I’m not making an argument, it is a question for you. By the way I should have put a comma between no and what. It wasn’t meant to be so what!

The underlined would suggest: Yes! But we must be humble about it to a very high degree! Not that this is news lol — AmadeusD

Or if your definition of the world is, all that you perceive in your daily life, then you are seeing the whole world. But then a question arises, is your definition of the world objective?

I’m not making an argument, it is a question for you. — Tom Storm

I am mainly interested in seeing different arguments on the topic, and forwarding my counter arguments if and where necessary. The conclusion is up to each individuals.

So is it more about the argument than a vital part of how you live? I am always interested in why people argue or hold positions.

So is it more about the argument than a vital part of how you live? I am always interested in why people argue or hold positions. — Tom Storm

Philosophy is all about arguments. The conclusions are for each individuals.

Philosophy is all about arguments. The conclusions are for each individuals. — Corvus

Not for me. Philosophy is about how you orientate your values, then come the arguments. My view is that people often settle on beliefs that appeal aesthetically, then a lot of post hoc rationalization comes into play. I also think the most interesting part is why people are drawn to certain arguments. Arguments don't necessarily speak for themselves, they often speak to the biases of those who hold them. Which is why what convinces X may not convince Y.

Not for me. Philosophy is about how you orientate your values, then come the arguments. My view is that people often settle on beliefs that appeal aesthetically, then a lot of post hoc rationalization comes into play. I also think the most interesting part is why people are drawn to certain arguments. Arguments dontl necessarily speak for themselves, they often speak to the biases of those who hold them. — Tom Storm

It is not ideal, not morally good or even practically possible to force down a value of someone to the others. No matter how right the value was, it would be meaningless and counter productive endeavour / exercise for all those involved.

Arguments are intellectual and logical dialectic efforts looking to come to the answers in the middle or end of them heuristically, and they are one of the traditional methodologies of philosophy.

Well, whenever you return here, all you ever keep shouting is that whatever you read is fool and dimwit. How could anyone help you? :lol: — Corvus

Well, I believe in calling a spade a spade, and it is not I who is looking for, or in need of, help. In any case, by all means carry on going around in your silly circle, it may be useless, but at least it will most likely provide a few laughs along the way, for others if not for you.

It is not ideal, not morally good or even practically possible to force down a value of someone to the others. — Corvus

I agree. But I'm not sure people always consciously do this. They tend to use arguments as surrogates for value systems. A classic example of this is presuppositional apologetics for Islam or Christianity. But this is a digression.

My primary question when faced with arguments about whether the world is real, or if am I in a simulation, or if matter an illusion and idealism is the correct ontology - is what is the significance? Is there anything in my life I would do differently? Almost always the answer is no.

Well, I believe in calling a spade a spade, and it is not I who is looking for, or in need of, help. In any case, by all means carry on going around in your silly circle, it may be useless, but at least it will most likely provide a few laughs along the way, for others if not for you. — Janus

The way that you keep resorting to the lowly languages and mention of laughs, whenever you appear here just seems to indicate you might be looking for either some help or attention. It just appears to demonstrate that you are not into a sound philosophical discussions.

a sound philosophical discussions. — Corvus

:rofl: Stop it...you're killing me!

I agree. But I'm not sure people always consciously do this. But they tend to use arguments as surrogates for value systems. A classic example of this is presuppositional apologetics for Islam or Christianity. But this is a digression. — Tom Storm

Yes, some do. I don't see a point doing it.

