Debating someone's solipsism

I always considered solipsism to be the philosophy of retards. Like, do you have a single shred of evidence to support your bullshit?

The universe is will.

I can't. You win. or i win because it's MY will. Who cares.

>Like, do you have a single shred of evidence to support your bullshit?
Yes, and it's called solipsism!

there's no philosophy that has a single shred of evidence. it's all just brain farts

This is working on the assumption that "The world is my will" is a solipsistic phrase, which it objectively isn't. Schopenhauer's pure subject knows that the world is not merely his will, but that the will emanates through him. People that never escape the veil and individuation can take this phrase purely solipsistically, but for pure subjects that reach objective states they know it's only the base level of reality to say "I am all." It's much better to say "I am nothing."

But why insist on evidence? Are you prosecuting a legal claim?

Stop being an idiot. Everything in life requires evidence.
>I should just from a window and fly
>Wait! There's no evidence that humans can fly, you will die!
>evidence shmevidence

>hurr I didn read duh books so u hav no argument XD XD
Why do people who have no eye for philosophy join these threads? It'll look less like bullshit if you actually explore the discipline and stop tipping those fedoras

There isn't more than one will- everyone has the same Will.

Why are you getting so upset with your own will, solipcuck?

do you have one?

i'll kiss your ass for the rest of my days if you can give me a single shred of evidence for any philosophical theory

But you're speaking metaphorically. You say there must be evidence because there are "natural laws" which accord with mathematical laws, thereby providing the epistemological basis for science. But all you have done is appropriated the legal idiom.

Who are you even arguing with dipshit?

>Hey can you match your undefined and interchangeable terms against mine and when we're done jerking each other off we'll go back to our respective lives just as useless as before.

>Literature and philosophy

Schopenhauer's evolutionary theory and ideas on species essentially became formalized in Darwin. So they have as much support as that theory does.

Go back to Al Andalus, Averroes.

"The world is a dream of which we are all the sole dreamer."
Andrey Tarkovsky

This somehow seems more about loneliness than solipsism. Maybe because it already presumes a we and all

Scientism at work.

The scientific method is for the falsifiable. Philosophy is not falsifiable, if it is it has effectively become something else. You can not mix the two by dismissing philosophy because you can't apply the scientific method to it. That's some "I retweet Neil DeGrasse Tyson and my favorite Facebook page is IFL Science" tier shit.

There's a contradiction. There can only be one sole dreamer, and that dreamer's me.

Who gets to decide whats falsifiable and what isn't? Any decision done by humans stems from explicit environmental factors and implicit cognitive functions, and therefore becomes a subject of scientific inquiry

You don't get to decide what's falsifiable or not, things simply are or aren't and usually it isn't hard to find out which

Why are there things outside of your control?

If logic is just brain farts then so is maths,. If maths is rubbish then you can't have physics, if you can't have physics you can't have biology, geology, astronomy etc. If philosophy is bunk then you don't get to have science.

nigga

This. Reliance of 'science' on Latinate legal forms. Is the Earth on trial?

you, and your faggot argument don't exist.

D I P S E T

are you the white dude with the history of philosophy podcast that's obsessed with getting cucked by muslim philosophers

THE WORLD AS YOUR WILL =/= SOLIPSISM

that's why it's will AND representation

We are all one god in different parts. Like cells in a man.

>The universe is my will.
and yet you chose one in which Veeky Forums exists, and you chose to post on it

>that's why it's will AND representation

the phrase you're referring to is "Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung". The first sentence of this book is "Die Welt ist meine Vortstellung": "The world is my idea/imagining/representation". You're misunderstanding the word "Vorstellung".

t. someone who speaks Geman

only sensible objects can be determinately willed, so there's no such thing as a will unless there's an external universe

Didn't this dummy say gravity was a product of his will?

It's the world as will and representation because the world consists of both noumenon (will) and phenomena (representation). Reread your Schops.

We are all independent, special beings, and the universe is all of our will. We are a network of extremely important organisms, colliding and meeting constantly in the most beautiful symphony of existence.

>"To deny the reality of the external world is the meaning of solipsism, which regards as phantoms all phenomena outside its own will, thus in it man regards and treats only his own person as a real person, and the rest mere phantoms."
>"Solipsism, of course, can never be refuted by proofs, yet in philosophy it has never been used otherwise other than as a skeptical sophism (for the sake of appearance). As a serious conviction, it can be found only in a madhouse, and it needs not so much a refutation as a cure."

solipsism eternally btfo

Setting them on fire usually changes their mind.

Source/page/section numbers?

It just sounds like every1 is a joker and no1 really cares about dis topic..