What is the best way to prove that reality exists outside of my mind?

>>9014110
>>>/lit/ this is metaphysics and there is no way to prove it

>>9014110
Kant's argument about the point in time you say 'I exist'

>>9014110
Nice picture.

>>9014110
im pretty sure there is absolutely no way to do that. I mean the only ABSOLUTELY definitive statement you can make is "I exist", but you can't really prove anyone/anything else exists. you constantly have confirmation bias

>>9014110

Outside of your mind, as in in space? Or outside of your mind as in, mind-independent objects which resemble your perceptions?

For the former, see Kant refutation of idealism. For the latter, find a theory of realism that isn't vulnerable to idealist objections.

>>9014110

Shoot yourself in the foot, see if anyone outside of your mind will react to it.

>>9014118
>>9014123
>>9014125
Just because Kant refuted idealism through logic and philosophy it doesn't mean he proved anything. All statements regarding these kinds of things eventually reach some kind of bedrock that cannot be proven. An analogy would be calculus without defining R, eventually you're faced with the problem that all your logic depends on whether the reals actually exist. Sure we see in analysis how they are constructed, but this construction is impossible in philosophy and metaphysics.

>>9014132
Kant refuted subjective idealism insofar as he demonstrated that the knowledge of the persistence of our identity over time could only so constituted if there were objects in space. However, this relies heavily on his Critical doctrines, and is not necessarily a desirable alternative to, say, Berkeley's subjective idealism that he looked to refute. Hence, why I distinguished between outer objects in space (which are not necessarily mind-independent) and mind-independent objects.

The idea that we can reach no solid foundation seems rather false to me. Moreover, R relies on the supposition of the possibility of a complete infinity, which requires a metaphysical argument, so that's not the best example to begin with, I don't think.

>>9014149
You raise some interesting points, unfortunately that's way beyond what I can argue about.

>>9014110
Flip a coin and guess the outcome.

You will be wrong eventually.

>>9014110
>prove
"proof" presupposes an external reality from which you get your evidence.

>>9014223
Not really. You have logic, metaphysics, and the contents of your own mind to work with.

Kill yourself. We will all remain and continue shitposting.

> needing to prove this sort of thing to people

Do yourself a favor OP, and practice not being autistic. Go along with stupid retarded beliefs you cant tolerate just to practice doing so.

Just google problems with/criticisms of solipsism

>>9014282
Solipsism is just the view that only your mind exists; I took OP to be talking more broadly, as in, can I prove there is an external world?

OP here. This is something that genuinely concerns me. When I look at something with my own eyes, I can never be sure that others see it in the exact same way. I can never be sure that anything I look at, is actually *what it is*. I very much love the idea of empiricism, but how can I be if an empiricist if I cannot be sure that I can observe reality objectively?

How do you get over this fear? Do you just say "fuck it, what I see with my own eyes is objective reality, case closed"? That just doesn't convince me

>>9014110
Believe in God.

>>9014110
Pinch yourself. Come to the conclusion that even if you're stuck in your head or not in touch with reality, you still gotta treat whatever you're in touch with as being real. I had the same problem a while ago. I did Salvia 20x for my first trip, and I was taken aback so far that I thought it would be possible to wake up in the forest I was tripping in, ALL in one BIG trip. Time is really the best remedy for this type of problem.

>>9014294
Look into naive realism in philosophy. Roughly Aristotle's empiricism.

File: 1484215449335.gif (640KB, 200x157px) Image search: [Google]

640KB, 200x157px

>>9014193