My primary question when faced with arguments about whether the world is real, or if am I in a simulation, or if matter an illusion and idealism is the correct ontology - is what is the significance? Is there anything in my life I would do differently? Almost always the answer is no. — Tom Storm

The scepticism on the world was one of the historical philosophy themes. In the ancient times, they used to take it seriously, and some of them stopped judging on all things. But nowadays? We just use the topic to practice and study philosophy. If anyone gets irritated with the topic nowadays, then he hasn't read a single book on philosophy or misunderstood the topic or question. That is how I would see it. :)

Stop it...you're killing me! — Janus

Read some philosophy books, and learn instead of wasting time. :)

If anyone gets irritated with the topic nowadays, then he hasn't read a single book on philosophy or misunderstood the topic or question. That is how I would see it. — Corvus

I understand but I would say that is a bit harsh. I have heard a number of distinguished philosophers criticize the idea - people like John Searle, Hilary Lawson, Susan Haack, Richard Rorty. I'm not a philosopher, so I am not immersed in the traditions. But it would be fair to say that there are differing schools of thought about what is worth pursuing and the temptation to write off the schools we disagree with as ignorant or 'not genuine' philosophy is probably unhelpful. (I'm not saying that you are doing this.)

But it would be fair to say that there are differing schools of thought about what is worth pursuing and the temptation to write off the schools we disagree with as ignorant or 'not genuine' philosophy is probably unhelpful. (I'm not saying that you are doing this.) — Tom Storm

You're too generous, Questioning the reality of the world has been sufficiently done to demonstrate that it is not in any conceivable sense good philosophy, and Corvus, who is obviously a philosophical neophyte, is doing it, but I don't think she or he is open to learning, and so will most likely double down and continue ad nauseum.

Questioning the reality of the world has been sufficiently done to demonstrate that it is not in any conceivable sense good philosophy — Janus

I agree. Some people do seem to become fixated on these sorts of questions and can't imagine how others are not. I remember my philosophy tutor (I studied it very briefly) saying, 'there's no solution to hard solipsism, so let's move on to some philosophy ' Always made me laugh.

'there's no solution to hard solipsism, so let's move on to some philosophy ' Always made me laugh. — Tom Storm

:lol: Nice one!

(I'm not saying that you are doing this.) — Tom Storm

I was not saying that you were doing that either. Well actually if you think this thread was all about solipsism, then you might have been :D, and as someone quite rightly commented recently here, where you and @Janus belong to, should be Netflix.

If anyone gets irritated with the topic nowadays, then he hasn't read a single book on philosophy or misunderstood the topic or question. That is how I would see it. — Corvus

I don't find anything philosophical from your writings and messages, sorry. Please use the forum "Lounge" for all your postings which are not philosophical in nature. Thank you.

Thanks for your feedback. I don't care. :wink:

Thank you for your understanding. It wasn't my feedback for you at all. It was just a sincere and honest message to you and @Janus that we seem to have totally different views even on what philosophy is. Under this situation, I am under impression that we cannot have any decent constructive philosophical discussions at all.

My engaging in any type of philosophical discussion with yourself, or @Janus would be just total waste of everyone's time. So, all the best.

It was just a sincere and honest message to you and Janus that we seem to have totally different views even on what philosophy is. — Corvus

1) This is called feedback.

2) Having different views on 'what philosophy is' is kind of the point of philosophy, or any kind of dialogue.

It may well be the case that you want to encounter only views that you like or are able to appreciate. You would not be alone there.

My engaging in any type of philosophical discussion with yourself, or Janus would be just total waste of everyone's time. So, all the best. — Corvus

Well it hasn't been a waste of my time so this statement is wrong. I find your views interesting. If you do not wish to engage with a member just ignore them. Most members employ this strategy here.

It may well be the case that you want to encounter only views that you like or are able to appreciate. You would not be alone there. — Tom Storm

If you read all my posts, you would realise that I welcome genuine philosophical arguments, criticisms and refutations based on logic and reasonings, and I always try to present the same to the serious interlocutors.

But in the case of @Janus, he has never been sincere or serious from my memory. He has no arguments, but just throws abuse and debasements on the thread itself, or one's philosophical points. So, your point in the quote is incorrect and unfounded.

Well it hasn't been a waste of my time so this statement is wrong. I find your views interesting. If you do nto wish to engage with a member just ignore them. Most members employ this strategy here. — Tom Storm

Apologies if I mistook your true intention. The fact that you were communicating with @Janus in supportive manner towards him could have sent out the impression that you were just here to accompany and assist @Janus for his disrespect for the thread.

