frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Don't solipsists accept something other than their own existance?

Debate Information

 This is more of a question than a claim. Solipsists say the only thing they can be sure of, is that they exist. 

 The thing I can't make sense of is, they reach this conclusion by using logic. Meaning: in order for them to be sure that they exist, they first have to accept logic. So, don't solipsists accept two things? First logic and then their own existance?
someone234



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    The logic is part of them and their thoughts. It's a semantic distinction 
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand "I am only sure that I exist." look more carefully. Being sure that you exist, and being sure of your thoughts is 2 different things.

     The quote only says that they can be sure that they exist, therefore, logic exists. But the quote does not say anything about being sure of logic itself. 

     "We can be sure that logic exists." and "We can be sure of logic." are 2 different statements.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    AlexOland said:
    @Ampersand "I am only sure that I exist." look more carefully. Being sure that you exist, and being sure of your thoughts is 2 different things.

     The quote only says that they can be sure that they exist, therefore, logic exists. But the quote does not say anything about being sure of logic itself. 

     "We can be sure that logic exists." and "We can be sure of logic." are 2 different statements.
    When solipsists say that they are only sure they exist, they are referring to the existence of their own minds and thoughts. It's based on the logic of "I think therefore I am". They don't actually believe in the provable existence of their physical form, it is specifically refering to the existence of their mind and thoughts ergo any thought they have whether it is a logical statement, an emotion, etc  is already covered.

    Applesauce
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand I repeat, "I am sure that logic exists." and "I am sure of logic." are two different statements. Solipsists accept that logic exists but they say nothing about its validity.

     "I am only sure that I exist." this can not be true, since they must also be sure of logic before reaching this statement. 
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    Solipsism to me is nonsensical because they are Nihilists in denial. 

    Full Nihilists (epistemologically not just morally) hold nothing as objectively undeniable and only think our perception of reality is the only reality we can ever come to 'know'. This includes our idea that we are us as opposed to all of reality 'playing roles' as people etc.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    AlexOland said:
    @Ampersand I repeat, "I am sure that logic exists." and "I am sure of logic." are two different statements. Solipsists accept that logic exists but they say nothing about its validity.

     "I am only sure that I exist." this can not be true, since they must also be sure of logic before reaching this statement. 
    And can you name a single way in which either the logic or the surety that their logic is right exist except as thoughts in the Solpipsist's mind and hence covered by the central belief of solipsism?
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand I don't think you understand. Yes, when solipsists say "I" their thoughts and their logic is involved in that "I" as well. But they only claim that these things exist. They never make the claim that logic and their thoughts are valid.

     There is a difference between saying "Logic exists." and saying "Logic is valid.".
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    AlexOland said:
    @Ampersand I don't think you understand. Yes, when solipsists say "I" their thoughts and their logic is involved in that "I" as well. But they only claim that these things exist. They never make the claim that logic and their thoughts are valid.

     There is a difference between saying "Logic exists." and saying "Logic is valid.".
    Logic would tautologically be logically valid by definition.
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand That is irrelevant. "I can only be sure that I exist." here, solipsists claim that they are not sure of the validity of logic. If you present a way that we can be sure of logic, that only supports my case.

     But the reason you presented is contradictory as well. "Logic is valid, because logically, logic must be valid." this is circular reasoning.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    There is a difference. "I exist" refers to me as an object, as a physical part of the world. "Logic exists", however, refers to an abstract, non-tangible concept, which is not represented by a physical object. You cannot interact with logic, but you can explain various things by using logic. Logic is an abstract tool and conceptual entity, much like consistency or feasibility are.

    In this context, the abstract concept of logic is used to make a claim. One does not need to acknowledge the existence of logic in the Universe in order to use it to build up a statement. The statement "I exist" in the first place is made in the logical framework; the framework exists simply based on the fact that it is being used.
    Applesauce
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -   edited August 2018
    AlexOland said:
    @Ampersand That is irrelevant. "I can only be sure that I exist." here, solipsists claim that they are not sure of the validity of logic. If you present a way that we can be sure of logic, that only supports my case.

     But the reason you presented is contradictory as well. "Logic is valid, because logically, logic must be valid." this is circular reasoning.
    The logic is just a part of their thinking. It isn't a physical object you stumble across in the street or something you find in your pocket. Ergo as the logic is part of themselves, it is included when they reference their own existence and there is no contradiction.

    Also logic being logical is the same as a=a. It is not circular reasoning because that implies some kind of chain of reasoning that ends up back at the starting point. There is no chain here, it is just the definitions of words standing on their own. If you think a =/= a or logic is not logical, you are a moron because by definition they must be.

  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand I will repeat yet again because you do not seem to understand. "I am sure that logic exists." and "I am sure of logic." are two different statements. The statement "logic exists" says nothing about logic's validity.

     "Logic is logical because a=a." that statement is based on logic. If logic is incorrect, that statement is incorrect. Again, there is no way for you to prove logic, using logic. I will not, however, claim that you are a moron for not noticing this(unlike you). Because thinking about logic itself is quite confusing.

    @MayCaesar I do not think you understand my argument. Yes, logic is used to make a claim so it would only make sense if the one who made that claim accepted logic. But solipsists do not say that they accept logic in any part of their statement. "I am only sure that I exist." yes, logic is a part of "I" but yet yet again, saying "I am sure that logic exists." and saying "I am sure of logic." are two different statements.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -   edited August 2018
    AlexOland said:
    @Ampersand I will repeat yet again because you do not seem to understand. "I am sure that logic exists." and "I am sure of logic." are two different statements. The statement "logic exists" says nothing about logic's validity.

     "Logic is logical because a=a." that statement is based on logic. If logic is incorrect, that statement is incorrect. Again, there is no way for you to prove logic, using logic. I will not, however, claim that you are a moron for not noticing this(unlike you). Because thinking about logic itself is quite confusing.

    @MayCaesar I do not think you understand my argument. Yes, logic is used to make a claim so it would only make sense if the one who made that claim accepted logic. But solipsists do not say that they accept logic in any part of their statement. "I am only sure that I exist." yes, logic is a part of "I" but yet yet again, saying "I am sure that logic exists." and saying "I am sure of logic." are two different statements.
    Repeating an irrelevent argument does not make it relevant.

    Your argument is "Don't Solipsists accept something other than their own existence".

    As explained both statements exist as thoughts in the Solipsists mind and are thus just covered as part of their existence. Both the logic and their thought process that leads them to accept the logic are part of their mind - the only thing that they accept certainly exists. Ergo the answer to your question is a no, they do not accept anything else apart from their own existence.

    Again, if you disagree feel free to point out even a single way in which from the Solipsist's point of view they rely on anything external to their own thoughts to accept the premise of their philosophy.

    If logic isn't logical then it isn't logic, like if a isn't a but is actually b then it isn't and never was a.
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand That is my argument. There is no way for solipsists to think outside of logic. But they say they do not accept logic. Therefore, they are wrong.

     If I said: "I do not accept logic." is that statement correct because I... do indeed accept logic? You see the absurdity of your argument, right? You think solipsists can say that they don't accept logic.. because they accept logic.

     "I am only sure that logic exists." means that they are claiming that they are not sure of logic itself. Which is false.

     "If logic isn't logical then it isn't logic, like if a isn't a but is actually b then it isn't and never was a." ...again, you are using logic. What you just said is only valid if logic is valid. If logic is invalid, then that statement is incorrect as well.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -   edited August 2018
    @AlexOland

    "But they say they do not accept logic."

    False. 

    You simply say that they do not accept this by implication because you personally consider their thoughts about logic as separate from the rest of their thoughts.

    You cannot actually support this argument in any way though, despite being asked to do so multiple times. Ergo your argument is built on an unfounded accusation and can be discarded.

    Also logic cannot be illogical by definition. If not - again, provide an example.

    If you are right, why are you unable to provide a single example for either half of your argument. If you could show a single example of logic that is illogical or how the logic of the solipsists argument exists desperate desp their thoughts then you win the debate. Why are you unable to do this?



  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand
    "Also logic cannot be illogical by definition" ... that statement uses logic. So if logic is invalid, that statement too is invalid. 

    "If not - again, provide an example." how should I provide an example for something that is not based on logic, when "example" itself is defined only in logic? Humans can not step outside logic. It is our only way of thinking. But we also have no way to be sure of it. 

     "You simply say that they do not accept this by implication because you personally consider their thoughts about logic as separate from the rest of their thoughts." Oh my god.. please read my arguments. Yes, their thoughts and logic are part of them. But logic can not be valid only because it exists. When someone says "Logic exists" they do not claim that logic is valid. One must say "Logic is valid." if they want to claim that logic is valid.


    "If you are right, why are you unable to provide a single example for either half of your argument. If you could show a single example of logic that is illogical or how the logic of the solipsists argument exists desperate desp their thoughts then you win the debate. Why are you unable to do this?"
     I already touched this but let me repeat what I have been saying until now.

     I don't claim that I am sure of logic being invalid. I am only saying that there is no way for us to be sure. Why do I say this? Well, let me explain.

     We can only think within the boundaries of logic. So, in order to prove logic's validity, we can only use logic. But if logic is invalid all of our conclusions must be false. Therefore, there is no way for us to reach a conclusion about logic's validity, when we are thinking with logic.
    Applesauce
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    AlexOland said:
    @MayCaesar I do not think you understand my argument. Yes, logic is used to make a claim so it would only make sense if the one who made that claim accepted logic. But solipsists do not say that they accept logic in any part of their statement. "I am only sure that I exist." yes, logic is a part of "I" but yet yet again, saying "I am sure that logic exists." and saying "I am sure of logic." are two different statements.
    I would say that this is assumed from the way they construct their sentence. Our language is based on logic, so if a solipsist did not accept logic, they would never be able to make the statement "I only know that I exist". 

    You could dig deeper and state that they also do not state that they accept the concepts of "I", "only", "to know" and "to exist" - but just as logic, those concepts are embedded in the language itself.

    Very strictly speaking, language has certain problems due to not being defined in axiomatic terms, as, say, math is - so objections such as yours will always be possible... However, I am not sure if this problem can ever be remedied. After all, you can only define axiomatic basis of a language by using that very language, and it creates an infinite loop that is very hard, if not impossible, to untangle.
    AlexOland
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    AlexOland said:
    @Ampersand
    "Also logic cannot be illogical by definition" ... that statement uses logic. So if logic is invalid, that statement too is invalid. 
    Stating that "if logic is invalid" is not an actual argument that logic is illogical or even that it is possible for logic to be illogical.

    Fortunately as explained previously, logic by definition must be logical and cannot be illogical - that is a tautological statement. In fact if logic were invalid then your claim here would be paradoxical as logical argument for why logic is illogical would also defeat itself (being based on logic) and thus automatically be untrue. You are defending a position where by definition I must be right you can be nothing but wrong and the only argument that could allow you to win is literally impossible to make because it would cancel itself out.

    Congrats, you may be making the single worst argument of all time.

    AlexOland said:
    how should I provide an example for something that is not based on logic, when "example" itself is defined only in logic? Humans can not step outside logic. It is our only way of thinking. But we also have no way to be sure of it. 
    Who am I to tell you how to back up your arguments? You are the one that is claiming logical arguments can be illogical, essentially the same as "a =/= a" or "1 = 2"; something that by its very definition cannot be true.

    You are the one who has made these claims. If you can't back them up, which if course you can't, then concede.

    AlexOland said:
    Oh my god.. please read my arguments. Yes, their thoughts and logic are part of them. But logic can not be valid only because it exists. When someone says "Logic exists" they do not claim that logic is valid. One must say "Logic is valid." if they want to claim that logic is valid.
    And how in any conceivable way does any possible implication of any of your claims have any bearing on the topic of "Don't solipsists accept something other than their own existance"?

    You have conceded, as is obvious, that their thoughts including their own logic are just their thoughts and part of the "I" that they are talking about existing. Hence when they say "I think therefore I am" that is just part of them thinking, nothing separate from them. When they think "I believe in the logic of that thought that I just had, that was logically valid" that is still just a thought in their head and nothing separate from them. Every part of it - every single word and concept related to the words exists in their mind and is part of their existence which is all they accept. The logic doesn't exist separate from their mind. it's not an object. By accepting their own thoughts they are not accepting the existence of anything separate from themselves. Even if for some unknowable reason in this hypothetical they were wrong in their logic and it wasn't valid, that would just mean their logic wasn't valid and wouldn't mean that they had accepted something other then their own existence and ergo your point would still be wrong even then.

    If you actually think these random statements have any bearing at all on the topic under discussion then actually make that argument.

    AlexOland said:
     I already touched this but let me repeat what I have been saying until now.

     I don't claim that I am sure of logic being invalid. I am only saying that there is no way for us to be sure. Why do I say this? Well, let me explain.

     We can only think within the boundaries of logic. So, in order to prove logic's validity, we can only use logic. But if logic is invalid all of our conclusions must be false. Therefore, there is no way for us to reach a conclusion about logic's validity, when we are thinking with logic.
    But at no point even in this hypothetical do they accept the existence of something other then themself - which is the topic under debate - so your claim is still false.
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand I would try to respond, but I would be repeating what I have said until now. Like, you again tried to prove logic using logic which would be invalid if logic was invalid and you again tried to say that "I" involves "logic" which I have talked about many times. Why don't we just say we disagree and leave it at that?

     By the way, let me get this straight. As an example, you want me to show you an illogical statement that sounds logical? And you claim that if I do not show this I must concede? I do not think you understand the debate we are having right now. We are logical beings, trying to question logic itself. And you say: "You think logic may not be true? Then show me evidence!!" do you not see the absurdity of that?

    @MayCaesar  That is a good point. Does not really refute what I am saying, but you are right. It is hard(if not impossible) to state some thoughts in our language. But does this make it okay to say: "I do not accept logic."? I don't really know. This is the problem with questioning logic itself. It doesn't really get you anywhere. It's just impossible for us to go too deep because we are limited by logic and also our own language.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    @AlexOland

    I think one could say "I do not accept logic" as a metaphor, but it would be a very tricky sentence, because, technically, even not accepting logic is still some form of logic. For example, one could take the nihilist approach and say, "Nothing matters, including logic. I accept nothing, including logic." - however, nihilism in itself is based on certain axiomatic ground, and that ground and its consequences represent logic.

    Another option would be questioning a certain logical framework, saying that one does not accept that framework - but accepts others. In the Ancient Greece, there was a rivalry between two different approaches to logic: Aristotelian logic and non-Aristotelian logic (called sometimes Socratic logic). The differences are fine and complicated, but in general my interpretation is that Aristotelian logic was based on the assumption->conclusion scheme (essentially the cause-effect connection), and non-Aristotelian logic was based on the existence of certain objective facts not depending on any assumptions. Aristotelian logic nowadays is often simply called "logic", because our entire way of thinking, everything we do is based on this approach, and some even call it "the natural way of thinking". However, someone who still practices Socratic logic (I would say it is common among very deeply religious people) might disagree with the conventional logic and say, "I do not accept the logic".
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    AlexOland said:
    @Ampersand I would try to respond, but I would be repeating what I have said until now. Like, you again tried to prove logic using logic which would be invalid if logic was invalid and you again tried to say that "I" involves "logic" which I have talked about many times.[/quote] Why don't we just say we disagree and leave it at that?

     By the way, let me get this straight. As an example, you want me to show you an illogical statement that sounds logical? And you claim that if I do not show this I must concede? I do not think you understand the debate we are having right now. We are logical beings, trying to question logic itself. And you say: "You think logic may not be true? Then show me evidence!!" do you not see the absurdity of that?

