Zeus' Ethics Quiz

What? No. I accept that there exists some things that are seemingly separate from myself. This does not have any contradiction. What it does do is prove your logic wrong. It is entirely possible that everything outside of my thoughts is simply my mind creating an illusion. Thus even though you, and your arguments, seem to be outside of my me they are really not. They are within me so I am currently arguing with myself. My mind is holding two contradictory positions as true and yet is still operating logically.

 

I have shown how 2 under Independence fails. It fails very obviously.

 

@Sythe
http://www.sythe.org/private.php?do=newpm&u=76660

@SuF
http://www.sythe.org/private.php?do=newpm&u=1

 

No. You got back and reread. I made it perfectly clear by counter example that you can argue with yourself. I can't make it any simpler.

 

A) Spam forum
B) Owner of website
C) Even on topic
D) No.

 

Sythe, you have still yet to refute my example of internal argumentation, which counters your independence #2, (debate in one of your dreams: between someone you imagine as one entity and someone you imagine as a separate entity).

Nevertheless, to go about formally proving others' existence, it is not enough to simply refute what your perceive as their arguments of doubt as irrational and contradictory, as the burdon of proof is on you.

I would go about it by using the Platonic idea that knowledge is justified true belief. Therefore, you should define what you view as valid sources of knowledge, provide justified reasoning for how these sources of knowledge are valid, and use the sources of knowledge to determine others' existence.