If you were not, then there was misunderstanding obviously. I hope you would understand the situation. I do appreciate your explanation on the situation. Thank you.

But when one believes in the existence of the world, but says there is no justified belief in the world when not perceiving it. What would you class the position? — Corvus

Justified yes (evidential), proven no (purely deductive). ← different

↪Corvus, it's safer to think that what you won't know can still kill you.
But hey, you won't find any purely deductive disproof of solipsism either. — Nov 25, 2023

Hence, we try to seek justification on our beliefs and perception.
But point here is, can belief be justified properly? Belief is a psychological state, which cannot be justified rationally in nature.

Or are some beliefs also epistemic when justified? But if it cannot be justified, then it can't be. How do we justify our beliefs rationally? — Corvus

By "properly" do you mean deductively, with logical certainty?

Metaphysics that have survived (this far, sort of, in corners of academia at least), are just that. For some proposition, p, if attainable evidence is compatible with both p and ¬p, then we strand there. And we're venturing into metaphysics. Not particularly informative, like a difference that makes no difference (though Bateson used that phrase differently).

So, taken together, pragmatic safety, those novelties, our errors, annoying constraints, our agreements, stuff like that (taken together), give us anti-idealism if you will. But not as a matter of mere deduction. Observations, evidence, experiences, linguistic practices, life, and rationality too. Ethics involve an extra-self world as well.

Besides, there are some pitfalls in thinking that axiomatic logic can derive particulars of the real world by itself (logicing). Such logic is non-ampliative, derives what's contained in axioms, however complex to prove, and that's it. Hence it can be extended with modal logic. Knowledge of the real world needs the real world to stand on, if you will.

Have a good weekend. Grabbing a JD#7 on the rocks.

Justified yes (evidential), proven no (purely deductive). ← different — jorndoe

Sure. Good point. :up:

By "properly" do you mean deductively, with logical certainty? — jorndoe

to denote in any possible way that you feel relevant i.e. logically, epistemically, intuitively, phenomenologically ....

If you recall from the previous messages in this thread, the thread is not about one single topic, or declarative, but it could be from any angle and is exploratory. Therefore, one can discuss the topic from sceptic, realistic, idealistic, metaphysical, physical, psychological or conceptual point of view, and I will try to engage in the discussion from the level or point of view. This point of the thread seems to have been totally misunderstood by the folk like , who keeps saying and distorting the thread as attempting to deny the existence of the world.

Metaphysics that have survived (this far, sort of, in corners of academia at least), are just that. For some proposition, p, if attainable evidence is compatible with both p and ¬p, then we strand there. And we're venturing into metaphysics. Not particularly informative, like a difference that makes no difference (though Bateson used that phrase differently). — jorndoe

The concept of the world is such a historic and rich topic in the history of philosophy, if we even look at the very beginning in ancient Greece, Thales was the first man ever asked what the world is made of, which started the philosophical tradition.

The question of what is the world, what is the world made of is still unanswered to this day, and only Metaphysics can deal with such topics along with the sciences such as Physics and Cosmology.

Although the OP says, "Reasons to believe in the existence of the world", I have said numerous times that we could approach the topic from the conceptual perspective initially such as asking and discussing the concept of "the world", "existence" and "beliefs".

The terms "the world", "existence" and "beliefs" are interesting philosophical concepts even from just a definitional point of view. As you suggested, the concepts can be abstract and multi subject in origins such as physics, psychology, semantics, logic and metaphysics.

Hence it can be extended with modal logic. Knowledge of the real world needs the real world to stand on, if you will. — jorndoe

I was reading "On the Plurality of Worlds" by David Lewis over the weekend, and in the book Lewis was discussing Modality of possible worlds, and it was interesting. Indeed, the book made me think about the concept of the world in terms of various different types of possible worlds, and their nature of existence.

You are correct in saying that actual knowledge of the world requires the actual world's existence. That was also Lewis' point in the book. Everything existing belongs to the actual world, but there are possible worlds which also belong to the actual world.

