Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Well self other is a false dichotomy ultimately. This is what the Buddha means by no self.
Language is how we form concepts, like self amd other. Without these concepts the question of solipsism can not arise.
And language is about communication. Moving information between two points. It presupposes these two positions. And thus falsifies solipsism.
then why does language occur internally and create new things, like you say, if its only function is about moving information:
Because the brain is made up of individual cells moving information around.
How could you convince a solipsist of that? It seems impossible to disprove the position "I am imagining that anything outside my consciousness is real". Anything you cite as evidence is premised on the conclusion.
Language is how we create our stories. The story is "I am imagining that anything outside my consciousness is real."
Without language the story cannot be formulated. But language presupposes an other. It exists to pass information. So the fact that we have language disproves solipsism.
This isn't my argument btw. It's Wittgenstein's argument against Decartes "I think therefore I am". Which was flawed anyway because he still believed in God and the Devil, so two others in Decartes solipsism).
Anyway, it's a hard argument to break because solipsism is so imbedded in Western thinking. I had to drop LSD to break through it and get what Wittgenstein was saying.