On anti-solipsism

[NeverEverClever]

So basically, I had an idea this evening which I cared to elaborate in my mind. Let me try to write down my thoughts about it:

(Just in case you dont know what solipsism is: The idea that everything else than yourself is an illusion, the only existing thing is you.)

So basically, everybody (atleast everybody I met til now) says that solipsism cant be disproven. I agree that it cant be really disproven, but I will try to discredit it to be a valid philosophical position to be hold.

Basic assumption of my theory is that Descartes was right about his cogito-argument. One cannot (philosophically) deny his own existance. So much it is on par with solipsism. But here starts the train on a different route. Which is (philosophically) better (or less worse): Denying existance of something, that really exists or agreeing to assume more entities (even when it goes against the grain of ockhams famous razor)? We cannot say if anything else than us really exist, so we cant be sure that we're denying the existance of something that really exists. But we can be sure that if we assume more entities to build our philosophy on (everyone else), we're adding "unnecessary" (compared to solipsism) entities to our theory.

So basically, I am leaning towards the second option, with the added help of this idea: If we assume that we're in a debate with others (philosophy is essentially a debate with others...), we have to agree on premises to be able to talk to eachother well. The premise of his own existance is true to every debater and cant be denied by them. So it is resonable, if we want to participate in a philosophical discurse, that we also take over the premise of the other debaters, esspecially as they're fundamentally proven for every debater (and thus no real premise anymore). In the end, if we want to do philosophy, we have to do this or we're acting illogical by wanting to participate in a debate but denying that the debaters exist and thus denying the very reason to debate, and wanting to debate. So any solipsist who tries to label his stance as a philosophical one is inherently acting illogical and thus his solipsism would be disproven as a philosophical theory. So the only way left for a solipsist would be to deny his solipsism to be philosophical.
Goal achieved. Solipsism is no valid philosophical option.

Any thoughts about my reasoning? Is it sound (right)? Did I forget something? Did a philosopher write something similar before me, and if so, who and where? Thanks in advance ;)

[Brutananadilewski]

(Just in case you dont know what solipsism is: The idea that everything else than yourself is an illusion, the only existing thing is you.)

Not quite.

The way you've phrased it makes an assertion about the non-existence of everything else, more specifically that other things are illusions, which is unsubstantiated. Solipsim itself doesn't make such assertions, it is merely "the claim that only the self can be verfied, or demonstrated to exist." Notice that this claim doesn't make any positive asertions concerning the nature of other entities (whether illusions or not), but only deals with the existence of the self. This sort of distinction holds much different implications for the discussion of said philosophy.

In the end, if we want to do philosophy, we have to do this or we're acting illogical by wanting to participate in a debate but denying that the debaters exist and thus denying the very reason to debate, and wanting to debate.

This conclusion only holds true if your assertion that you need another separate entity in order to to have a reson and/or want to debate in a meaningful way is true. It isn't, because antagonism can arise in a single entity, and 2 separate entities are not needed for having and/or wanting reasonable debates. To illustrate: when you are evaluating the evidence for something, like a research paper, you look for the underlying logic supporting the conclusions as well as opposing logic/evidence. One is weighed over the other in order to make a decision. In this way, a "debate" has occured; 2 opposing views have been presented and 1 is chosen, but only 1 actual entity has partaken in the aforementioned process of viewpoint selection.

[lardbodger]

I was thinking that logically, since the only thing you can know about is the self, the only way to attain knowledge is to perform experiments upon the self. The most obvious one to me, is to attempt to destroy yourself i.e. suicide.

It's here that solipsism kinda links up with a lot of things, like extreme black or white thinking, and I've heard it said that the only certainties in life, are actually in death.

If you really want to know the truth, you have to be prepared to pay the ultimate price for it.

Otherwise you have to start making assumptions about life, i.e. introducing uncertainty. There is no knowledge in life. You can't *know* anything, sure, you can choose to *believe* things, but without suicide, there's no knowledge.

So say you did try to commit suicide, there's absolutely no way of knowing what you'd find. You could imagine that your attempt would fail, and you might find yourself in a hospital bed, perhaps damaged or wounded in some way. So what would you then do? Well, you'd have to try again, etc. etc. There's only way to found out, crossing the rubicon, whatever you want to call it, that's about the only thing I can say I know, that it seems to me the path to any knowledge must involve suicide. Otherwise you have to start believing in things.

[dan888]

You're assuming that I actually exist and I am not actually a figment of your imagination.

[HackerX]

Basic assumption of my theory is that Descartes was right about his cogito-argument. One cannot (philosophically) deny his own existance. ;)

This is the obvious failing. It's a pity it's one that doesn't come up often enough.

"I think, therefore I am".

And if you don't think? Then what?

It's important to understand that "existence" is a concept, a thought itself, such that it is a circular definition. To think about thinking, I must be able to think.

If you take away that circular definition, things aren't half as clear. If I don't think, then of what meaning is my definition of existence?


"I think, therefore I am" is the ultimate expression of free will.

Solipsism is a variation; "Only I think, therefore only I am" It is saying that there exists only one with the freedom to define.



Hmmm, I read the OP further. The concept of disproving solipsism because, to paraphrase, it wouldn't be fair to the debate of philosophy, isn't something I've come across before...

Logic is a consequence of philosophy, not a requirement.

[Myth]

Your stance only works if you take a limited view of the self- self in self. Self in others and others in self is still self.

[Ither]

The strongest argument against solipsism is that it is impossible consistently to predict the (re)actions of others.