"The world we live in is a very inclusive thing. Every stick and every stone you have ever seen is part of it. And so are you and I. And so are the planet earth, the solar system, the entire Milky way, the remote galaxies we are seeing through telescopes, and (if there are such things) all the bits of empty space between the stars and galaxies. There is nothing so far away from us as not to be part of our world. Anything at any distance at all is to be included. Likewise the world is inclusive in time. No long-gone ancient Romans, no long-gone pterodactyls, no long-gone primordial clouds of plasma are too far in the past, nor are the dead dark stars too far in the future, to be part of this same world. Maybe, as I myself think, the world is a big physical object; or maybe some parts of it are entelechies or spirits or auras or deities or other things unknown to physics. But nothing is so alien in kind as not to be part of our world, provided only that it does exist at some distance and direction from here, or at some time before or after simultaneous with now." The Plurality of Worlds, David Lewis pp.1

With all the possible worlds in the world, I was thinking about the unknown world. There is a world which is unknown to me, and there must be one for you too. I believe in the existence of the unknown world.

The unknown world includes everything that is unknown to me such as the world of past, future, all the places I have never been, outer space, galaxies, the world of spirituality, the world of other people. All the worlds of other people are unknown worlds to me, because I cannot access their minds and perceptions. And my world must be an unknown world to all the others for the same reason.

The belief in all the abstract items which have not been justified or verified is totally valid, when the belief has been deducted from the unknown world. It would have been impossible to have the belief under the category of the actual world.

One's actual world is the logical premise for unknown worlds, because one must first know the actual world that he sees and perceives to be able to deduct their unknown worlds. Without the former, there is no latter. The former is the necessary causal relationship with the latter.

Therefore my reason to believe the world is my perception of it. My perception, recollection of the memories and being conscious of it is also the proof of the existence of the world.

The perception of the world, and thoughts about it (by the aboutness of my thoughts for the world) is also the base of my deduction for the unknown world, which includes the totality of the world which is not visible and accessible to my physical world.

Have a good weekend. Grabbing a JD#7 on the rocks. — jorndoe

Thank you. Hope you had a great time. Later~

We know that there is no color or sound in the real world, it is an effect of frequencies and vibrations on biology. So, knowing all is energy, frequencies, and vibrations, why do we assume that objects unlike color and sound really exist?

all is energy, frequencies, and vibrations, why do we assume that objects unlike color and sound really exist? — boagie

Good question. They are invisible and inaudible, because they exist beyond our bodily sensibility. However, they can be felt or measured and read by the means of the instruments.

A bit of a fascist in a sense, as Deleuze would argue. — Vaskane

Weird, when fascists were known to be quite the environmentalists.

I am aware of the mechanistic biology of his time — I would partially blame his Christian background for that.

What I meant is calling someone a Fascist for saying animals are not alive is weird, as Fascists were more environmentalist than any Capitalist or Socialist of their day (and most of our day).

Cause Descartes was himself trash — Vaskane

Stop using the Cartesian plane right now!, you don't want to be a Nazi, do you?

all is energy, frequencies, and vibrations, why do we assume that objects unlike color and sound really exist? — boagie

They are invisible and inaudible, because they exist beyond our bodily sensibility. However, they can be felt or measured and read by the means of the instruments. — Corvus

I don't know if anyone has already made this point, but this reminds me of Descartes's. "I think, therefore, I am." He uses something non-physical, such as thoughts, to prove something physical, himself. Therefore, even if he is mistaken in what he thinks he is (he may not realize that he is a brain in a vat), he cannot be mistaken in thinking that he exists, in whatever form. Maybe this could apply to any object because we can only see objects due to them reflecting light, so we can use a non physical thing, light, to prove a physical thing, the object. We can still say that maybe we can misinterpret what the object looks like, if we are colour blind, or are not seeing it properly for some reason, but we cannot deny it exists at all. For us to see anything, light must reflect off a physical object. Even if you are in the desert and seeing a mirage, what you see is still the result of light waves being reflected off physical things, if only air particles. I think this makes sense….