I'm toying with being an Anti-Solipsist, which basically states that everybody exists but me. I am completely imaginary and just a figment of real people's perceptions.
Since you exist, you should find this interesting, except that it came from me, an entity that is just a figment of your imagination.
Then again maybe not.
As you can see, I'm still working out some bugs with this worldview.
(grin)
I joke because I find the question slightly inane: people are who they are. It's not like they choose a philosophy and suddenly become something besides the emotional, reasoning hominids they've been all their lives. Philosophies can be bent, and people are really good at bending them to suit their predisposed character traits. In my opinion, of course.
If you think about the ephemeral nature of being alive, anti-solipsism has a lot going for it.
The question "why exist" is a non-starter, however, since the question can only be posed (and answered) by some part of something that _does_ exist. Existence IS, there is no why. Why is non-material.
Well, it's two different things, obviously. "Why continue to exist?" is personal but "Why does anything exist?" is much more interesting. Except, I'm starting to think it's a loaded question, as your parent, I think, was implying. Due to our innate perception of things coming into and out of existence.
If you think about it, anti-solipsism, or at least the pre-solipsism era lasted for millions of years before solipsism. That fact alone makes me think solipsism is a bunch of hogwash.
I like Raymond Smullyan's strategy for arguing with a solipsist:
Only I exist.
Absolutely correct. Only I exist!
As far as philosophies go, I also like his "Materialist Mystic" stance. (Not Raymond's personal philosophy. He just thinks it's a neat idea.) A big unspoken assumption of many materialists is that they could understand everything if they'd bother to. But even Richard Feynman said that hardly anyone really understood Quantum Mechanics. I'm sure there are innumerable things out there that could be understood in rational terms, but which are not understood yet. I guess that last one is my version of Faith.
Actually, there is something of an anti-solipsist position. Thomas Nagel discusses it in his classic "The View From Nowhere." If solipsism might be regarded as holding that nothing exists other than what is perceived from one's _subjective_ viewpoint, then anti-solipsism holds that nothing exists other than the _objective_ "viewpoint." What the anti-solipsist would deny is his own perspective as a subject in the world, which as one might imagine, is as impossible as holding a solipsist position. Nagel's book strives to reconcile these seemingly irreconcilable perspectives -- subjective and objective. Recommended reading.
I disagree with this interpretation of anti-solipsism, although since I don't exist, it's okay if you find my argument lacking.
I feel that other people still exist as subjective entities, just that the validation of my subjectivity is lacking, ie, while it seems obvious that every human throughout the existance of mankind has had the subjective experience of existing, I disbelieve that any reasonable percentage of them believe that I have had the subjective experience of existing. Therefore, while it seems to me that I have the subjective experience of existing, that's just an artifact of semantics. In reality for 99.99999999999% of the cosmos (actually the number is zero) I do not, in fact, exist.
But I'm sure Nagel is more on the money. Sounds like a good read.
People can also be bent. I saw a documentary the other day where neurologists explained that much of our perception of the world is a construction of our brain, that's why it can easily be tricked by illusions.
One of them concluded that since your world is shaped by your view of it, changing the way you think changes the world. This was the neurologist who had studied meditating people. No one explicitely mentioned philosophy as way to change your thinking though.
Isn't Trent Reznor somewhat of an anti-solipsist? A lot of his lyrics hint at it.
I did a search for it, and ironically this thread came up as one of the top results. I guess Google _really_ likes YC News. I would be interested to read more about it, I guess I'll have to dig a little deeper.
beautiful sentiment, but don't make him the center of your universe, because YOU should be the rightful, temporary center of his universe and not the other way around.
Remember that the end goal of your being his father is for him to become his own man; if your identity is solely 'his father' you will have nowhere to stand when he is no longer first and foremost 'your son'. A man with an identity crisis does not a mature man's father make. For his sake, devote your life to something honourable and deserving of your attention; he will see your example, and model after you, directing his energy upwards and outwards, instead of inwards and downwards like you are doing.
You may not believe me, but that's exactly what happened to the Chinese (my) people, so, be careful.
1. Making sure he has the opportunity to become exactly whom he wants to be, regardless of what that is.
2. Through example and instruction, ensure that he's capable enough to properly value and evaluate his different options, and mature enough to work hard enough to achieve them.
While ultimately, everything I do is tempered by what I think would be the best for him, I do live my own life and have my own goals. For example, I've always wanted to be a pilot, and in due time I hope to achieve that goal. I'd love for him to share in that accomplishment, but I certainly have no expectations of him to become a pilot himself, and if he's not that big on flying, it certainly won't stop me.
Your advice is sound though. From my outside observations (I live in Vancouver so I get a good chance to observe) of asian families in general, I think there are many that should be heeding your words. I'd just as soon say though that many North American raised people - regardless of culture - could use some more devotion to something other than themselves though!
I live for the moments when I forget I exist. Can happen when doing math, physics, philosophy, or listening to music; being able to transcend my existence.
