Neo Took The Blue Pill

Check out Aaron Philby, who drew my profile picture.
http://aaronphilby.deviantart.com/
http://www.youtube.com/user/aphilby

Twitter:
------------------
http://twitter.com/clutchology

Formspring:
------------------
http://www.formspring.me/Clutchology

Animation done by Venaloid:
http://www.youtube.com/user/venaloid

Music by T-Free (Download it here):
http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/listen/322948

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• yt:stretch=16:9
• yt:stretch=4:3
• yt:crop=16:9

[HashKeth]

Regarding the possibility of us living in a artificial world without us knowing it aka the matrix, I think it would be useless for us to contemplate on the question on whether are we living in the real world because there would be no way of telling.

[Clutchology]

@HashKeth The main reason solipsism is so annoying is because pragmatically it's completely useless. Harmful, even.

It's just a bunch of smug faced arses getting their rocks off to pedantics.

[lanastompanato]

A true solipsism advocate would point out that your objections regarding "people wouldn't survive long enough to reproduce" assumes (1) there are other people; and (2) that they reproduce; that those objections are thus spurious. There may not be other people and there may not be such a thing as reproduction (according to a solipsist).

[Clutchology]

@lanastompanato True. But to be fair, I did acknowledge that in the video.

[idontgiveashit0930]

epistemological nihilism is more extreme than solipsism, but they are less annoying because the moment an epistemological nihilist asserts a positive claim regarding "evidence" and even about the knowledge of his mind, he negates his own philosophical position, so a smart nihilist wouldnt say anything. Its true that any epistemological premise has an underlying leap of faith. The so-called axioms may not be so "self-evident", i guess solipsists are more honest with their views on axioms.

[Clutchology]

@idontgiveashit0930

While it's technically true that there is a basic degree of faith to all beliefs, engaging in philosophical discussions involves a mutual discarding of it for pragmatic reasons. Otherwise we'd never get beyond the "Well, we dont KNOW" stage.

What makes these people annoying is they can't seem to let that go, have to constantly remind us all of it and hinder any progress in the conversation.

They're basically the Grammar Nazi's of philosophical discussion.

[theneonfire]

Do an in-depth video on the ethics of pokémon slavery. I dare you.

[MisterBoswell]

Mario and Luigi and their thought and actions are all a part of that very thing you have yet to prove as real, hence your evidence is circular and still unverified as real.

Anyway, to get to the real thing I wanted to say, I amazed that this solipsist fellow tried to use that to argue for the existence of a god.

After all, wouldn't his adherence to solipsism concede the very possibility that god is NOT real, and does not actually exist, but instead is just a 'figment of his imagination'?

[MrPanzermaus]

Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them.

[GnosticAtheist]

Sophistry, seriously, is interesting to me. I do use it for most things in my life. For instance, I don't do the dishes, because it is not real. But in a serious sense, I do read any book with it in mind. It is part of my hatred for consciousness. I just hate that illusion so much, I tend towards holy sophistry, but just as a tool to make fun of perceived reality. Mostly because it is always portrayed subjectively (it kinda has to be...)

[DawkinsMoth]

"It will be your own slave in a non-racist, family friendly way!" XD

[dstewart28]

@dstewart28 Oops, lol I repeated myself accidently there in the beginning.

[dstewart28]

Just to put this out there I think it's faith to say the experience of reality is either subjective, or objective is an act of faith, especially when it comes to our shard experience. With that,schitzophrencs are solipsists in that the delusions they have are dependant on their mind, the only difference is they trust what they experience, because they deem it to be real, the same as a non solipsist who trust what they experience as beng real when just like the former it can all be a delusion.

[LordSavaunt]

@Clutchology Aren't all belief systems pragmatically useless? Aside from being ways to control people do any of them really serve any function for helping us to live and thrive? Seems to me that things like hunting and farming don't require belief so much as knowledge. Once you know it works, you can repeat it. Regardless of whether you believe that the corn comes up from the ground because Or-Gahn-Nika has blessed your field or because of photosynthesis, once you learn how to plant you can eat.

[MisterBoswell]

Well, I read all the comments and now I see that what I wrote had already been addressed, so I apologize for wasting your time and taking up space on your comments section.

Assuming any of those things even exist. :D

[MisterBoswell]

The 'danger' of which you speak would also be unverifiable and possibly just an illusion as well. This is the problem with tackling solipsism, because ANYTHING you would try use to appeal to for evidence or arguments are all just potential illusions of the solipsist's mind. Like asking if you wonder is the Mushroom kingdom is real, so as evidence you cite the testimony of... Mario. If you ask how do we know HE isn't a part of the illusion, he says to just ask Luigi if he is real, etc.

[MisterBoswell]

You seemed to stray from solipsist thought when you appealed to 'surviving long enough to reproduce in order to be born' as an indication a measure of validity of the senses. A solipsist would regard all of those things as unverifiable because they are not his mind or whatever. How can I know the human race really reproduces in some real world and that I am not just dreaming or hallucinating that the human race reproduces and survives. Death and birth may just be illusionary experiences, etc.