Yes the only certainty is that you’re right. And nothing anyone has said here could convince you otherwise. After all, we haven’t seen through your eyes.
I asked you earlier for one example of someone who has freaked out in a similar way to you. I’m still waiting.
And now “the general opinion” is a much stronger claim. What have you got to back it up?
Hogwash.
Growth implies and objective definition of better, which doesn’t exist. Neither does progress. It’s just an opinion. If you guys were as studied in philosophy as you claim you would know that. There has to be an end for there to be progress, which there isn’t. The same can be said for growth.
Some students I knew from a few philosophy courses had similar reactions when the mention of solipsism was brought up. They ended up dropping the class at that point and even the instructor decided to avoid that subject to not discourage other students from continuing. After looking more into solipsism I can see his concerns were valid. He said it wasn’t the first time that occurred.
So the people who aren’t scarred by solipsism seem to be a minority, lucky them.
As for general opinion, you would just need to ask anyone off the street. That would give you a good estimate of what people think of the “use” of philosophy. It’s just a hamster wheel.
What students? What instructor? What people? What hamster wheel? If they’re all an illusion, stop referring to them as if they existed. At least be consistent in your fucked-up insanity.
No, growth implies an objective measurement of “bigger.” The human population has grown; you’re taller than you were when you were five; the national debt is bigger; a sponge gets bigger in water.
Why? Human literature, for example, has progressed, but has no end. The fiction we can read today is (in some parts) much better than any of the fiction available in A.D. 1500 or A.D. 1000. Medical science has progressed: we can heal and cure ills that were untreatable and incurable 500 years ago.
You keep basing your opinions on things that aren’t even close to true.
Not sure who M. knows from philosophy courses that M. has told us (s)he never took ("I didn’t take a class of philosophy in school ") but dang, pretty much everyone I knew had the essence of solipsism considered pretty after bong hit number two with no class or book reading needed. “Whoa. Maybe what I experience is all that is real! Everything’s an illusion man.” usually came right after “Could be a whole universe in my fingernail dude!” And right before raiding the kitchen for munchies and getting paranoid listing to Pink Floyd.
Thank goodness those thoughts did not break their minds like they did M.'s. These folks were wasted and a wasted mind would be a terrible thing to break. Or something like that.
Most never had to make this call.
A little Mederma rubbed on did wonders for their scars.
But we readers of this thread need to recognize that we are dealing with a self-reported unreliable reporter, a person who tells us (s)he has “a broken mind”. So given that the reporter is a broken mind we really can only believe those things stated that we can observe for ourselves … like the fact that we are dealing with poster who has a broken mind. Anything reported that we cannot independently verify? Well, the mind reporting it is broken … So telling us both that (s)he never took a philosophy course and that (s)he knows people from philosophy courses … well to be expected.
Is philosophy worth studying? Well it prepares you to ask the questions, like the question most Philosophy majors know to ask their first day on the job after they graduate: “Do you want fries with that?”
This thread has much in common with the following:
A chicken and an egg are lying in bed. The chicken is leaning against the headboard smoking a cigarette, with a satisfied smile on its face. The egg, looking a bit pissed off, grabs the sheet, rolls over, and says, "Well, I guess we finally answered THAT question.
As for the growth that M. refers to … I’d have it looked at by a dermatologist. They may want to remove it. And they promise no scar.
What you said was:
There is a difference between saying X is not part of philosophy, and that philosophy states (makes the claim) that there is no such thing as X.
Or to do a like for like swap, with a subjective term (which growth largely isn’t, but following your logic through): “Philosophy states that there is no such thing as a stink. Because stinky implies an objective definition of what smells bad, which doesn’t exist. It’s just an opinion”.
I meant that I didn’t learn it from my courses but from a book. I took courses in school to try to make sense of it since no psychologist is useful in fixing the issue. But they weren’t much help either, which just proves my point about philosophy. Don’t embarrass yourself. You also clearly don’t understand what is meant by a broken mind.
Well that is essentially what any subjective feeling is, personal opinion.
I think you mean philosophy, since it seems synonymous with insanity. You fail to grasp that I don’t want to submit to the belief that they aren’t real. But it’s hard to struggle against the fact that I cannot definitively know whether they are real or not, or if the world is. I can’t even know if I’m real, but that’s not the issue.
Also as an addition, I doubt potheads have such thoughts and even if they did they don’t truly grasp what they mean. It’s just nonsense they spout under the influence. If their minds don’t “break” it’s because they aren’t thinking about what they are saying. Your point is null.
Riiiight.
Yeah. You took the classes that you said you didn’t. I can accept that. But this absurd claimed that you learned it? That goes beyond credulity.
Meh. Sorta like porn. I know it when I see it. And lots of both on the internet! And both share some loose screws.
None of us know if you’re real either so s’okay.
As one who had been a pothead in college - why back when and always studied first mind you! - and only until I got bored with it - I think I can claim the “my post is my cite” on this one.
I would argue that not only does “growth” not have an objective end point, but that it, both in biology and in philosophy, is best defined as “change”. It includes the death of cells (biology) and ideas (philosophy) as new cells (biology) and new ideas (philosophy) become more vital to the organism’s existence.
I do have compassion for the broken brain. When I first realized, truly understood and internalized that my husband could literally die at any moment and leave me…it broke my brain. I could not stop the constant panic that every cough might be the respiratory failure that might take him. Every pause on the stairs was his CHF stopping his heart. I became truly non functional for a time, paralyzed with anxiety and, for lack of a better term, “pre traumatic stress disorder.” And the thing was…I wasn’t wrong. He truly is a sick man, and by any actuary tables, he will likely die a good two or three decades before me. And it could happen at any moment in time. The problem is that I can’t live like it’s happening at every moment in time.
Same with solipsism. Yes, we all might be an illusion and nothing matters and everything is futile. But we can’t live like that is true. We have to eat and poop and work and pay rent. We have to live as if solipsism isn’t true. That idea needs to die, or be contained, for further growth to happen.
Your self study of philosophy has brought you to the place I was when I couldn’t live because of my fear of my husband’s imminent death. What you refuse to consider is that solipsism is only one tiny fragment of Philosophy. It’s not all of it. It’s not even most of it.
You’ve educated yourself like a small child playing with matches has educated himself into knowing how to start a fire. You haven’t educated yourself enough to learn how to contain a fire and put out a fire. That child hasn’t learned Fire, he’s learned one small piece of Fire. You’ve learned only one small piece of Philosophy.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Your issue is with psychosis, not philosophy. Please get some professional help.
Agreed…and I would vote for “contained.” It’s something you keep in a vault in your mind, and, every once in a while, you take it out, look at it, shrug, and put it back again.
As another example, science cannot prove “cause and effect.” It might all be some colossal cosmic set of coincidences! When I let go of the hammer, it falls, not because of “cause and effect” but because the hammer was all about to fall anyway.
Absurd? Obviously! But it cannot be disproven! It’s a totally useless dead-end, and if science is going to make one darn ounce of sense, this notion of “causal coincidence” needs to be put aside.
But, philosophically…it’s always there, grinning at us like the Cheshire cat.
They’re not quite the same thing, but anyway, what does that have to do with your point that “philosophy states there is no such thing as growth” and my counter-argument?
Are you saying philosophy states there is no such thing as subjective feelings and/or personal opinions?
Philosophy says there’s no such thing as “no such thing.” 