this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)

weirdway

70 readers
1 users here now

weird (adj.)

c. 1400,

• "having power to control fate", from wierd (n.), from Old English wyrd "fate, chance, fortune; destiny; the Fates," literally "that which comes,"

• from Proto-Germanic wurthiz (cognates: Old Saxon wurd, Old High German wurt "fate," Old Norse urðr "fate, one of the three Norns"),

• from PIE wert- "to turn, to wind," (cognates: German werden, Old English weorðan "to become"),

• from root wer- (3) "to turn, bend" (see versus).

• For sense development from "turning" to "becoming," compare phrase turn into "become."

OVERVIEW

This is a community dedicated to discussing subjective idealism and its implications. For a more detailed explanation, please take a look at our vision statement.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Talk more casually about SI here without having to make a formal post.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] syncretik 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If I perceive something but then someone else perceives something then what makes the minds perceive the same things.

There are infinitely many possible answers to this question, and they are all as true or false as you believe them to be.

I'd like to question the question: what makes you so sure that there are other minds that perceive the same things you do?

Originally commented by u/VLSIHeaven on 2018-10-28 10:24:19 (e8kny2b)

[–] syncretik 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

[deleted]

Originally commented by u/[deleted] on 2018-10-28 11:22:26 (e8kr82c)

[–] syncretik 1 points 1 year ago

But then wouldn't that be objectivly true?

I don't know what "objectively true" means. How can I assign meaning to this notion?

I assign meaning to the notion of "truth" in various ways, depending on the context. As an example, when I'm discussing the weather with another person, I have a way to confirm or disconfirm statements about the weather. It's raining if water falls from the sky in small droplets. In our realm at present, this is a conventional way of dealing with truth: I "check" it using evidence from (my) sense perceptions. But it is no less subjective and volitional than any other ways of dealing with the notion of truth.

Originally commented by u/VLSIHeaven on 2018-10-29 07:13:28 (e8mee1b)

[–] syncretik 1 points 1 year ago

I feel like the beauty in subjective idealism is that objective truth is somewhat merged into it when you ponder on the idea more deeply. For instance, when you try to think about the subjectivity of another mind, you can only think about their subjectivity through your own subjectivity, so it cancels the other and you are only ever perceiving from yourself. No matter how "outside" of yourself you think you are getting, you are still observing from the same place, regardless of what the observer is observing.

Originally commented by u/shaneith on 2018-11-01 02:58:57 (e8smacm)