Arguments against (or for) Solipsism

[thekaje]

Thereby I conclude that active Soliphistic belief only exists in the minds of idiots.

I think it's pretty clear that this about forty miles over your head.

 

[Tabster]

If my mind is the only thing that exists, then what will causes my eventual death?

What I mean is, if my only evidence for death is other people dying, which is just a product of my mind. Is that now proof that I will die at some point in the future?

Or is this some sort of unanswerable question for solipsics? (like what existed before the big bang for physicists)

Quite frankly, I'm baffled by this whole idea of solipsism.

 

[thekaje]

If my mind is the only thing that exists, then what will causes my eventual death?

What I mean is, if my only evidence for death is other people dying, which is just a product of my mind. Is that now proof that I will die at some point in the future?

Or is this some sort of unanswerable question for solipsics? (like what existed before the big bang for physicists)

Quite frankly, I'm baffled by this whole idea of solipsism.

There is no proof that you will die in the future. You may conclude that it's likely you will die, but even without solipsism, you can't strictly prove such an eventuality without dying. You can say that you are a human and humans die; therefore, you will die. But there is always the possibility that you are special. And there is always the possibility that there is no such thing as death, only what you have perceived to be death in what you have perceived to be other people. None of their deaths may actually have happened, or they may not actually exist.

Really, I don't think "solipsism" is as remote an idea as people here seem to think. It's really pretty mundane and a foundation for scientific inquiry -- there are limits to knowledge, understanding, and above all certainty. There is no absolutely certain reality for any individual but what he experiences in his own mind.

So there aren't "solipsists," really. "Solipsism" is just a logical/philosophical hypothesis and assertion: you can't prove anything but your consciousness. You can't really dispute that, logically.

How old are you?

 

[GoodGame]

I think it's pretty clear that this about forty miles over your head.

No need to flame me.

It's pretty clear to me that solipsism is not a serious philosophical inquiry (and an review of the history of philosophy will verify that solipsism has not been a recurring subject of philosophy, just a minor thought experiment). It appears that most people here are over-indulging it as a hypothetical, but purely analyzing the logic of it yet failing to attempt to consistently test it as a hypothesis with the introduction of observable facts. So in that, most of this thread is a purely logic taken to extremes.

If solipsism was a worthwhile topic of discussion, I'm sure books would have been written on it by now in the past 2000 years of philosophical inquiry.

No great philosopher has espoused solipsism. As a theory, if indeed it can be termed such, it is clearly very far removed from common sense.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H1

So if being dim-witted is to not use logic to roleplay being an imbecilic god that the universe depends upon, well I'm glad to be a successful dimwit.

 

[thekaje]

Addendum:

No great philosopher has espoused solipsism. As a theory, if indeed it can be termed such, it is clearly very far removed from common sense. In view of this, it might reasonably be asked why the problem of solipsism should receive any philosophical attention. There are two answers to this question. First, while no great philosopher has explicitly espoused solipsism, this can be attributed to the inconsistency of much philosophical reasoning. Many philosophers have failed to accept the logical consequences of their own most fundamental commitments and preconceptions. The foundations of solipsism lie at the heart of the view that the individual gets his own psychological concepts (thinking, willing, perceiving, and so forth.) from “his own cases,” that is by abstraction from “inner experience.”

This view, or some variant of it, has been held by a great many, if not the majority of philosophers since Descartes made the egocentric search for truth to the primary goal of the critical study of the nature and limits of knowledge.

In this sense, solipsism is implicit in many philosophies of knowledge and mind since Descartes and any theory of knowledge that adopts the Cartesian egocentric approach as its basic frame of reference is inherently solipsistic.

 

[Kennigit]

I just think that if I invented everything, you all would be a lot cooler than you are.

You already determined what is cool and what isn't cool. How can you make something cooler if everything is a product of your mind?

you made the way I am

edit- augurey reminded me that I love the idea of a solipsistic door knob having his door torn off in a robbery

 

[emzie]

Even if it were one's mind was all that existed and everything else was a projection of it, that fact would not change one's world.

This morning i started writing a short story about a solipsistic door knob. i have yet to decide how i will conclude it. I figure i can have his door torn off in a robbery so that he can see outside his room(he figures his mind is lazy and so only invented a single room for him to see as he cannot leave it). Or he concedes to his mind(who he thinks is trying to trick him into lazy enjoyment) by just refusing to think anymore so he can play his Shakespearean part; he is a doorknob after all. But then also i think i want to switch the perspective over to a solipsistic ceiling fan or what-have-you and then something else just so the whole self-based thought rubric seem silly. Everything else is innate to the narrator after all, only he is animated. But it seems that way to everyone.

I like you.

