>> There is much I don't understand about epistemology. I can sort of
>> see the doubt about the external world but I don't understand the
>> certainty that the solipsist exixts. How could one demonstrate to
>> one's self that one is real?
Very good, and in a sense, this goes beyond the "Matrix" or the "brain
in a vat theory" being the idea that we could be fooled about
everything we experience. But what about if the self is the result of
only the activities of and around the brain, this would leave an
opening where our very self-itself could just be a machine clunking
away somewhere...
But Witt was even ahead of that for his "irrational theory" leaves
that opion open even if there were gods or aliens or swamp zombies
doing it.
On Hume's Irrational Alternative to sense-data or "ideas"
http://tinyurl.com/58gyxg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amZAdQHmyqI
You have three choices here and sometimes the irrational would be a
unique choice;
[Rationalism] is opposed to empiricism on the question of the source
of knowledge and the techniques for verification of knowledge...It is
opposed by irrationalism, a view that either denies meaning and
coherence in reality or discredits the ability of reason to discern
such coherence. Irrational philosophies accordingly stress the will at
the expense of reason...
[Empiricism] is the philosophical doctrine that all knowledge is
derived from experience. For most empiricists, experience includes
inner experience—reflection upon the mind and its operations—as well
as sense perception. This position is opposed to rationalism in that
it denies the existence of innate ideas. According to the empiricist,
all ideas are derived from experience; therefore, knowledge of the
physical world can be nothing more than a generalization from
particular instances and can never reach more than a high degree of
probability.
[Irrationalism] An irrationalist is someone who tries to convince you
(usually through some supposedly rational argument) that you should
not be convinced by rational argument (!), but rather through some
inexplicable or mystical means such as INTUITION.
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ra/ratlism.html
http://members.aol.com/Philosdog/Irrationalism.html
Ludwig Wittgenstein became dissatisfied with his earlier position and
began to express a conservative irrationalism. He rejected the idea
that language has a single essential function. It is not structured by
correspondence with objects but by its role in the stream of life. The
notion of meaning is explained in terms of use. Meaningless or
metaphysical discourse is language 'on holiday', that is, not employed
in a language game that has a genuine role in a form of life. The job
of the philosopher is to inhibit our tendency to detach words from
their real use.
http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/stafflag/ludwigwittgenstein.html
Glock distinguishes five variations of the latter position that share
the conviction that is based mainly on the mystical part of the
Tractatus, namely that Wittgenstein's project should be characterized
in terms of wanting to show that philosophy should not provide any
explanations or justifications (Glock, p. 196):
1. Existential Irrationalism (Engelmann, Drury) stresses the mystical
and ethical aspects of his work
2. Nonsense Irrationalism (Diamond, Conant) claims that because of the
saying/showing distinction image of throwing away the ladder, the
Tractatus aims not at showing ineffable truths but plain gibberish.
3. Therapeutic Irrationalism (Bouwsma) holds that the Tractatus is
proposing to abandon philosophical problems for the sake of
intellectual tranquility.
4. Aspect Irrationalism (Baker) holds that Wittgenstein is not putting
forward a philosophical argument but wants the reader to change his
outlook.
5. Postmodern Irrationalism (Rorty) claims that Wittgenstein wanted to
abandon the traditional philosophic search for truth in favor of a
form of descriptive anthropology.
It is important to note that irrationalism should not be equated with
refraining from conceptual clarity and argumentation. Some of the most
vocal proponents of reason present their case in a completely
irrational manner (e.g. Hegel), while it is conversely possible to
attack the intellectualist picture by way of rational argumentation
(e.g. some strains of American Pragmatism or Schopenhauer).
http://artsandscience.concordia.ca/philosophy/gnosis/vol_vi/witt_review.html