I would like to think that java programmers adhere to objectivism thus I must be into functionalism which I feel is an analog to utility? Making proceduralism futility?
To become united and in line with the beauty and vitality of Nature, and to become united with those we love - what other ultimate object in life is there? Surely all these other things, these games and examinations, these churches and chapels, these district councils and money markets, these top-hats and telephones and even the general necessity of earning one's living - if they are not ultimately for that, what are they for?
I follow the philosophy of the Divine Porcine. Briefly stated, followers of this philosophy believe there must be a divine being, since how else could you explain that bacon, ham, and pork chops all come from the same wonderful animal?
well trying to prevent a midlife crisis. By the time I hit mid to late 30s I want to be spending a lot more time on things that I am passionate about - my family, kids (hopefully when I have them), my violin and entrepreneurship, and lot less at a job that sucks out my life!
Not knowing everything. I don't know exactly what drives me, but i have an enormous need to find out. The same with all sorts of other questions, if most people were me, and asked themselves the same stuff as i do, and got similar answers, they would be either mad, or really weird, I've managed to stay slightly mad and moderately weird, but i don't know for how long, and I'm eager to find out.
The existence of nothing is equivalent to the existence of everything; neither can exist without the other since their respective definitions can only be expressed in relation (as a negation) of the other.
Both existence and a lack thereof are a part of the one same entity.
This entity mirrors itself infinitely both in "space" and in "time".
It mirrors itself in "time" by alternating between the states of existence and a lack thereof.
It mirrors itself in "space" exponentially by necessarily drawing a border around itself because the very existence of both existence and a lack thereof must give rise to a lack of existence and a lack thereof, if and only if it is to adhere to its own rule, to which it must by its own definition, which itself must exist by definition in the first paragraph.
This process of progressively expanding the "borders" of existence continues ad infinitum and gives rise to what we know as reality.
It's asking myself your question that drives me. I do whatever I do because I _believe_ (taken on faith) that it gives my existence meaning, and that ultimately, by doing enough of what I do, I hope to glean some insight into why I exist.
I dislike doing anything based solely on faith, but in this case I regard my "belief" as certain as my "belief" in mathematics describing the truth, i.e. I consider both pretty much absolute.
Here's a related commentary I found helpful, 2nd para lists (in a relatively archaic style, you have to parse it a bunch of times - 3 different religious answers to a similar existential question):
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/divinelife/auro/auro_fateandfree...
(note: I don't advocate Hinduism, Sri Aurobindo or promote belief in God, am merely searching the answer to the question - "why am I not a fatalist?")
If I continue to contribute small pieces of knowledge, technology or such to the world, hopefully someone will be inspired by all those collective bits and pieces (in combination with those of others) to eventually answer the big questions and promote the well-being of our species.
I flipped a coin to decide whether I should up mod or down mod this. Was the coin flip pre-determined by my previous actions? Did I actually up mod or down mod this? :)
I am into negative philosophies, it often is a lot easier to say certain important ideas are false than to establish an overarching truth. One negative philosophy is that determinism is incoherent as a philosophy, since philosophy implies choice. While simple sounding, that idea is actually very, very deep and cuts through every discipline I know of. It forms the basis for my views on capitalism, technology, metaphysics, etc.
If it isn't a choice, then there's not much point talking about it, is there?
Another example is Rand's argument that there is absolute truth: saying there is no absolute truth is a self contradiction, so it is an untenable position. That avoids the whole problem of trying to point out a specific absolute truth, while still showing its the better position.
There is nothing random in QM, only in it's interpretation. But interpretations are meaningless as there is no way to differentiate them via experiment.
I'd like to hold the opposite view: There is randomness but the world is still deterministic. Just imagine there was a big one-time table of random numbers generated with the world. Whenever a random bit is needed, it's gets taken from the table.
Thought that can be changed due to experiment (bayesian thought). Deconstructuralism applied to society and preconceived notions of truth (or even if truth exists). Nondeterminism and how that applies to free will. Thats what makes me get up in the morning.
I exist because of a certain chain of historical events. I continue to exist because I am programmed to maintain my existence and because my environment makes doing so with high probability (at least in the short and medium term) remarkably easy. Everything else is post-hoc storytelling.
Here's a simple one that usually works: care about other people, contribute to the world around you. After that, the rest of life figures itself out pretty easily.
If you want some sort of logic or math proof on why this is, remove head from rectum.
I believe I was created in the image of my creator–I think that's why I have an innate desire to create myself (and why we all do). And part of the reason I exist.
Its great to be in movement;
dont know for people in other ages, but in our time, things seems to be acceleratin and that makes it a great time to live.
Since you exist, you should find this interesting, except that it came from me, an entity that is just a figment of your imagination.
Then again maybe not.
As you can see, I'm still working out some bugs with this worldview.
(grin)
I joke because I find the question slightly inane: people are who they are. It's not like they choose a philosophy and suddenly become something besides the emotional, reasoning hominids they've been all their lives. Philosophies can be bent, and people are really good at bending them to suit their predisposed character traits. In my opinion, of course.