• Darkneos
    689
    Something that crossed my mind, though my reasoning says no. I checked this link that said it did but it was bad logic that didn't really follow and made a bunch of assumptions it couldn't prove. You wanted to confirm if that's the case or if I'm wrong.

    https://qr.ae/prbTpk

    Second one doesn't really add anything but I figure I'd add it.

    https://qr.ae/prbTtt

    I'm asking because years ago I thought I saw a post on quora that proved solipsism to be true and I suffered since then. But I don't remember what it said or even if it was right (I'm pretty bad at philosophy) and I can't find the post. So I've lived thinking it's true this whole time and there isn't a reason to connect with people because they aren't real. But if solipsism is unproveable then he's wrong and I can move on.

    I thought that it's unproveable like the simulation hypothesis because there's no way to get outside of it to know for sure.
  • Banno
    24.9k
    Can you prove solipsism true?Darkneos

    Who are you asking?
  • Banno
    24.9k
    (I kinda take this to be a proof that is it false...)
  • Banno
    24.9k
    I've used that reply so many times over the years that it's not worth a smirk.
  • Banno
    24.9k
    The second premise in the argument on Quora assumes the conclusion:

    Other things have a third person point of view in my world

    This assumes that there is only my view of how things are.
  • Banno
    24.9k
    :smirk:180 Proof

    At least you are consistent.
  • Darkneos
    689
    I thought that proof was sketchy. It assumes way too much and the steps don’t even lead to each other.

    So I’m wondering what kind of “proof” it’s supposed to be
  • T Clark
    13.8k
    I thought that it's unproveable like the simulation hypothesis because there's no way to get outside of it to know for sure.Darkneos

    I think you're right. Solipsism is like the simulation hypothesis. If you are correct that they are unprovable, and I think you are, then they're metaphysics, not science. You're fairly new here. I don't know if you've heard my metaphysics spiel, which is similar to that described by R.G. Collingwood in his "Essay on Metaphysics." Metaphysical statements are not true or false. They have no truth value. They are the underlying assumptions, Collingwood called them "absolute presuppositions," that underlie our understanding of the nature of reality. They are the foundations of science.
  • Banno
    24.9k
    So I’m wondering what kind of “proof” it’s supposed to beDarkneos

    Generally proofs of this sort are muddled improvisations in the rationalist or scholastic style.

    Arguments for idealism and solipsism take it as granted that statements are beliefs, that "The kettle is boiling" is the same as "I believe that the kettle is boiling". They make the error of thinking that the game of truth and falsity is the same as the game of belief. But one can believe things that are wrong, believe that the kettle is boiling when it isn't.

    That we are sometimes wrong, that we learn new things, that the world contains surprises, that we feel embarrassment, pride, shame... these things display the error in solipsism.
  • Banno
    24.9k
    I think Watkins account in Confirmable and influential metaphysics the better.
  • T Clark
    13.8k
    I think Watkins account in Confirmable and influential metaphysics the better.Banno

    I am not familiar with it. There are many approaches to metaphysics. Given my strong attachment to the views of Collingwood, what does Watkins have to offer.
  • Banno
    24.9k
    I am not familiar with it.T Clark

    I had rather than you in mind, sorry. It's an approach after Popper, so based on received notions of scientific method, and in a more concise and readily available form. It also, from what I've read of Collingwood, it appears to take a more logically formal approach.

    But both swings and roundabouts take us back to where we started.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Solipsism is true in the sense of what is 100% certain - our own existence. If you lower the bar to may exist, solipsism is no longer as strong a position.

    I started a thread a few months ago about my belief that others exist for sure, but not me à la Cotard's delusion (the mirror image of Descartes' cogito).
  • Banno
    24.9k
    Solipsism is true in the sense of what is 100% certain - our own existence.Agent Smith

    You do realise that that's not what solipsism says, Smith? Not I exist, but I alone exist.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    You do realise that that's not what solipsism says, Smith? Not I exist, but I alone existBanno

    :ok: I didn't know, but can you review Cartesian skepticism and get back to me if you find anything interesting.
  • javi2541997
    5.8k


    A Deuteronomy of Kant-Friesian Metaphysics

    When the Neo-Kantians, or Hegel, eliminated things in themselves, the result was directly, starkly, and unambiguously solipsism. Hegel avoided that only by making consciousness collective and universal, an "Over Mind," the "Absolute Idea," in which individual existence dissolves like sugar in coffee.
    The sticking point is the conclusion that Kant's theory forces upon us, that the "real things" of the world are both external objects and the internal contents of consciousness.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Here's my proof of solipsism

    1. Only things that we're 100% certain exists exist.
    2. The only thing I'm 100% certain exists is me (re cogito).
    Ergo,
    3. I alone exist.

    QED

    :lol:

    P. S. I suffer from Cotard's delusion (I don't exist).
  • introbert
    333
    Proving solipsism true is anti-solipsistic. Philosophy deals with intersubjective agreement of other minds. That there is 'intersubjective agreement', or none, does not negate solipsism, as a multiplicity of subjectivities does not preclude the primacy of the origin of them all.

    That being in a solipsistic state causes the other intersubjectives to 'come get you /poison you' does not disprove solipsism, just perhaps that you are not god/ originator of all law. That intersubjectives are anti-solipsistic does not prove they are expressing god's will, but is perhaps the fundamental lesson of this experience which all philosophy seems to be about.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Another proof that I alone exist.

