good, but that doesn't necessarily mean a soul exists. I personally do not agree with your belief that a soul exists, but I do think your argument is true. However, I choose to live my life in such a way that I use my own internal moral compass for guidance rather than being governed by a religion that dictates what I should do in order to have an afterlife or an eternal soul. This view is probably influenced by Nietzsche, if we're being entirely honest lol

Also, this whole thing gave me an idea- what if we posted topics about philosophy to debate? Maybe a philosophical debate thread??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One Wheel said:
First, whether or not there is a teapot orbiting halfway between earth and mars doesn't really matter, but whether you have a soul matters immensely.

Secondly, when you talk about proving anything you end up coming around to the issue of solipsism that goodatthis mentioned: how do you get outside your own head? This is what Descartes was trying to address when he said "I think, therefore I am." I don't remember how far he reasoned, but I know he didn't stop with mere existence.
Click to expand...
why does it matter if it matters? and maybe the teapot matters for someone else, your subjective thoughts isnt the objective truth. Btw saying there is no soul inst really a statement its just a comment on your statement that the soul exist. If i said i have a pink unicorn under my bed would you belive me? No, you wouldnt unless i had proof, its the one that believes that should show evidence not the nonbeliver.
 
My post got deleted, I guess speedsolving is officially a control society, subjecting the masses to biopolitical action which will eventually escalate to violence. The panopticon is watching you.

That's foucault's philosophy by the way.
 
Interesting thread. Personally enjoy reading things to do with philosophy of mind, and do tend to learn more towards analytic phil. I've been thinking about looking at the eastern side of things when I get more time.

Amusingly I've read some Aris./Plato/Kant/Mill but none of the philosophers you mentioned :P

I'm currently hoping to work through:
Critique of Pure Reason
Being & Time
Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Also curious about Godel-Escher-Bach, so I might look into that at some point.
 
I've become interested in philosophy in the last couple of years.
As my username suggests, I particularly like the stoics. There's a lot of stuff to be found in Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations" and Seneca's letters which I find to be of practical use. As Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius was the most powerful man in the world, and yet he took the time to write down what he was thinking: it's incredible that we have access to that.
I've recently been reading Epicurus, although sadly most of his work was tragically destroyed and we have only fragments and second-hand accounts of most of his philosophy. How I would love to be able to read his 37-volume "On Nature" which is almost completely lost!
I've also recently found some of Hegel's stuff about religion interesting, and I'm planning to read Adam Smith - I'm open to recommendations...
For anyone interested, at any level, I'd highly recommend the "Philosophize This!" podcast, it's very accessible. And if anyone is looking for a gentle introduction, the book "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" reads more like a novel than anything else.
Good idea for a thread, thanks for posting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

pjk
Anyone here interested in a small PHP job?
Replies
0
Views
899
pjk
pjk
n0nco
Anyone here competent/familiar with heise?
Replies
9
Views
1,135
Jared Burkhart
Jared Burkhart
I
Does anyone here plays GD
Replies
10
Views
680
Jared Burkhart
Jared Burkhart
Adm_cb
Is anyone here Portuguese or Brazilian
Replies
6
Views
743
VortexCuber
VortexCuber
2x2MasterYT
Does anyone here play Smash Karts?
Replies
3
Views
920
Caleb Valenzuela
Caleb Valenzuela
Back
Top