[HackerX]

The strongest argument against solipsism is that it is impossible consistently to predict the (re)actions of others.

Solipsism doesn't require that the solipsist has conscious control.

[Ither]

Solipsism doesn't require that the solipsist has conscious control.

This makes no sense to me.

I say the act of awareness of the act of objectification itself presupposes the not-self and consequently the unpredictable.

[thod]

A familiar model is a 'Matrix' type scenario. You cannot be sure that anything is real since the wires into your brain can provide experimental results consistent with the illusion. Descartes statement 'I think therefore I am' can be rephrased 'All actions require an actor'. It is the act of thinking, an action, that implies the actor. What then are we to conclude about the cessation of action? For example when in deep sleep you cease to have consciousness, yet still you wake. If we desire continuance of the self when we require an outside agency to provide that continuance. Some would argue that there is no continuance, that all memories are false. Thus you are created for a moment then recreated with the same memories. Yet once again we have an external actor doing the creating, since it cannot be the self.

What is the self? I no longer possess the child's mentality I once did and like Theseus' ship, my body is replaced with new atoms. So I have to ask not just if the world exists, but if I exist. Descartes fails to consider what the 'I' is in his statement. The 'I' would seem to be constantly changing from moment to moment, and false memories prevent any knowledge of what once was.

[MrDoom]

Solipsism is either false, and hence inconsequential; or it is true, and by the conditions of its own truth, inconsequential (just like determinism).

Admission of solipsism changes absolutely nothing about the state of existence.

[Conservationist]

(Just in case you dont know what solipsism is: The idea that everything else than yourself is an illusion, the only existing thing is you.)

It's just a tautological paradox. If everything in the world is created by me, but still behaves as if independent from me, by interacting with it I am affirming it as more important than the will of my personality, which would be like it an independent object within my self.

[MaleVolentworld]

You're supposed to laugh at them, not try to disprove them...they won't mind since you don't really exist...this is your chance to steal their wallet too.

[pocohauntus]

It's just a tautological paradox. If everything in the world is created by me, but still behaves as if independent from me, by interacting with it I am affirming it as more important than the will of my personality, which would be like it an independent object within my self.
This is an excellent post.

Admission of solipsism changes absolutely nothing about the state of existence.
Could you please explain this further?

[zibber]

This is the obvious failing. It's a pity it's one that doesn't come up often enough.

"I think, therefore I am".

And if you don't think? Then what?

All Descartes said is that there is thinking, which, I must admit, there does seem to be. It's been about a year since I last read the meditations, but I recall that being the gist of the first part, rather than specifically I think, thus I am. This phrase presupposes the existence of I, who then thinks, which is definitely not Descartes' point.

[Zombicide]

This makes no sense to me.

I say the act of awareness of the act of objectification itself presupposes the not-self and consequently the unpredictable.

Is one always in total control of their dreams? No. Is there objectification in one's dreams? Yes. Can one consistently predict the reactions of others in their dreams? No, so your argument is refuted by the real life sample of solipsism that we have known as a dream.

Unfortunately there really is nothing new under the sun as it turns out Descartes technically beat me to this counter argument in his "Dream Argument".

Any thoughts about my reasoning? Did I forget something?

Yes, you did, besides the fact that this isn't necessarily an argument against solipsism, you forgot the very fact that solipsism is the reality the solipsist is (possibly eternally) trapped in, so it's pointless to not debate oneself if one wants or essentially needs to, especially if as far as one knows, the self is all one has available to debate with. If anything it makes more sense to debate others in the relative safety of solipsism than to do so in what we know as "reality".

Besides that, even in briefly inhabiting such an existence, it would be and is the same motive, I'll use the same analogy I just made to the other commenter.

Does one talk to the characters they experience in a lucid dream? Oh but why? They aren't real? Why the hell does an oneironaut do such an "illogical" thing? It's technically just you arguing with yourself aka deliberation / thinking aloud, so why bother? In fact, why bother doing the things one enjoys at all? Well gee, none of it's real, to do what one can and wants in a dream is simply "illogical", they should just stand still and do absolutely nothing ... because apparently that would be the only logical thing to do. Don't even think or entertain the notion that others may exist or entertain their existence as if they are real (enough) just because obviously for all intents and purposes they are real even if only existing as real figments of your imagination because doing that is (ironically) just too darn illogical. One would think a solipsist wouldn't even bother to think or imagine a conversation, hell, thinking wouldn't be real...or no more real than the rest of the illusion, so why bother deliberating in your head like yuh do with others who are in actuality the self in a dream? *Shrugs*

Yours is not an argument against solipsism, it's an argument for solipsists to stop taking debates seriously based on the notion that they're only arguing with figments of their imagination. Your argument ignores the fact that believing other people are externally real is not essential to a person's motives in debating others. For some reason, you presupposed that it's illogical to debate others if they're only figments of one's imagination. The easy answer being that they might as well.

It's like you said, there's no way to disprove solipsism. Btw, the fact that it's predictable that virtually no one else will have the capacity to realize that I just blatantly refuted this argument against solipsism, is suspicious in a way that makes me slightly more inclined to solipsism but that's fine...I still have to live in this (nightmarish) reality because it's the only reality I have, so I have to deal with it as best I can, and shape it to the same best of the abilities I have in many of the instances of my dreaming...

Damn, apropro my pragmatism has been trumped by my usually minute degree of solipsism, causing me to bother arguing this as if there are virtually no potential hazards of doing so. Well, at least I managed to refrain from giving away the farm in regards to a few other relevant arguments for solipsism.