    Logic by definition must be logical. This is tautological statement and not up for debate.

    Regardless, it's clear at this point you have absolutely nothing and are struggling to distance yourself from your own idiotic arguments.

    Besides the fundamental incapability of your argument, you haven't even attempted to prove your hypothetical scenario. If this debate were "Who would win in a modern War, Germany or France" then you do you think you could win the argument by saying "Germany would win. I think this because if German people are 200ft tall cybernetic superhumans who each have the firepower of a battleship then they could easily defeat the french army"? No, because simply posing a hypothetical does not prove that hypothetical is real. You would have to actually prove that Germans were all 200 ft cyborgs - which you wouldn't be able to do because they aren't.

    Similarly you saying that if logical is illogical then logic isn't real is meaningless - if you want it to be relevant then you have to prove that logic is illogical which you've already conceded you can't do. Your complete inability to provide any evidence is your issue, not mine, and it shows that you are unable to meet the most basic requirements of a debate. Each debater having an onus to back up their own arguments is fundamental to debating.

    Lastly as pointed out in my last post - even if by some magic you were correct about every single thing you just said you would still have lost the debate. You've talked yourself in circles so much you're arguing points that have no relation to the topic. The topic is not "Are solipsists wrong based on any conceivable hypothetical scenario I can imagine", it's "Don't solipsists accept something other than their own existance?". Even if magically logic war illogical, then they're be wrong because logic is magically illogical - not because they'd accepted something other than their own existence.

    Ergo you are wrong on every single level and are unable to mount even the most basic defence or offer a single iota of proof to support your claims - claims which are utterly irrelevant to the topic under discussion.
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -   edited February 2019
    @Ampersand I know it has been a long time, but I simply did not see this response. So I apologize for trying to revive a year old conversation. I would understand completely if you do not want to continue the discussion. I just feel the need to continue because I am overly-obsessive when it comes to debates.

     Let me make myself more clear on why I think we cannot be sure of logic itself:
     Logically, every statement or concept needs to be proven in some way for us to accept it as valid. Claiming that logic is valid is also a statement. We can only think within the boundaries of logic, so whatever argument we present for logic, that argument will also be constructed by logic. "Logic by definition must be logical." this is an argument which proves that logic is valid by using this simple logical fact: "If we define x as 1, x must be 1.". 
     But that logical argument, as we can see, is logical. And is wrong if logic itself is wrong. "Logic must be valid because it is logical to think so." if logic is not valid, it wouldn't matter if it is logical to think logic is valid. 

     Or, in a more general sense the argument is this:
    Premise 1: We can only make logical arguments.
    Premise 2: A logical argument cannot prove logic's validity because that argument would be not valid if logic is not valid.
    Conclusion: We can not prove logic's validity.

    ---

    "Similarly you saying that if logical is illogical then logic isn't real is meaningless" you are missing the point. I did not say "logic might be illogical" to prove anything. That statement came after the proof I had presented above. "Logic might be illogical" because we just do not know if logic is valid.

    ---

     "Your complete inability to provide any evidence is your issue" A logical argument is also an evidence. Just because I say: "logic might not be valid." I don't have to directly show an example of logic not being valid. Also, this debate is specifically about the validity of logic itself. Which is a paradoxical subject. Thus it can not be viewed in the same way as other subjects. I present an explanation as to why I think logic might not be valid and you refuse it because you want a specific type of evidence which is impossible for me or anyone to give you. You need to understand that we have to think in a not accustomed manner to get around the paradox. 

    ---

     "You've talked yourself in circles so much you're arguing points that have no relation to the topic." let me explain why I am trying to prove that logic might be invalid:
    - I said solipsists must state that they accept the validity of logic. 
    * Your response was that they already do accept it by saying "I exist." because "I" involves "logic".
    - I then explained that "logic exists" and "logic is valid" are 2 different statements and saying that "logic exists" does not imply you accept it's validity in any way.
    * Your response was that logic must be valid and you went on to explain the logical reasons behind it. If logic is without a doubt, valid, then solipsists do not have to state that they accept logic. It is self-evident that they accept logic.
    - This made it necesarry for me to show you why logic might not be valid even though there are logically valid arguments for logic's validity. This is where I am right now.

     So if I prove that logic might be invalid, this will make it necesarry for solipsists to make the statement that they accept logic as valid. Thus showing that solipsists are contradicting themselves when they solely say that: "I am only sure that I exist.".

    ---

     "Ergo you are wrong on every single level" Ergo this statement of yours is utterly incorrect. 
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    @AlexOland

    I think I see what your getting at, but to me, it seems there are problems with your argumentation...  Proof implies Logic, whether it's mathematical, empirical, etc, as a "proof" is ultimately the result of a logical process... The first statement a solipsist must agree with is this one "I think therefore I am", which is by necessity prior to any other solipsist statement, and implies an adherence to logical principles no?

    Also, Logic is inherent to a deterministic universe, it is confined within the boundaries of space-time. Outside of space-time, Logic cannot exist and within Space-time, logic is inherently valid as it has no choice but to be valid or it is not "Logic"... I think you would first have to prove that our universe is NOT deterministic to even have a shot at proving that Logic might be invalid...

    It should be noted however, that agreement on what logic is has remained elusive to this day, and although the field of universal logic has studied the common structure of logics, in 2007  Till Mossakowski & Razvan Diaconescu, commented that "it is embarrassing that there is no widely acceptable formal definition of 'a logic'". So you have that on your side... ;) 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen ;
    "The first statement a solipsist must agree with is this one "I think therefore I am", which is by necessity prior to any other solipsist statement, and implies an adherence to logical principles no?"

     The definition of solipsism that I am objecting to is this: 'the extreme form of scepticism which denies the possibility of any knowledge other than of one's own existence'
     So, what you are explaining is actually a part of my argument. Solipsists, like every other human, are bound by their logic when making statements. So no matter what conclusion they arrive at, they do it with logic. Therefore they cannot solely accept that they exist, as this means they would deny 'logic'. 
    ---

     Let me try to say what I explained in my previous comment, in Layman's terms: Logical creatures will never be able to disprove that logic might lead to false results because if logic did lead to false results, every logical argument they made for logic could also have been one of those false results.

     
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    @AlexOland
     The definition of solipsism that I am objecting to is this: 'the extreme form of scepticism which denies the possibility of any knowledge other than of one's own existence'
    What does "one's own existence" means to a soliloquist? They must be hard to find nowadays but, would I be right in assuming that some (maybe most?) soliloquists even doubt that they have an actual "physicality"? I've not read extensively on this particular subject just the headlines so to speak...



    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen It is somewhat hard to put into words. "one's own existence" is not referring to that person's physical body but his awareness. For example, assuming you exist just like myself (I hope this assumption doesn't make me sound pompous from your perspective), I know that I am at least "something". I know that I "exist" (I do not mean this only in a physical way, hence the quotation marks) because... well... it is self-evident? Maybe that is not the right word for it but if you do exist(...), I think you will understand what I am trying to say.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    I understand but what I'm getting at is, from a soliloquist point of view (that they can only know  (or "be sure" the exact quote?) that they exist), he can only be sure of this "awareness" but can't be sure of his own physicality, right? I mean, does a soliloquist by definition, questions also his physicality? That was more along those lines I was asking... ;) 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    @AlexOland

    No problem.

    " Let me make myself more clear on why I think we cannot be sure of logic itself: 
     Logically..."

    Your argument fails at literally the first word. You can't make a logical argument that logic is invalid as success would nullify your own premises which you used to reach that conclusion.

     I don't have to directly show an example of logic not being valid.

    True, you just have to provide a logical reason why logic man not be valid. Of course in doing so you will again be making a paradoxical statement which can be ignored, as logic cannot simultaneously be true (which is required for your statement to true) and maybe not true (which is your conclusion).

