It's an aesthetic interpretation that undergirds an argument that matters, not the argumentation. It's self-consistent, but so are many arguments. Solipsism is self-consistent, that doesn't mean it is correct.
-
-
-
If you can't see how this is merely one of the potential descriptions of phenomena that unfolds with certain axioms taken on faith & not somehow "more objective" than other systems of axioms- idk what more I could offer
-
Only I exist & you are a figment of my imagination. Argue against this.
-
i have nothing to add here that others haven’t said. you can’t just dismiss non-idealist monism by saying it’s what atheist redditors believe while at the same time making lame arguments about ‘consciousness’ that are on the same tier of sophistication
-
But I did. I'm not saying that it's impossible to argue for spinozist monism- I'm saying that the motivation for doing so is entirely alien to me & I cannot fathom believing it in a serious manner. I do the same for Scientologists & Mormons & Antinatalists etc.
-
All arguments are adhominem, I am asking "what sort of person believes such things" you reply that this isn't good enough & say I am "unsophisticated"- is this not what has occurred?
-
well if were solely restricted to the domain of the ad hominen, plenty of equally embarrassing people believe in pop-subjective-idealism, and their reasons for belief can be similarly deconstructed and ridiculed
-
theres a much simpler example for why spinoza and his now highly diverged intellectual descendants might believe these things... because theyre interested in some kind of 'truth'
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.