It is nothing to do with solipsism. It just means when you say something exists, it must be based on your sense perception.
You keep insisting something exists when you can see nothing. I am not sure what ism that would be, but it is not quite correct.
Umm, saying that one can only speak of the world through what one personally senses combined with the assertion that time simply does not exist (and hence the world did and will not exist) outside of one’s lifetime might not be solipsism per se (in that you could posit that other people exist, just that they came into being fully formed when you were born), but it clearly points to a rather solipsistic worldview.
I was never talking about before or after the death of someone. It would be irrelevant and meaningless to talk about that.
What I was talking about was the ground of existence, not solipsism. How is it solipsism if we see something visible and can verify, then agree on the certainty of the existence? Obviously you are not quite understanding what solipsism is.
So if you see a word “fiction”, and then you automatically link the word with solipsism? How dangerous and short sighted prejudgement is that?
You were arguing that things like WW2 were “fictions” because one did not experience them by oneself (because they happened before the person you were conversing with was born).
By extension, it follows, anything one did not experience by oneself, including other people’s personal existences, are also “fictions”, and hence the entire world is merely that what you personally experience.
So are you now arguing that there is a consensus reality existing outside of your own mind? And consequently, are you conceding that this consensus reality is not bounded by the time of your birth and the time of your death?
Fictions could be stories written by the novelists. Fictions could be some themes in the stories, technological devices or situations in the films imagined by the artists. film directors and also inventors.
You cannot claim all fictions are false because you wouldn’t know if it will turn out to be true after your death.
My point was fictions could be true and real, even if you haven’t experienced because you have not been born, or the fictions can turn out to be true after you died.
Nelson Goodman said fictions can be metaphorically true. I don’t see how fictions can be real. What’s real are inscriptions and pictures that describe fictions. What’s considered a scientific fact today can be revised in the future, but that doesn’t make it a fiction.
When the fictions exist as fiction, they exist for real. If you go to cinema and watch a fiction movie, the fiction movie exist in the real world, and the fiction is real.
Superman is not real, but the cartoons, movies, and actors are. To talk of Superman as if he is real is misleading.
Superman in the movie is real. If it is not real, no one can watch it.
If fiction is not real, then it is not fiction.
If fiction is not fiction, then it is real.
Given those two premises, one can conclude that if fiction is not real, then it is real.
It follows fiction is real.