    The best you can actually do is say "I kind of think logic might not be valid but can't prove it."

    To which I respond: "Great, but things you can't prove even might be true are irrelevant"

    I present an explanation as to why I think logic might not be valid and you refuse it because you want a specific type of evidence which is impossible for me or anyone to give you

    No, I'll except any evidence. The issue is your argument invalidates all evidence because all evidence will at some point rely on logic. Don't blame me when you make poorly thought out philosophical statements that are impossible to prove, that's on you.

    let me explain why I am trying to prove that logic might be invalid:

    You still don't seem to understand. Even if you magically proved your improvable argument, that would mean Solipsists are wrong because the logic supporting their argument is wrong. 

    This argument isn't about if Solipsists are wrong in general or wrong because their logic is wrong. The debate topic is "Don't solipsists accept something other than their own existance?"

    Right or wrong, the logic they use is a thought in their head and has no separate existence beyond them. Ergo they are not accepting something other than their own existence and regardless of whether the logic is right or wrong, the answer to the topic is "No, solipsists don't accept anything other than their own existence"
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand "Your argument fails at literally the first word. You can't make a logical argument that logic is invalid as success would nullify your own premises which you used to reach that conclusion."
     I did not say "Logic is invalid.", I said "Logic might be invalid.". Let me explain the difference between these two things by wording my own logic in a different manner:
    * The question is: "Can our logical conclusions be false?" and we have logically concluded that no logical conclusion can ever be false. See the problem more clearly now? We are questioning our own logical conclusions and we are trying to answer the question with a logical conclusion. This next part is hard to put into words. We make the logical conclusion that we can not be sure of any logical conclusion. This statement being kind of contradictory IS the evidence. We followed an entirely logical reasoning and reached at a conclusion that contradicts another logical conclusion. "Logic is true" and "Logic might be true". It is a logical conclusion that logic must be true but it is also a logical conclusion that logic might not be true. You say: "Oh! They contradict! This means that your conclusion is false!" but that is not the case, as I believe to have shown. 

     "The best you can actually do is say "I kind of think logic might not be valid but can't prove it." "
     This is straight up, a lie. I said that I can't give an example for it. Never in the entirety of this discussion, did I tell you that I can not give you proof for what I think to be true. I actually said THIS in the comment you responded to: "A logical argument is also an evidence. Just because I say: "logic might not be valid." I don't have to directly show an example of logic not being valid.". You can think that my evidence is not valid, but you can not claim that I say I do not have evidence, and still defend my point. Please do go on with your pointless insults, I couldn't care less about those. But your dishonesty, I can not tolerate. 

     "You still don't seem to understand. Even if you magically proved your improvable argument, that would mean Solipsists are wrong because the logic supporting their argument is wrong." I did not claim that. Let me copy paste my summary of our argument, which I have written in my previous comment to you (you would have seen this if you actually read the comment to understand it):

     - I said solipsists must state that they accept the validity of logic. 
    * Your response was that they already do accept it by saying "I exist." because "I" involves "logic".
    - I then explained that "logic exists" and "logic is valid" are 2 different statements and saying that "logic exists" does not imply you accept it's validity in any way.
    * Your response was that logic must be valid and you went on to explain the logical reasons behind it. If logic is without a doubt, valid, then solipsists do not have to state that they accept logic. It is self-evident that they accept logic.
    - This made it necesarry for me to show you why logic might not be valid even though there are logically valid arguments for logic's validity. This is where I am right now.

     "
    the logic they use is a thought in their head and has no separate existence beyond them.I have answered this a million times... yet here we go again! "Logic exists." and "Logic is valid." are two different statements... therefore, even though it is true that their logic is a part of them, they have to mention that they accept it. 
     Assume this sentence: "Logic is invalid." can you justify it by saying: "Oh, logic has no separate existence beyond who says this. So this man, too, accepts logic.". No, you can not. The problem isn't that they accept logic or not, the problem is that they say they don't. 

     
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch