Philosophical viewpoint of solipsism

  • Thread starter Thread starter heusdens
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Solipsism is the philosophical doctrine asserting that only one's own mind is certain to exist, with all external realities considered mere projections. This viewpoint often intersects with religious beliefs, where God is seen as the ultimate reality, akin to the solipsist's mind. The discussion highlights the incompatibility of solipsism with materialism, which posits that matter is the primary substance of existence. Key contributors include heusdens, MajinVegeta, and wuliheron, who explore the implications of solipsism on science, consciousness, and the nature of reality.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of solipsism as a philosophical doctrine
  • Familiarity with materialism and idealism in philosophy
  • Knowledge of the relationship between consciousness and reality
  • Awareness of the role of religion in philosophical discourse
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of solipsism on scientific inquiry
  • Explore the relationship between idealism and materialism in philosophy
  • Investigate the concept of consciousness in relation to external reality
  • Read Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Lathe of Heaven" for a narrative exploration of solipsism
USEFUL FOR

Philosophers, students of metaphysics, and individuals interested in the intersections of consciousness, reality, and religion will benefit from this discussion.

  • #91


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Say more.

Occam's Razor dictates that the explanation of a phenomenon, that explains it with the same amount of accuracy as another, but with the least amount of assumptions, is superior.

You, when presented with an argument against your hypothesis, add lots of assumptions to counter the arguments. This violates Occam's Razor.

Of course, Occam's Razor isn't always correct or even applicable, I just wanted to make sure that you knew you were doing this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92


Originally posted by Mentat
Occam's Razor dictates that the explanation of a phenomenon, that explains it with the same amount of accuracy as another, but with the least amount of assumptions, is superior.

You, when presented with an argument against your hypothesis, add lots of assumptions to counter the arguments. This violates Occam's Razor.

Of course, Occam's Razor isn't always correct or even applicable, I just wanted to make sure that you knew you were doing this.

Thanks for useful input.

Have decided to re-read print-outs from this thread (and others) and HIGHLIGHT all my ASSUMPTIONS. Then I can figure out what to DO about them.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
10K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
14K
  • · Replies 100 ·
4
Replies
100
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
10K