@R4gn4r0k said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@R4gn4r0k said:
The earth is flat because I see it as flat.
Just like how the sun is really small.
That is usually their big argument, it is all a matter of perspective? haha what?
Well, it shows exactly just how intelligent they are, not being able to look any further than their own perspective.
Interesting. But I live near a sea and can't I see that the Earth is round when I look at the sea? Especially from an airplane you can see it is rounded. The horizon doesn't look flat at all from up high. Don't they believe in the gravitational force of the moon causing the ebb and tide? How does ebb and tide work on a flat surface? Is that another trick of the devil? If so, that sounds like a form of solipsism. Not necessarily idiocy as much as it is a logical trap that is pretty much entirely individual, which is exactly why that idea is kinda iffy, shouldn't be left unaddressed.
Then the only way 'out' is to explain that all theories are uncertain and based on assumptions, and it's a matter of figuring out which one is more likely. And then tell him - after considering this yourself - not to put all of his eggs in one basket. It might help. Give it a shot.
(If it's solipsism there is no point in telling or trying to convince him that his theory can't be proven, because solipsism is in a way circular and in a way that doesn't really involve other people's views in how the world works. Circular theories cannot always be proven but are also not inherently false. In the case of solipsism the scope tends to be so small there is no room for proof without knowing it's circular. But it may still be the truth. You can't disprove it nor prove it (kind of reminds me of the randomness in quantum physics: a limitation of information but in this case in philosophy not that I know much about quantum physics but someone in that field should look into its similarities), and its probability is extremely tough if not impossible to approximate for yourself, no matter how silly its resulting mindset sounds. (Because everything that's a given is questioned. No proof can influence its probability because all the proof we have is based on other world views (the world views of 'other' people) which solipsism essentially deems a fun idea rather than something worth a damn.) Its rules depend on the person. The rules are the person. So even if you say you have evidence to the contrary it will not be 'their' evidence.
I 'know' about this because I've been stuck with it for years trying to make heads or tails of it. When involved to such a degree it can lead to seemingly random assumptions/conclusions and complete inactivity. (For example at one point the concept of ownership was gone.) And I recognize it in everyone else in varying much less harmful degrees. I kind of suspect everyone has a bit of a solipsist inside of them because of the many assumptions we have to make to be able to function in life and our search for patterns. (The idea to some degree that the world is the way you think it is, no matter what you experience thereafter, because everything is what you know it is, and there is never (a need for) more (to explain the world/) in a given moment.) There have been quite a few philosophers who towards their later books started to dive into this and never got out. I would consider it a dangerous thought for society. But if you cannot close the door on it, then the best thing to do is to not dwell on it and consider it an odd possibility. Which is why I suggested the above. It's the only solution I personally ever found to stop myself from being completely consumed by it but obviously normal people don't dive into it to that degree. I'd still wager that the same thing works wonders on people who seem to accept an irrational idea and discount any type of proof.)
Log in to comment