 

[Orange Seeds]

Really, I don't think "solipsism" is as remote an idea as people here seem to think. It's really pretty mundane and a foundation for scientific inquiry -- there are limits to knowledge, understanding, and above all certainty. There is no absolutely certain reality for any individual but what he experiences in his own mind.

So there aren't "solipsists," really. "Solipsism" is just a logical/philosophical hypothesis and assertion: you can't prove anything but your consciousness. You can't really dispute that, logically.

How old are you?

Yes but you don't need to prove something doesn't exist in order to say it does not exist. That is philosophically backwards and is the rudiments learned in any academic philosophy course. I can effectively say anything is true and then demand that the skeptic proves it isn't. Not only can you not prove solipsism deductively but you cannot adequately prove it inductively. In other words, it fails Russell's Teapot.

I prove things empirically. If every day of my life, and ever day of every other recorded and documented human's lives there is a sky and a ground; then that's pretty darn good evidence for those things existing. Before you have any evidence otherwise then you are just practicing intellectual masturbation--which isn't always a bad thing, it is practicing after all. So long as one realizes that the sport changes entirely when there is someone there to critique you.

:

edit- augurey reminded me that I love the idea of a solipsistic door knob having his door torn off in a robbery

i like that ending as well.

I like you.

Aw. That's sweet.

 

[thekaje]

Yes but you don't need to prove something doesn't exist in order to say it does not exist. That is philosophically backwards and is the rudiments learned in any academic philosophy course. I can effectively say anything is true and then demand that the skeptic proves it isn't. Not only can you not prove solipsism deductively but you cannot adequately prove it inductively. In other words, it fails Russell's Teapot.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm saying that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything except your own consciousness.

I prove things empirically. If every day of my life, and ever day of every other recorded and documented human's lives there is a sky and a ground; then that's pretty darn good evidence for those things existing. Before you have any evidence otherwise then you are just practicing intellectual masturbation--which isn't always a bad thing, it is practicing after all. So long as one realizes that the sport changes entirely when there is someone there to critique you.

Of course it is intellectual masturbation. Anyway, you "prove" things empirically within the framework of sensory perception. You "prove" things within the boundaries you've created to explain and unify all of this sensory information. You assume this framework to be accurate and valid. You assume that you feel like you're walking because you really are walking. That's fine. It's just not the only possibility. And that's the irrefutable solipsistic fact.

It's just about the clear limitations of knowledge. It's not anything else.

 

[Orange Seeds]

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm saying that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of anything except your own consciousness.


Of course it is intellectual masturbation. Anyway, you "prove" things empirically within the framework of sensory perception. You "prove" things within the boundaries you've created to explain and unify all of this sensory information. You assume this framework to be accurate and valid. You assume that you feel like you're walking because you really are walking. That's fine. It's just not the only possibility. And that's the irrefutable solipsistic fact.

It's just about the clear limitations of knowledge. It's not anything else.

You cannot prove your consciousness anymore that you cannot prove the empirical world. The only reason you know that you are conscious is because you can sense it and observe it.

Again, other "possibilities" are irrelevant. If you can see no reason for them to exist, then why consider them? If you were to ever write a paper, an article or an apology for solipsism you would be ignored(except maybe by the film and english students who are inclined to like artsy fartsy stuff and would feature it in their student paper) because it has as much credence as the Earth being balanced on an interstellar platonic turtle who's favourite band is Jefferson Airplane.

Which is why it certainly does fall under Russell's critique.

 

[thekaje]

You don't really seem to understand. This isn't something that's considered either controversial or interesting. It's basically just a logical truth.

Your consciousness *is* sensation. Sensation and thought. That's undeniable, to you, the consciousness. What's unknown is the source of that sensation.

 

[warpus]

You don't really seem to understand. This isn't something that's considered either controversial or interesting. It's basically just a logical truth.

Another logical truth is that it cannot be proven that invisible bears do not exist.

It might be a logical truth, but that doesn't make it useful, interesting, or relevant.

 

[Orange Seeds]

You don't really seem to understand. This isn't something that's considered either controversial or interesting. It's basically just a logical truth.

Your consciousness *is* sensation. Sensation and thought. That's undeniable, to you, the consciousness. What's unknown is the source of that sensation.

It is those words that i am trying to push out of your thinking and i have explained why.

 

[thekaje]

Another logical truth is that it cannot be proven that invisible bears do not exist.

It might be a logical truth, but that doesn't make it useful, interesting, or relevant.

Well, again, I'm not asking you prove a negative, much less a trivial negative.

What I'm saying is that the realization of one's inability to be positive of the existence of anything but one's own consciousness and personal sensation is a very profound thing, but it's not a new thing. It's a bit like Newton's laws of gravitation. It's a statement about the limitations of knowledge and the nature of scientific inquiry. It has profound ramifications on questions of God, science, personal humility, and damn near everything. I don't know if you've ever heard of this fella they call "Rene Descartes"...

