MyKell

This is a question for everyone:
Is there anything one can do to prove to him/herself that the outerworld is there? That is, he/she does not have to make the assumption, it should be a tested hypothesis.

sweep

jump off a cliff. IF you survive, then you'll know that the world isn't real.

what does this have to do with realism/idealism BTW. In an ideal world, If I am the only thing to exist, then I don't want this reality.

Frotiw

There are linguistic-transcendental arguments for accepting the external reality. That is in short that the language presuppose that there is an external reality. It is very difficult(if possible at all) to express linguistic theses that there there are no external reality. Also there is the argument of "the sufficient reasson"*to defend an external reality. That is if you e.g. claim that this is not the reality(e.g. your dreaming or are in the Matrix) then why should this situation(dreaming) be the "reality"? This fake reality might as well be fake and so on in eternity. I might have been a little to sloppy in this presentation but anyway the point is you need a sufficient reason to claim why this "reality" isn't real instead of one the infinity possible others. This is the same arguments used for "what if the world was made 2min. ago? -question". Why should it be 2min ago. Why not 3min? Or 3min and ½sec. There are infinity possibilities and you need a sufficient reason to claim one instead of another. These argument are not "bombproof" flawless but they do indicate that it is not completly unproblematic to uphold such sceptivistic(really) stances(that isn't that sceptic BTW.) The used arguments are curtesey* of Proff. Emeritus D. Faverholdt(SDU, Denmark).


*1 -I hope this is the correct english translation.

*2 -This is where I got them.

Amos

Don' t have to. I can just watch you jump off the cliff and know the difference between illusions and reality.

sweep

yes, you'll know how real it is when you break my fall; then you'll wonder if those stars are illusions.

Amos

I think I would let you bounce first because I "remember" from the last time I tried something like that. Point is, that we are both the inner and the outerworld and either knowingly or unknowingly are in charge of our own destiny.

jpbrooks

I'm really pressed for time, but ...

What is the definition of "is" in your question above?
How can the "hypothesis" be tested without assuming that the "outerworld" already exists?

I'll be home later tonight (hopefully) to reply to any comments.

MyKell

That is what I was asking

Ensign Steve

wiploc posted this brilliant idea in another thread that I started a little bit ago:

What does the original question have to do with idealism and realism, though?

Jen

jpbrooks

Ah! Well, then I misunderstood your position. Sorry. I assumed that your question was prompted by the idea that the "hypothesis" of the reality of an "outerworld" might be able to be tested without assuming the existence of an "outerworld".