What is the term for this point of view I have?

Mariojinx

Hi all,

I was wondering if there is a term for the philosophical point of view I have? I thought it was solipsism for a while until I realized I don’t know if my mind exists either, as weird and nonsensical as that may sound.

Let me try to explain, I have taken notes. Here is a snippet, I apologize if it comes off as sloppy:

“Everything about existence is a paradox.

“The lack of trustworthy evidence [of any kind of existence] anywhere...leads me to believe no information of any kind is reliable, therefore nothing is certain to exist, therefore I may not exist, in which case everything contradicts itself. From thoughts to language to mood to emotion to sensory information as well as my physical and mental interpretation of the environment and even the defining nature of this whole statement and its making; everything about me and the world I am in contradicts itself.”

These notes create many questions I haven’t been able to answer, such as:

1: if nothing is certain to exist, what is all this (me and everything else)?
2: if the non-real, non-fake, in-flux state of reality idea is the case, what term can I use to describe it?
3: Under the mindset that language, as an idea that is man-made, is therefore not trusted to exist, why does it then seem that language, for lack of a better explanation, stops making sense?
4: Given that I am not sure that belief exists, how do I believe in anything?

There are many more questions I have regarding this; these are just examples. They are rhetorical questions, so unless someone can answer them, you guys don’t have to.

Anyway, as I said, my main question, which I would love the answer to, is that I want to know what the term is for this point of view? I am curious to dive further into the idea, I just want to know where to start.

I realize this whole post is contradictory at certain points within itself, but I’m trying my best to make it as understandable as I can without sacrificing a lot of details.

Thanks,

Mariojinx

Wayfarer

↪Mariojinx

If you really believed it, there would be no point in posting, as nothing you could say would make any sense, and nobody would respond. As it is, your post is very lucid, and the grammar is sound, although I don’t think think you’re making a particularly interesting point. I would start by actually studying the subject of philosophy, and trying to find some point at which you can engage with it.

Mariojinx

↪Wayfarer

please try to answer the main question if you have something to say.

I’m not dumb. Yes, I haven’t formally studied the subject of philosophy but I would argue that by having a point of view on the matter at all, no matter how nonsensical it may seem, is in fact engaging with philosophy. Also, I strongly disagree about how interesting my point of view is to me because it affects absolutely everything and is a way of thinking I personally haven’t been able to find previously. That isn’t to say no one else has come up with this way of thinking, but assuming someone has I would very much like to know what it is and what research has been made regarding it.

All that said, I did not come here to start an argument. I thought I would attempt to describe it in a way that is easily understood, which is why I tried posting this discussion here.

t0m

I was wondering if there is a term for the philosophical point of view I have? I thought it was solipsism for a while until I realized I don’t know if my mind exists either, as weird and nonsensical as that may sound. — Mariojinx

From my perspective you are playing a kind of game. It's the game of radical but merely theoretical doubt. It has its charms. But I don't know if it's been given a game, precisely because it can't be taken seriously. Solipsism, which you mention, also strikes me as a "toy" position. Have you ever looked into conceptual art? I like it. It plays with ideas. A little of it is earnest, political, heavy. But most of it is self-referential, detached, clever.

To be a little more fair and helpful, I think you might like later Wittgenstein and earlier Heidegger. Wittgenstein is good on the slipperiness of language. Heidegger demolishes "your" Cartesian, exaggerated skepticism.

According to Wittgenstein, philosophical problems arise when language is forced from its proper home into a metaphysical environment, where all the familiar and necessary landmarks and contextual clues are removed. He describes this metaphysical environment as like being on frictionless ice: where the conditions are apparently perfect for a philosophically and logically perfect language, all philosophical problems can be solved without the muddying effects of everyday contexts; but where, precisely because of the lack of friction, language can in fact do no work at all.[209] Wittgenstein argues that philosophers must leave the frictionless ice and return to the "rough ground" of ordinary language in use. Much of the Investigations consists of examples of how the first false steps can be avoided, so that philosophical problems are dissolved, rather than solved: "the clarity we are aiming at is indeed complete clarity. But this simply means that the philosophical problems should completely disappear."[210]

=====

Thus Husserl's understanding that all consciousness is "intentional" (in the sense that it is always intended toward something, and is always "about" something) is transformed in Heidegger's philosophy, becoming the thought that all experience is grounded in "care". This is the basis of Heidegger's "existential analytic", as he develops it in Being and Time. Heidegger argues that describing experience properly entails finding the being for whom such a description might matter. Heidegger thus conducts his description of experience with reference to "Dasein", the being for whom Being is a question.[45]

In Being and Time, Heidegger criticized the abstract and metaphysical character of traditional ways of grasping human existence as rational animal, person, man, soul, spirit, or subject. Dasein, then, is not intended as a way of conducting a philosophical anthropology, but is rather understood by Heidegger to be the condition of possibility for anything like a philosophical anthropology.[46] Dasein, according to Heidegger, is care.[47]
— Wiki

If you disbelieve in your mind/self as an entity, you might like this:http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1020/Hume4.pdf

Kant and others reacted to this. But you remind me a little of Hume at his most extreme. Hume did have the sense to mention the difference between his thoughts in his study and his thoughts when he lived in the world with the rest of us.

Mariojinx

↪t0m

Thank you for the elaborate and very interesting reply. I will check out the link and will try to get back here at some point after doing more research.

What is the term for this point of view I have?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions