Philosophy Now Forum

Londoner - some Islamic sects (Shia related?) have taught or implied soulless females - and they all seem to have followed Aristotle's view that ensoulment is at 40 days, and a male issue not female, the woman being merely the container as it were. The way women and girls are treated in Islam and t...

dorothea wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:24 am Women don't have souls in Islam, unless there's been a change recently.

When you read a statement like that one completely loses faith in anything else you might say.

Nope. You're missing it. That's why I gave you external references, so that you learn what solipsism is usually believed to be. Since it proves you wrong, you just decided to ignore it and go along with your previous misconception. I refer you to my previous answers. Solipsism has been a part of ph...

Yes, that's my point and also Searle's point. Since the solipsist is already convinced that only he or she exists and that a second person is only a product of his/her mind, who would he/she be trying to convince? If they're expecting a reaction from someone, they are inviting the refutation of the...

Existence, means to exist, have inherent existence. To have its own substance, huh? who is saying anything about unicorns here? Of course consciousness DO NOT equal EXISTENCE, both are totally distinct topics and that's not even debatable. You have consciousness, and you do exist, the tree has no c...

Nope. consciousness is not existence. Both are totally distinct topics and has different meaning and definitions, are separate topics for they are not even related. existence emans something is existent, and has existence, in comparison to something which doesn't. Consciousness is what you have now...

It goes against my principles, but given that you definitely have not grasped what the term solipsism refers to, I'm forced to appeal to external references for you to get updated and be able to sustain a discussion: Your references are very helpful. Have you read them carefully? There is no point ...

For the solipsist, the self in the "ourselves" is constituted by pure consciousness. It's the only thing known to exist and nothing independent of it is justified. Since the solipsist can only rely on his/her own individual consciousness, they are restricted to believe that there's only o...

Note that while in the other topic it was being discussed whether there was any grounds to support skepticism of the objective existence of things (which is obviously the stance of solipsism, but that was not the main subject in question), in this one we are discussing solipsism in itself. Thus, in...

This seems I rather strange exercise. We know it was not the intention of either the film or the book to be interpreted that way. That obviously doesn't stop people putting their own interpretations on it, but in that case it doesn't make sense to ask what the various elements 'represent', since the...

I hereby challenge any Solipsistic or Advaitian Non-Dualist to convince me that the world is not real, using the very arguments you use to convince me that I'm merely a figment of your imagination, on yourself. ' Figment of your imagination ' does not describe solipsism. The solipsist might ask; ' ...

Me: How could we know there's a 'real' dog out there, except via our own consciousness? I think we have gone through this already, haven't we? In that thread where you argued for the same point of view, but denied being a solipsist. And I explained that philosophy is not like picking a football tea...

Let's ask the solipsist. He or she believes that there's no real dog independent of his/her consciousness. Or we can ask the non-solipsist to tell us something about some dog they are not conscious of yet still assert is 'real'. How could we know there's a 'real' dog out there, except via our own c...

Any solipsist will have refuted him/herself the minute he or she thinks something other than his/her consciousness exist. I do not think there is any point just lobbing the word 'exist' over the net since the solipsist will understand 'exist' in a particular way. You say they 'think' something exis...

Seleucus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:41 pm
Without any evidence otherwise my interpretations stand. I know you're too lazy to bother so I guess the discussion is over. Bye.

If you had a grasp of evidence you would not have the views you do.