 

[thekaje]

It is those words that i am trying to push out of your thinking and i have explained why.

I'm not sure I understand your objection to logical truth.

Have you guys ever seen that movie where that guy tries to take down a mountain with this little pick-axe he's got, and he just keeps picking and picking and picking, but it's a whole damn mountain, so he's just not really getting anywhere, but he picks and picks and picks anyway?

 

[warpus]

@thekaje, my invisible bear comment is a logical truth as well. Logical truth doesn't imply anything by itself - It has to be useful in other regards.

 

[thekaje]

@thekaje, my invisible bear comment is a logical truth as well. Logical truth doesn't imply anything by itself - It has to be useful in other regards.

Okay, but you're asking me to prove a negative. I'm talking about the very broad assertion that all knowledge relies on assumptions. This is something that was said and accepted by Rene Descartes in the early 17th century. It has profound intellectual ramifications on questions of God, science, personal humility, and damn near everything.

 

[warpus]

Okay, but you're asking me to prove a negative. I'm talking about the very broad assertion that all knowledge relies on assumptions. This is something that was said and accepted by Rene Descartes in the early 17th century. It has profound intellectual ramifications on questions of God, science, personal humility, and damn near everything.

Yeah sure, it's just that you made a big point of pointing out that this thing is a "logical truth". I'm just saying that just because something is a "logical truth" (or whatever you called it, I'm too tired to check) doesn't really imply anything significant on its own.

I agree that all knowledge relies on assumptions, and we should be saying just THAT, instead of: "Whoa dude, what if like, nobody else is real?"

 

[Orange Seeds]

Well, again, I'm not asking you prove a negative, much less a trivial negative.

What I'm saying is that the realization of one's inability to be positive of the existence of anything but one's own consciousness and personal sensation is a very profound thing, but it's not a new thing. It's a bit like Newton's laws of gravitation. It's a statement about the limitations of knowledge and the nature of scientific inquiry. It has profound ramifications on questions of God, science, personal humility, and damn near everything. I don't know if you've ever heard of this fella they call "Rene Descartes"...

"Je pense, donc je suis." Of course, there is the artificial "Je." Which is what i was getting at before. Look up Kierkegaard critique, and Nietzsche's and the English fellow that i cannot remember his name. It is not a "profound" thing, instead it is a very stupid thing.

I'm not sure I understand your objection to logical truth.

i know you don't understand it. Because you keep saying things like: "Well, again, I'm not asking you prove a negative, much less a trivial negative." and then fail to realize what makes things true and what makes things logical. The keywords are evidence and doubt.

If there is no evidence of something, It does not exist. In syllogistic logic, what you are claiming is not necessary for anything. Basically you are adding something to the equation that fails Occam's Razor in its true and valid form.

Solipsism does not help me understand reality, science, the self, thought or their limitations.

You remind me of myself a few years ago because, then, i thought i knew philosophy by knowing names and quotes and history. I went out and read Kant and Plato and Hobbes and i thought Marcus Aurelius was the Greatest thinker to have ever lived. In modernity, Descarte is as relevant to recent philosophy as Greek colonies are to planning Italian condominiums. (It's based on the same landscape, but the structures and the demands are very, very different.)

 

[thekaje]

I'm really losing interest in this conversation. Forgive me if your apparent failure to understand a basic principle of modern thought led me to believe you had never read anything about the basic principles of modern thought.

The "cogito ergo sum" statement is not really relevant to this, nor is its basic logic disputed.

I have never asserted the existence of anything but thoughts. Therefore, this:

If there is no evidence of something, It does not exist. In syllogistic logic, what you are claiming is not necessary for anything. Basically you are adding something to the equation that fails Occam's Razor in its true and valid form.

Is not only grammatically incoherent, it's irrelevant (and your first statement is just wrong, but also completely irrelevant).

I am not adding anything to any equation. Are you trying to say that I'm doubting what is apparently reality without cause? That's the only POSSIBLE relevance I see of Occam's Razor, but it's also a misapplication, given that I'm not assuming anything at all. I am not inventing an alternate reality. I am insisting on one simple fact: sensation/thoughts are the only real truth.

Now, maybe you're saying that I have no grounds for rejecting what is apparently reality. I am actually asking for certainty that it DOES exist. And there is none. And that is my only point.

This is not new, as you seem to agree. It's also not "debunked," or whatever exactly you're trying to imply. Kierkegaard and Nietzche--again, talking about "cogito ergo sum" and not the solipsistic principle--never questioned Descartes's basic assertion: they actually only wondered whether he went FAR enough in his doubt. Their problem was with his assertion that the "I" could be deduced from the "thinking" -- NOT whether the thinking is all that can be known for sure to exist.