>Are you aware that there was a number of Christian Existentialists?

Yes, but a good majority of them don't because many believe in Sartre's motto of "existence precedes essence".

I don't think Godel's ontological proof of God makes any sense.

I challenge any solipsist to visit a psychiatrist and claim that doc might not exist without their mind.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Psychosis can make the concept of solypsism more relevant to you. The condition makes the external world less consistent, lowering confidence in external persistence, which undermines the basis for 'taking a leap of faith' and moving beyond solypsism. Why put effort into studying an 'external' reality who's rules change constantly?

Solypsism is a philosophical stance. Psychosis is a sensory condition. You can choose solypsism, you can't choose psychosis.

Solypsism is psychosis.

You can't escape the dictation of outer, life or collective reality whatever you wanna call it.But ofc you can built all your knowledge on your instinctive beliefs, refusing to acknowledge facts forever.Like a life sentenced prisoner in cell claiming it's his bedroom.

>Hegel himself described his dialectics as the “speculative mode of cognition”

Fair enough; like I said, it's been awhile.

Mixed market Capitalism is without a doubt the best system available.

Socialism has been implemented 26 times and failed every single time.

There is no example in history you can point to in which a system other than capitalism has worked in the long term.

Lol yeah, exactly this. Reaching a “harmonious system” seems to be a pretty ambitious goal.

Yeah, agreed that the entire article can’t be reduced down to Hegelian dialectics. Just that the last line in the header quote seems deeply dialectical in nature.

Hegel himself described his dialectics as the “speculative mode of cognition”, which seems quite close to what Russell is describing there.

Some people have REALLY bad instincts.

Exactly, how can we ever know that we have known everything there is to know about reality?

As long as new things are discovered, it will never be complete.

He assumes that we will reach a point when nothing new will ever be discovered for the rest of time, that's a very big claim. lol

[deleted]

How you admire the works of well actually being?

Yes and no. But thesis-->antithesis-->synthesis is (in my possibly flawed recollection) more about how ideas interact with each other and the world to progress human knowledge, Russell seems to be talking more about the roots of our knowledge, that at the base they aren't built on what we would call knowledge epistemologically, but on the raw and naive "instinctual" beliefs that we have.

Seems to me that Russell's point is that while these are not immutable, we can examine them and modify them, they can't be wholly removed.

In this reading, I would say it's not a bad analogy to invoke Hegel, but it is a bit reductive.

Based on how he uses it in the argument, I would describe this comment as you need to trust in persistence if you want to make progress.

Alternatively: Last Thursdayism cannot be disproven, but you also won't progress if that's a deal breaker.

Russell claims we can reject Last Thursdayism on grounds of "common-sense", but he admits its weak. Id say even more so in the present day.

Instead I reject Last Thursdayism on grounds of utility. If Last Thursdayism is true, there's nothing I can do about it, so there's no cost in being wrong.

Other names for this problem are Solypsism and Descartes Demon. All different hues of the same problem.

Isn’t that just a granular level of the same process though? To the extent that societal beliefs emerge from the networked interactions of individuals wrestling with their shared intuitions and beliefs?

[deleted]

...modifying or abandoning them until congitive dissonance is reduced to tolerable levels

It's been awhile since I've read Hegel, but I thought he was talking about societal ideas, as opposed to the internal, instinctive beliefs.

> We can organize these beliefs and their consequences, modifying or abandoning them until they don’t clash, forming a harmonious system.

Isn’t this just Hegel? Thesis, antithesis, synthesis?

to me the problem is that you can never be sure you know everything, since you can always ask "is there something we are missing?", and the answer has to be, by definition "we don't know".

in practical terms it doesn't really mean much since we can get by just fine by doing "what works", but in theoretical terms I don't think you can ever be sure that you have learned everything, that you haven't missed something that would change your understanding of things, and in that sense, you can never be sure of the truth of what you know, so you are forced to remain sceptical about it

>Falsifying and censoring data is NOT science, it's lies!

Well if the only science I have access to is that which is published, and the publishing process is worthy of scepticism (which it is), then what difference does it make? The science that I see, I must be sceptical of.

[deleted]

>I really don't believe that at all.

You don't believe that if people are repeatedly lied to, they eventually begin to mistrust those who lied to them? Because that's a basic psychological truth, really.