Of course. We need to navigate between the extremes of solipsism and non-individualism.

Other people is a reification of an idea. — schopenhauer1

That's solipsistic.

Hinge propositions can’t just stop theorizing as that hinge needs to be grounded further. — schopenhauer1

No. Hinge propositions are axioms, that's the point.

No. Hinge propositions are axioms, that's the point. — baker

To me it seems arbitrary one builds their axioms there. Go further.. Dig. If you say that there is a limit, that is one position out of many.. Believe it if you want, but don't expect me to believe it.

You, too operate with axioms just not necessarily the same ones as other people's.

You, too operate with axioms just not necessarily the same ones as other people's. — baker

Hehe. Well that itself is a different axiom than the axiom of hinge propositions... Everyone puts down their flag somewhere I guess.

Everyone puts down their flag somewhere I guess. — schopenhauer1

And it helps to acknowledge that, otherwise we're stuck on a wild goose chase.

That's solipsistic. — baker

Right. I'm saying how do you justify social entities like community outside of individual perceptions of what the community is, means, etc. There is a "shared" space. What is this "shared" space. Be careful how you define it though without falling into the trap.

And it helps to acknowledge that, otherwise we're stuck on a wild goose chase. — baker

Much of modern philosophy is trying to wrangle in previous philosophy from "going too far". Putting limits, whether that be language or the mind or experimental verification.

I'm saying how do you justify social entities like community outside of individual perceptions of what the community is, means, etc. — schopenhauer1

You don't justify them, you take them for granted, axiomatically.

You don't justify them, you take them for granted, axiomatically. — baker

Philosophy doesn't have to be about what one can prove empirically. It should be thought of as "avenues of looking", synthesis of ideas, or one's "insights".

But what exactly does this "shared" mean? — baker

Suppose you went to sleep and when you woke up it was 1923 or 1823. Would you realize that this is not the same world it was when you sent to sleep? Or suppose when you woke up you were in some remote fishing village or with in tripe in the Amazon. Would it be apparent that this is not this is not the same place you fell asleep in?

Is it an active and deliberate sharing, like when you offer someone an apple if you have two?

Or is it a kind of sharing we're simply born into, which is imposed on us, without having any say in it? — baker

A bit of both.

Really? So psychology, sociology, and anthropology don’t contribute theories for this? — schopenhauer1

I am not talking about doing specific things but that we do anything at all. What explanation do you have that we do things rather than doing nothing?

How do you get out of circularity of what community is? — schopenhauer1

Well, if you think a group of people living and working together with shared interests and values is circular then I see no reason why it would be necessary to get out of it.

How is it “out there”? — schopenhauer1

A community is not something "out there". It is something within which we live.

You have to justify a theory of emergence, not just posit it. — schopenhauer1

Do I? Do you think there has always been human language? Do you think there has always been human beings?

I can doubt community exists outside my perception. — schopenhauer1

Yes, you can, but when you express that doubt on a public forum you do so outside of your perception. Or do you think the forum and its participants do not exist outside your perception? Do you think the language you express your doubts in only exist within your perception?

Hinge propositions can’t just stop theorizing as that hinge needs to be grounded further. — schopenhauer1

When you are theorizing are there things that you accept? Things that are not called into doubt when you theorize? Do you realize that your assumptions about grounds functions as a hinge? Something you accept without the grounding having a ground?

Philosophy doesn't have to be about what one can prove empirically. — schopenhauer1

Indeed, but in order to philosophize, one needs axioms. Otherwise one is just manifesting mental-verbal diarrhoea.

Suppose you went to sleep and when you woke up it was 1923 or 1823. Would you realize that this is not the same world it was when you sent to sleep? Or suppose when you woke up you were in some remote fishing village or with in tripe in the Amazon.

Would it be apparent that this is not this is not the same place you fell asleep in? — Fooloso4

Why wouldn't it?

Why wouldn't it? — baker

It wouldn't if our way of life was not a shared way of life.

It's not clear where you're going with this. Obviously, I can't recognize something as the Amazon without having heard other people talk about it.

From some point on, though, what I have learned from other people is enough for me to develop a sense of self-sufficieny and independence. (This is easy and tempting to confuse for terminal self-sufficieny and independence.)

Obviously, I can't recognize something as the Amazon without having heard other people talk about it. — baker

Perhaps not, but you would know it is not part of the shared community you live in.

Here, we could bring up the difference between an introvert and an extrovert. Not everyone feels equally bound to other people

For an extrovert, the experience of waking up in a foreign place or time could be more disorienting than for an introvert.