Firstly, and to clarify -- logic is 'given' to us. It is our innate (a priori), and our ONLY, means of coherency; of "making sense" of anything. Without it, nothing is sensical; everything is non-sensical.Burning ghost wrote:If logic is either discovered or made, and you take it as “discovered” then solipsism an option.
Secondly, I don't get what you mean when saying "solipsism is optional" with "discovered" logic. Can you expound on this?
Logic has no say-so in the matter. It can't "dismiss" solipsism. Logic can't prove or disprove solipsism, or say if others 'are' or are 'not' zombies. For one to claim/assert, one way or the another (zombies or no-zombies), does so without any logical justification. Any claim made is therefore just a 'blind faith' claim, and not a 'logical' claim.Burning ghost wrote:It makes no sense to say on one hand that solipsism is impossible to dismiss whilst claiming to “discover” rather than “create” logic.
To clarify - one must insist on psychologism in order to take a stand EITHER WAY (to adhere or dis-adhere to solipsism) without a logical basis to do so. If one greatly dislikes the notion of solipsism, then they will be psychologically unable to accept such a scary notion, and will dismiss it outright (without any logical justification).Burning ghost wrote:One must insist on psychologism in order to adhere to solipsism.
I don't follow your point here. There is no logical argument for or against solipsism. There is no logic that supports or counters solipsism.Burning ghost wrote:If that is the case then any logical argument given is on shaky ground (given that your foundation is “logic” it follows that you know nothing other than some choice to accept “logic” on blind faith whilst calling it psychologism by way of denying any counter to solipsism).
Furthermore, if we wish to "make sense" then we don't have a choice to accept or not accept logic. If we wish to "make sense", then logic is the ONLY tool we have. If we don't wish to "make sense", then we can bypass logic, and claim anything we want.
So again, are you trying to imply that we should consider some "beliefs" as "truths"? I don't understand your point. Are you trying to say that some beliefs are closer to truths than others, and if so, then by what basis is one belief more "truer" than another?Fooloso4 wrote:Again, you miss the point. You are using both ‘beliefs’ and ‘truths’ in a narrow and constricted way.