The Instigator
Fluer
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MasturDbtor
Con (against)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 860 times Debate No: 20444
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Fluer

Pro

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind, alone, is sure to exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
I will be arguing that this is indeed the case while my opponent will be arguing that there exists a world outside your own mind. This is meant as a light hearted debate but lets try and keep it at least vaguely logical.
Also please make sure you are available within the time constraints as you have 30 mins to post your argument.
Thank you and I look forward to my opponents thoughts.
MasturDbtor

Con

The idea that there exists only the mind is preposterous.

If that were the case then merely thinking something would be good enough to cause it to come into existance.

Our thoughts can influence our environment through the actions they lead us to take, but you can not for example teleport yourself to Mars, move objects with your mind, or shift to an alternative dimension. Ergo, the mind is not all that there is. That there exists physical matter that can not be altered by just willing it to means there is more than mind.

That people get caught up at times by things in their environment emotionally is also good evidence that there isn't just the mind as that is coming into the mind. You could call where it comes from the "spirit".

Regardless of whether there is or is not a God a person has a mind, body, and spirit and trying to treat one as though it controlled the others is a recipe for insanity. Solipsism is not just a flawed argument, it is a dangerous one.
Debate Round No. 1
Fluer

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
Could it not be that there is not a mind that exists strong enough to be capable exorcise such effects like moving objects with your mind. Or in this case, since I speaking from my own point of view, I have not been able to create a mind capable of doingsuch tasks. How can I even be sure that I am not simply someone that has been created out of the mind of another and am at the complete mercy of that mind? How do I know that you have not been created by that very same mind?
Can we ever really be sure that this life is real? No because we have no absolute philisophical definition for what real is.
Take the film "Inception" for example. At the end we never do find out wether they made it out of the dream world they had created. Once they believed it to be the "real world" that would be them stuck.
How can we be sure that we havn't got stuck?
MasturDbtor

Con

MasturDbtor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Fluer

Pro

I really hope you just ran out of time there
Even if you believe my points are rubbish please have the common courtesy to at least rebut them and take a win.
Just extend my argument for this round.
MasturDbtor

Con

I did just run out of time. I debate casually. I went out and had a bite to eat. You didn't really leave that much time.

1. If a mind is incapable of doing things like moving objects by just willing it there must by definition exist a thing responsible for that fact.

2. If you were created by and controlled by another mind that would still leave the question of how to explain the limitations of that other mind, and the mechanism of control it has on your mind. And it would have limitations by definition, because there must be a set of explanations for why it has chosen to control you in one way and not another.

3. "Can we ever really be sure that this life is real? No because we have no absolute philisophical definition for what real is."

This is a purely semantic argument and could be argued over any and all concepts that are represented by words. It is practical to assume some common definition of the word real, because otherwise it would be a useless word. To most people experience is real, so experiencing life makes it ipso facto real.

4. If we are "stuck" that fact will not be relevant unless and until we become "unstuck", because there are no consequences as far as human experience if we never were to find out, hence meaning for all practical purposes we can assume we are not stuck until there is significant evidence to the contrary.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Fluer 4 years ago
Fluer
Conduct please!! I said watch the time constraints if you don't like it don't accept but don't just forfiet that's mean. :'(
Posted by Fluer 4 years ago
Fluer
My opponent is now offline and does not show any signs of returning to the debate. This is a very unfortunate waste of my time since it is noe past 3am however I didn't forfiet a round so it isn't impossible as vmpire321 believes.
Posted by Fluer 4 years ago
Fluer
MasturDbtor has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
-.-
Posted by Fluer 4 years ago
Fluer
This really is just purely for entertainment. Just finished my exams and thought this debate would be amusing. So all points of debate welcomed :)
Posted by Gileandos 4 years ago
Gileandos
Doesn't the very fact a solapsist poses a debate outside of his own mind, with the expectation of feedback, give near certainty of errancy?

Fluer is spot on.
Posted by Fluer 4 years ago
Fluer
So when I don't forfiet and reply within the time limit to a reasonable degree I will have proved you wrong?
Sure I'm up for that.
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
30 MINUTES IS iMPOSSIBLE!
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
Lmao. You are going to forfeit.
Posted by Fluer 4 years ago
Fluer
I have read most of the article and I personally am not for solipsism but for the purposes of this debate I will be Pro.
I do love the argument produced for languages.
Everything about this topic gets you thinking. That's why I love philosophical debates.
I will probably put up another similar debate hopefully you can accept that one.
Posted by owen99999 4 years ago
owen99999
It's really annoying that I can't accept it I would love to debate it! It kind of sucks that I can't :( but well done for imagining me! Wait no I mean me imagining you.. no wait I mean someone else imagining both of us....

You should read the whole wikipedia article. The responces clearly disprove solipsism. My favourite one is the one about langauge.

" The practical solipsist needs a language to formulate his or her thoughts about solipsism. Language is an essential tool to communicate with other minds. Why does a solipsist need to communicate with other minds when, to the solipsist, those "other minds" don't exist? So why does a solipsist universe need a language? Indeed, some might even say, solipsism is necessarily incoherent, a self-refuting idea, for to make an appeal to logical rules or empirical evidence the solipsist would implicitly have to affirm the very thing in which he or she purportedly refuses to believe: the 'reality' of intersubjectively valid criteria, and/or of a public, extra-mental world. "

^^ that one!

Cheers and good luck in your argument.
I'm gunna go stop existing
Byee!
No votes have been placed for this debate.