What is a good topic to debate about, with another person

I need topics, ideas, philosophies, on which I can debate on with a friend(he is very tough cookie but love to be proven wrong). But nothing religious, I'm staying away from that for now. Also he thinks solipsism is believable, I don't but in your opinion do you believe in solipsism, if you don't may I have reasons why if you do may I have reasons why?

No argument against solipsism

You cannot make any argument against solipsism because it makes no falsifiable predictions. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. This however lends no credence as to whether it's true.

If I made the statement that an infinite cosmic force made me breakfast this morning, that is unfalsifiable. I can show that it was actually myself that made my breakfast, but they will say "that's just the force using your body to carry out its will". If I show that it's actually my brain chemistry that's moving by body, they will say "that's just the force acting on your neurons". Their argument is clearly absurd, but its unfalsibiable by nature.

It's the same thing with solipsism. It's an absurd proposition, and the evidence seems to very strongly suggest it isn't the case, but since it's unfalsifiable some people will wrongly assume it has a significant chance of being true.
66% Voted for by NoeL-, Weydon, GinryuStargazer, Molzahn.
View 1 comment Hide Comments
Please login or register to comment.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
- right now
  
  Adding your comment:
- TeChNoWC
  February 18
  Edit | Reply
  
  What evidence? There is nothing to suggest solipsism is likely or unlikely.
Please register or login to comment! It's fast and totally free!
right now

Adding your reply:
Your Comment:

about that.

As with any debate on unfalsifiable concepts, it's a battle between what idea is the most convincing, what story best fits all of the pieces. Everyone is going to have a slightly different variety of pieces to explain and thus will find different arguments more convincing than others, as some resonate with our prior mental constructions more than others.

Something like solipsism can be falsified under the right conditions (like transcended revelation, or empathic harmonization), but in common-knowledge thought and reasoning it isn't usually something that can be conquered or dealt with.

If nothing else, the battle served by arguing these ideas is the search to harmonize conceptually with those around us. If you had absolute certainty that solipsism were true, why try convincing "other" people of it's truth? Surely, we know that the people we talk to are only mental projections of what is real, and the answer solipsism offers is that these mental projections do not reflect true reality and that we are the only source of 'awareness,' like sitting back and watching a movie knowing that you are the only thing actually aware.

Some interesting ideas by philosophers like Eckhart Tollie bring forward the idea that awareness is formless, and that we mistakenly associate that sense of awareness to the identity of the ego.

The fight for new ideas and answers to unfalsifiable problems has less to do with conscious dilemmas and more to do with the rounding and harmonizing of the unconscious mind (or so it seems to me). A formless need expressing it's self erroneously through formed things. There is a Buddhist saying: "the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon" You cannot show someone the truth, only where to find it.

Voted for by Molzahn.

Add a comment

From a psychological perspective

Perhaps believing in solipsism is a commentary on a disconnection with other people that someone feels. Since empathy has much to do with the gravity of how we feel about other people, if the mental projections in our mind are crippled by a weakened sense of empathy (through previous grievances and emotional damages), they really will not reflect true reality, and thus may leave someone with the feeling that they are the only thing that exists - despite the fact that this is only due to a mental blockage they have been burdened with.

Voted for by Molzahn.

View 3 comments

right now

Adding your comment:
TeChNoWC
February 18
Edit | Reply

No, solipsism is rational. Occam's Razor would prefer solipsism, because it is easier to assume only I exist than to try and prove others exist as well, outside of my own head.
- Xelgaroth
  February 18
  Edit | Reply
  
  Perhaps, but you are still making the unecessary assumption that your mind does not perceive objective reality; you are merely making the unfounded claim that knowledge of the objective world is impossible to attain, which is the crux of solipsist thought. For if no objective world can be perceived, then you are right; Occam's razor would indeed favour solipsism, for it does not make the assumption that in a subjective perception of the world, there are other minds. But before you can even make this point, you have to determine the reasons that merit such subjectivity; if it is self-evident and apparent that there is an objective reality, then the case for solipsism lies on shaky ground. I recall from your page, Tech, that you're a fan of Kierkegaard, as am I. He put forward the notion that knowledge is subjective, and so on and so forth. Do you believe this? If so, why? For this is the hinge upon which the rest of a solipsistic argument would rest.
TeChNoWC
February 20
Edit | Reply

In a matter of speaking, but Kierkegaard meant more in that statement than what meets the eye. It does not simply mean 'believe whatever you want, and it's real'; this isn't even what a full blown existentialist would assert. Kierkegaard was attacking Hegelianism; that is, that we can rationally attain to the existence of the Christian God. Kierkegaard was revolted at this idea, as am I, because it is not only false, but also because it defeats the purpose of faith. Kierkegaard was trying to say that it is our subjective experiences of God that are greater than our cognisant ruminations; and both, in reality, are more or less subjective, and the more subjective, the more greater, the more passion, the more alive, and the more one self leaps into the choice, and sees oneself for whom oneself is.

There is still an objective reality and an objective truth. I believe this objective truth is God, and that the only true form of knowledge is divine knowledge. All other forms of knowledge do not exist; they are fantasy, they are, convictions. Subjectivity is belief, which is choice, which is, choosing oneself.

Solipsism is as possible as it is not possible as it is possible that I am a really a chair sitting in your house. The mind is not created for knowledge, but for mental stimulation. Only the spirit perceives knowledge.