1

Consider the following scenario:

Person A never ate a cake. Person B has eaten cake before. Now A has the opinion that A dislikes cake (and brings up several arguments), but B argues "You've never tried one, so how would you know?". So, is A's statement invalid now? And is this called solipsism?

Another scenario-questions as an example only:

How would you know that you are heterosexual if you've never had sex with the same sex before?

How would you know that your birthday present is bad/good if you've never opened it yet?

How would you know that cats are heavy if you've never hold one in your arms?

Improve this question
5
  • While hands on experience may be necessary to form informed opinions in some cases, it is not needed in this case. Whether someone likes or dislikes something can be judged by observing their reactions, there is no need to imitate what they do (and it is unclear how imitation would contribute any useful information). And no, this has nothing to do with solipsism.
    – Conifold
    Commented Sep 28, 2020 at 6:01
  • How would you know that jumping from a bridge will kill you if you haven't jumped from a bridge before? B is either asking A why they think they wouldn't like cake. e.g. A doesn't like sweet foods, has celiac disease, doesn't like baked goods.... - or dismissing any rational explanation other than "I've tried it" (..... "but not THIS cake"!)
    – ptyx
    Commented Sep 28, 2020 at 15:58
  • The main point you should walk away with is this FORM OF REASONING is NOT RELIABLE. You as a rational person should never pick and choose when the circumstances benefit you or not. By YOU I mean the person reasoning "if you didn't experience or you can't do x so . . . " There is no circumstance where a rational person should accept that FORM OF ARGUEMENT. One bad case means in Rhetoric people will start picking & choosing when the outcome accidentally or coincidentally benefits the person, their family or friends. This should not be allowed once proven unreliable period.
    – Logikal
    Commented Sep 28, 2020 at 16:55
  • Statements are not valid or invalid. Validity is a property of deductive arguments. And even if the argument is invalid, it doesn't prove that the conclusion is false, it just means it lacks justification. Person B is not presenting an argument, in a philosophical sense. There are several arguments that can be used to express what B trying to say. If the OP wants an analysis, providing us with an argument that can be analyzed is necessary. Solipsism is the belief that only you exist-- or at least you are the only thing that can be known to exist; it has nothing to do with scenarios presented
    – Rob
    Commented Sep 28, 2020 at 21:24
  • Thanks for all the responses so far! Everyone of them helped me to clear up some misunderstandings. I personally experienced this "trope" used in exactly that way (books, movies, shows, ...), so I thought that there was some trickery or terminology behind that and I got curious to know more about it. But if it's all in all a quite flat and shallow expression then that shall be an acceptable answer for me.
    – kiaat
    Commented Sep 28, 2020 at 23:25

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .