The Instigator
THEBOMB
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
briski
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Solipsism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
briski
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,329 times Debate No: 15516
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

THEBOMB

Pro

This debate pertains to philosophical idea solipsism. Pro argues for solipsism con against it.

Definitions:

Solipsism: the philosophical idea that only one person's mind is sure to exist or an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside one's own specific mind is unjustified.

Epistemological: branch of philosophy dealing with the scope, limitation, of knowledge.

The first round is for acceptance the second will begin the debate until the last round.
briski

Con

I accept this debate as I understand it, which I think is accurate to your intentions, and is the following:

You are arguing that solipsism is a justifiable ontological position. I am arguing against you, in the sense of holding you to the burden of proof that you have.

To be clear, I think you should expect that I will argue that solipsism is unjustifiable, and/OR that it is not the only justifiable ontology/epistemology. This is obvious, because solipsism's definition is very exclusive in the first place.
Debate Round No. 1
THEBOMB

Pro

THEBOMB forfeited this round.
briski

Con

Hmm, I guess I'll point out to any potential audience that the Affirmative side timed-out on the last round of this debate. However, he/she has debated on this topic in a previous one, which you can readily reference. I'm not saying that he/she should be judged by this other debate, but it's all we have to guide us so far with regard to starting any sort of pondering on this subject. I'd ask you to disregard even this, and ask for your votes in the event that my opponent doesn't respond by the end of all the rounds.

With that said, I'll briefly discuss that Pro - and often pro-solipsists in general - seems to be using a rationalist thought process ie. classical Cartesian skepticism. This leads to an "I think, therefore I am" conclusion - an NO other conclusions at all. Therefore, a reason to like this school of thought could include the fact that you do arrive at this one seemingly important ontological truth rather solidly. But a reason to dislike this method of thought could include its limited utility in the sense that it leads to no other conclusions (and there are many other important philosophical questions worth answering besides just existence).

But perhaps, more relevantly, a reason to REJECT this stance is that it makes the continuity of existence impossible. In general, we think that things either exist or do not. And if they do, they came into existence at a point in time due to a cause. How then, do you explain - from a solipsistic point of view - what sleeping is? Or what happens during deep anesthesia? Is it that the concept of existence somehow disappears? And then when you wake up, your solipsistic universe springs back into existence from nothingness all over again? This is ridiculous.

I don't know if I've ever heard this argument put more academically by an actual scholar. But basically, I'm saying: IF creation of something (existing) from nothingness is already a difficult subject (which it is, ie Big Bang vs God explanations of the first cause) THEN solipsism is even much worse, because this process happens repeatedly (ie every time you lose consciousness and regain it).
Debate Round No. 2
THEBOMB

Pro

THEBOMB forfeited this round.
briski

Con

_I'll just advance the round..... It is ridiculous that he is the instigator of this debate, and yet is the reason it's a non-event. Please give me your votes._
Debate Round No. 3
THEBOMB

Pro

THEBOMB forfeited this round.
briski

Con

I extend my previous arguments. Pro has not fulfilled the burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Ginger25 4 years ago
Ginger25
I know this is a bit late commenting. But what if we aren't the entire mind what if we are just a part of it and similarly everyone around us is. So sleep and unconsciousness would merely be when the brain had no need for that part of it. It would also account for the fact life is imperfect being questioned. Where as humans we constantly compete the mind itself constantly competes. Meaning we would create pain to hinder the other parts of the mind that we are competing against each other for more control over the mind itself. So everyone is a different ideal of this mind.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
is it true
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
What about the idea of solipsism? Its truth? Its relevancy? Its application?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
THEBOMBbriskiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious