ColdplayingfromKansas Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I'm not quite sure I would describe it as this, but I do remember that when I was a child it was difficult for me to grasp the concept of other peoples' "souls", so to speak. Not soul in the religious sense, but from the perspective of people having their own thoughts / life experiences that were different than mine. So yeah, I guess maybe that would qualify under the second part of the definition. Seconded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lili_pt Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I had never heard of this word before and I really like to know these things so (this maybe weird but) thanks. I don't think I ever experienced this even when I was younger. However, this thread made me remember this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat. I first heard of this theory in a philosophy class and I have never forgot it. What if we are all brains in a vat and we are not really experiencing life as we know it but only some sensations? Sorry if this out of topic. After reading this thread I can now wonder if only I exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnspieler1012 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 After reading this thread I can now wonder if only I exist. Can't see how this is a problem. Though I've heard the view that Descartes was wrong in positing 'I think', as the meditation only demonstrates that 'something' is thinking. For a class I had to read Mark Johnston's 'surviving death' where he questions the existence of the superlative self but mostly with appeal to Kant instead of eastern mysticism (this is good, because old boring europeans with wigs are by default better than asians with koans). It made me a bit more sympathetic to the whole monist idea, though not completely sold. :edit: wow, I wrote that whole thing and just noticed the 'only' in the quoted post. Don't I look stoopuid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reilly Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Oh silly Spieler, you so silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_gloaming09 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Interesting topic. I think in some sense I have it. There have been times where I guess I've tried to put myself in other peoples heads. I guess in some sense it's difficult to try to imagine yourself in someone elses shoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lili_pt Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Can't see how this is a problem. Though I've heard the view that Descartes was wrong in positing 'I think', as the meditation only demonstrates that 'something' is thinking. For a class I had to read Mark Johnston's 'surviving death' where he questions the existence of the superlative self but mostly with appeal to Kant instead of eastern mysticism (this is good, because old boring europeans with wigs are by default better than asians with koans). It made me a bit more sympathetic to the whole monist idea, though not completely sold. :edit: wow, I wrote that whole thing and just noticed the 'only' in the quoted post. Don't I look stoopuid. sorry if I look dumb, but what is the monist idea? Interesting topic. I think in some sense I have it. There have been times where I guess I've tried to put myself in other peoples heads. I guess in some sense it's difficult to try to imagine yourself in someone elses shoes. As far as I understood this feeling of solipsism is more than that. You can't think of yourself in other people's shoes because only you exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnspieler1012 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 sorry if I look dumb, but what is the monist idea? In this case I'm referring to the idea that there are no real individuals or selves(all is one;mono). Johnston's case was that, even if we could find a part or soul that constitutes who 'you' are, it wouldn't ethically justify our natural bias of caring for ourselves more than other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiame Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I think if every philosophy major in the world disappeared we wouldn't be worse off. Does this mean I have solipsism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnspieler1012 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I think if every philosophy major in the world disappeared we wouldn't be worse off. Does this mean I have solipsism? *cries in bedroom while listening to dashboard confessional* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reilly Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 It means you have syphilis. fk iono Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiame Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 *cries in bedroom while listening to dashboard confessional* :lol: Thank you for acknowledging the fact that I was joking. Really, sincerely. Not many people are understanding jokes on these forums lately. It's a trend that seems to be developing. It means you have syphilis. fk iono Gonorrhoea** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lili_pt Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 In this case I'm referring to the idea that there are no real individuals or selves(all is one;mono). Johnston's case was that, even if we could find a part or soul that constitutes who 'you' are, it wouldn't ethically justify our natural bias of caring for ourselves more than other people. Interesting, thanks. And by the way, why did Johnston argued that? If we exist and specially if we are aware of that I think it's only natural that we have a natural bias of caring for ourselves more than other people. Sorry if I'm giving you too much work explaining, feel free to stop this conversation whenever you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnspieler1012 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Interesting, thanks. And by the way, why did Johnston argued that? If we exist and specially if we are aware of that I think it's only natural that we have a natural bias of caring for ourselves more than other people. Sorry if I'm giving you too much work explaining, feel free to stop this conversation whenever you want. If I recall, the whole thing began as a response to Ecclesiastes, and the trouble of leading an altruistic life with the understanding that life is temporary. 5 chapters later he determines that there is really no feasible form of survival worth having, but insists that a type of artificial survival can be found by contributing to the 'onward rush of humanity' through your actions. In response to what you said, Johnston acknowledges that my pleasures and pains are more immediate to myself than to yourself, but argues that this is still not a rational excuse for demanding more for ourselves than others by dint of the fact that, apart from that, the 'self' doesn't exist, and it is more valuable to participate in the interests of the remainder of society than to cling to the isolated desires of a finite being. He bites off chunks of all kinds of thinkers, so my summary is really very crude, but that's the jist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Myshkin Posted March 3, 2012 Author Share Posted March 3, 2012 Can I point out I didn't have solipsism at 8. As I said the concept of it fascinated me. It was my earliest delvings into philosophy when I figured I couldn't prove other people weren't robots. But like I said, I didn't believe it past the point of any childhood game like if you are jumping between settee's the floor is made of lava or shark infested waters so you have to avoid it or die. Or you've got to throw the screwed up piece of paper in the bin in five attempts or else the world will end. When I played those games I didn't believe the world would end or I'd get eaten by sharks, etc. it just made it more fun and made me a lot more giddy when I did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Radio Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I had it when I was like 11-13. :thinking: But I didn't believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrk Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I remember that when I was about 8 I was starting to think that all the people around me were generated by my immagination but I never took that thought seriously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now