    1.The 3 marks of existence are anicca (impermanence), anatta (no-self), and dukkha (suffering).
    2. I alone bear these 3 marksA
    Ergo,
    3. I alone exist

    QED

    A: Some are anicca but neither anatta nor dukkha; others are anatta but neither anicca nor dukkha; still others are dukkha but neither anicca nor anatta. In no person/thing in our universe do the 3 marks of existence instantiate simultaneously except in me. :grin:

    :lol:
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Another another proof of solipsism ( :smile: )

    Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate — William of Occam

    Ergo,

    Ego solus est.
  • Darkneos
    689
    but it just seems like you’re assuming you’re the origin which you don’t.

    I think that quora post I read years ago is mistake or I was. I mean I you can’t prove solipsism, how can you prove you’re the only mind in existence if you can’t even measure minds, let alone know of somewhere in the universe there is another. Or how do you know you’re not just someone’s dream or simulation. It seems like any attempt to prove it would involve so many assumptions that you can’t back it.

    Then there is also that wrinkle about posting it on a public forum for people to read.

    And it also assumes that you exist and are thinking and a bunch of other things it can’t prove.
  • introbert
    333
    You're looking for solipsism as the absolute standard for experience, and that is not what it is. Anyone can tell you the individual mind acknowledges the existence of other minds. However, solipsism does manifest as mental disorder, is speculated to be the original psychological state at birth, and it can be experienced in social-psychological events such as when you are arguing alone against a group of people. Feral children, I have read, are found in a solipsistic state. The question is not if solipsism is true, but if it is a psychological state as 'legitimate' as intersubjectivity and acknowledging other minds. I personally cultivate solipsism as an irrationality, and can through thinking a certain way achieve a kind of solipsistic state similar to what I have experienced through other experimentations.
  • Fooloso4
    6.1k
    Who are you asking?Banno

    I was going to ask: prove to whom? What would be the point of trying to prove it to yourself?
  • Darkneos
    689
    I think you’re missing the point of what’s going on here.

    Though I don’t really regard solipsism as highly as in the years past because a lot of the explanations for people who “prove it” are straight nonsense like this:

    Solipsism is not a choice, human beings or a human being is even in strict scientific terms a subjective entity, a subject, everything that happens to me is in my own subjective bubble. But, this is not where i see where the problem is at. The problem comes when, if you even come to the realization that solipsism is true, and that no event can exist without you consciously being subjectively aware of it, why would a solipsist or any person, put himself inside a simulated reality that basically restricts him in his wishes, fantasies, and absolute freedom. If you are infact first and foremost, outside of the simulated reality and have absolute freedom to do with yourself whatever you want, restricting yourself to a simulation even if it is self imposed, inside one’s own mind is really hard to understand. Because you would basically go into a span of about 80 years, experiencing even suffering, physical or psychological, being restricted in what you can do, example, no absolute control or freedom over matter, or the mind-matter relationship, i agree that it is hard to understand subjectivity and its logic that way. But, still, that does not negate solipsism. Because you also get to experience amazing beautiful things and extend your freedom further to the point of physical liberation or end which results in death, but you only end your own mind simulation. The whole process of solipsism is that every minute, date, month, year and second is a carefully planned event that must ultimately lead to absolute freedom, that is the end point of solipsism, to be able to do whatever you want, and without your subjectivity in that state ever ending.
  • introbert
    333
    1 If I'm missing the point I apologize for derailing. I just wanted to state my position that solipsism is not a perspective where truth is relevant, truth is only important to other minds. Have you ever met a compulsive liar? Theoretically they are in a kind of solipsistic state. They are not acknowledging the other mind against their own imaginings. When it comes to pulling the wool over someone's eyes it takes a person more aware of others' minds. Usually authority, statistical tricks, and some psycho-babble.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    My two coins ... for what they're worth.

    Solipsism is about knowledge (epistemology) and not ontology (metaphysics). The only proof that's for sale is what can be known to exist (with certainty). The project won't fly mon ami.
  • introbert
    333
    Solipsism can be about metaphysics. If one is the only person with a false/irrational belief, then one has to transcend "go beyond" the physical reality of the socius. Boom metaphysics. Your belief will never be true, therefore not epistemology, unless you change other minds. Then it is not metaphysics but epistem.
  • Darkneos
    689
    But nothing is certain though...so would that mean nothing exists. I mean at the ground level of any sort of system you build you make assumptions or axioms, without that you can't get anywhere.

    It's why you can never prove solipsism, though I'm slowing getting over it and seeing how it's not really logical (consistent sure but not something to be taken seriously or at all since it says nothing and advances nothing).

    But as I quoted above, those who try to prove it just end up making a whole bunch of assumptions they can't prove, like events only happen if you're looking at it which is nonsense, otherwise car crashes wouldnt happen.
  • Banno
    24.9k
    But nothing is certain though...so would that mean nothing exists. I mean at the ground level of any sort of system you build you make assumptions or axioms, without that you can't get anywhere.Darkneos

    Sure, and some of these are certain. So to be reading this text, you have to take a range of things as granted: that I am writing this in English, in response to your post, addressing your concerns, which you recall and can also check by looking at your previous posts... and so on. That you continue to read this post puts the lie to doubt.

    We make a big thing of having reasons for being certain. Somethings, including those listed, we take as granted, unless we see reason for doubt. We've learned a bias towards needing proof, failing to notice that some things are indubitable. What reason have you for doubting that this sentence is in English? How could such a doubt be reasonable?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.