And what could this show us? Perhaps it is a testament to the sharp differences between clear, direct insight of the first person experience and the (potentially) doubtful nature of third person reality. If Descartes was wrong, we would at least expect to find some antisolipsists. But we only ever find the occasional solipsists in history, not antisolipsists...
I was going to write a very long and excellent reply to this post, but then I realised I am actually the only existing being, so nobody is going to read it anyway.
Dr. Pruss, what do you think that nothing exists, our senses can correlate to reality but that entails the pressuposition of reality, it could still be an illusion, u should prove that our senses can interact with our essence as if this illusion truly affects our essence, yet this can be denied since our senses can also be illusions that dont actually afect our soul, solipsism as an afirmative thesis that cannot defend itself but its not debunkable
And what could this show us? Perhaps it is a testament to the sharp differences between clear, direct insight of the first person experience and the (potentially) doubtful nature of third person reality. If Descartes was wrong, we would at least expect to find some antisolipsists. But we only ever find the occasional solipsists in history, not antisolipsists...
ReplyDeleteWhen it seems like you don’t exist even though everyone else does, it’s hard to write that article.
ReplyDeleteI was going to write a very long and excellent reply to this post, but then I realised I am actually the only existing being, so nobody is going to read it anyway.
ReplyDeleteIt is because the advocates of such a view are too silent to be real to you Pruss...
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to be very motivated to defend a view which has the property that if you defend it successfully, it's wrong.
ReplyDeleteInteresting... so what you are saying is...
ReplyDeleteA philosophical argument, having no empirical foundations, never teaches anyone anything they didn't know already.
And yet, you defend the so-called teaching of Philosophy... interesting...
That is why you defend transubstantiation, teach transubstantiation, and know transubstantiation is true.
ReplyDeleteAs a Roman Catholic the transubstantiation argument, having no empirical foundations, never teaches a Roman Catholic anything he didn't know already.
Dr. Pruss, what do you think that nothing exists, our senses can correlate to reality but that entails the pressuposition of reality, it could still be an illusion, u should prove that our senses can interact with our essence as if this illusion truly affects our essence, yet this can be denied since our senses can also be illusions that dont actually afect our soul, solipsism as an afirmative thesis that cannot defend itself but its not debunkable
ReplyDelete