Solipsism is trivial if true.

Even if everything you experience and interact with is in some way some other part of yourself, it is still in some way distinct from the part of yourself that you experience and interact through -- you're not all-knowing and all-powerful over the "dream world", there are parts of it beyond your awareness and control even if they are in some way technically parts of you -- so in the end all you've done is relabeled what someone would normally call "yourself" as some special part of yourself, and relabeled "the world" as "yourself". All practical matters continue to be the same as everyone else (or "those other parts of you") always acts like they are, you just find yourself using different words to talk about it and so causing needless confusion.

Solipsism: the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist. Solipsism (from Latin solus 'alone', and ipse 'self') says that only I exist; that I am the only existent consciousness and am dreaming the universe and everyone in it. Solipsism is logically irrefutable but seriously argued by hardly anyone, for the very good reason that the confirmed solipsist has no one to argue with. Philosophy textbook discussions often spend little time discussing solipsism, and even dismiss it as useless.

I don’t believe in solipsism. But I wonder if somewhere in that logically irrefutable idea lies a hidden nugget of truth. Which brings us to Solipsism++: the idea that not I but some Universal Mind is dreaming the entire universe, that Universal Mind is, in fact, the only existent consciousness.

Is Universal Mind merely another name for God? Not necessarily. Universal Mind need not be all-knowing, as in knowing the future. Or all-good. Or all-powerful; maybe there are some things Universal Mind just cannot do.

If the universe is a dream dreamt by Universal Mind, then I am a character in the dream. So why do I feel like a separate individual? After all, Aunt Sally may have her own separate consciousness, but the Aunt Sally I create in my dream does not. How, then, can we have a separate consciousness if we are mere figures in the dream of some Universal Mind?

A possible answer is as follows. For whatever reason, Universal Mind is not dreaming an idyllic, peaceful dream. Rather, the dream we call the universe contains division, war and famine, disease and death. To survive in such a world, evolution has equipped us with a strong feeling of separateness so that we protect our dream self. Feel at peace and at one with a tiger and you may become the tiger’s lunch. So, naturally, we feel distinct and separate; millions of years of evolution have shaped us thus. But mystics and saints and people who mediate say there is a state of mind where we feel at one with the universe. Such a state is not easy to achieve, probably because evolution has tuned us to the precise opposite. (Though difficult to achieve, the state is also described as supreme and well worth any effort. The state of oneness is called variously the kingdom of heaven, samadhi, nirvana, etc.)

Of course, the above is speculation. It does not prove solipsism++ is true. But it does, I think, show how the idea is credible.

Let’s take solipsism++ as true and see where it leads us.

A metaphysical consequence would be that matter isn’t the standalone reality we often think it is. This may not be too difficult to accept if we reflect that matter is, in fact, an idea we use to make sense of what we directly experience. All we experience of the exterior world is sensations, sensations of sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell. To make sense of our sensations, we create the idea of a world of matter. Even if our ideas correspond perfectly with the real world, they are still our own private representation of that world. Our private representation and our sensory input are all we are certain exists. Neither is matter. Matter, therefore, is an idea we use to make sense of experience, not something we directly experience. It’s a theoretical construct. Said simply, if all is a dream in the mind of Universal Mind, then the “stuff” of the universe is Universal Mind’s “mind stuff”, not matter.

Socially, some consequences might be beneficial. If you and I are but two different characters in Universal Mind’s dream, then you and I are essentially the same. We are different characters, with our own different personality, talents, faults, etc., but we are fundamentally the same.

There might be some unfortunate social consequences, however. Solipsism++ might create or promote superstition. After all, if the universe is a dream in Universal Mind, then if Universal Mind decides to dream elves and goblins and ghosts and witches, then those things are as real as the universe.

Of course, other possible consequences could be described. And more can be speculated about the nature of Universal Mind.

Given my topics on solipsism, which are many, and an upcoming article I'd like to write about Wittgenstein's solipsist, there seems to be an element of truth to solipsism. He states:

5.621
The world and life are one.
5.63
I am my world. (The microcosm.)
— T — Wittgenstein, Tractatus

In one of my previous topics, I distilled the issue to be about a mind that is the same with the world, which is very similar to a conception of God being the one and the same with the world of Nature.

Think about it analogously to a person inhabiting a dream. The person's self is one and the same with the dream world. The unconscious, which is accessed at a deeper level during dream states, may-be in "control" over the process of a dream; but, it is still part of the self.

What are your thoughts on solipsism in light of this?

Hey everyone!

First of all I would like to give you some background information:

I’m 23 y old and 2 months ago I got diagnosed with GAD that’s means I’m already in therapy.
The last 10 years i was afraid of somatic diseases e.g cancer; then 3 months ago, when it all started, I was afraid of mental illnesses e.g schizophrenia!

I went to an early warning center for psychosis and got told that I don’t suffer from schizophrenia. Even though the doctors and therapist told me I don’t have an increased susceptibility I’m still scared somehow.

Nevertheless the thought of solipsism somehow scares me. The psychologist told me that these are “normal” thoughts, but I just cannot stop thinking about solipsism. What can I do to stop thinking about this topic?
My therapy officially started last week even thought I’m seeing my therapist for 2 months now.

Thanks :-) and sorry for my english

You just won Philosophy.

I think that existing-thinking implies existence. Existence implies being. Being implies the ability to be. This doesn't imply "others" but it allows for "others". And since "others are evident" and "others are possible", "others are like me/real" is a strong argument. This doesn't disprove solipsism but it does defend whatever the antonym of solipsism is, I don't know, common sense I guess.

"

As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me." (Russell, p. 180). Russell, Bertrand., Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits,London: George Allen & Unwin, 1948. — Bertrand Russell

Solipsism will always be there for us. Unfortunately, as a lifestyle - barring schizopotent determination - it's unsustainable.

As distinct from notions of divine union, where the self and world and other are united, solipsism instead obliterates the other.

What does this mean? Curious... — Wallows

True solipsism is schizophrenic. See Louis A. Sass's "Madness and Modernism." Brilliant book comparing schizophrenic experience with certain elements of modernist art and thought.

Philosophical solipsism is more like a game people play. Philosophers don't typically behave as if there are no others. Some schizos do. At any rate, certain schizophrenics come much closer to walking the walk. Solipsist philosophers mostly just talk the talk. In my view.

What do you think about solipsism?

What do you think about solipsism? — buket

I think that it's an example of wild speculation that no one in their right mind ought to believe.

In one of my previous topics, I distilled the issue to be about a mind that is the same with the world, which is very similar to a conception of God being the one and the same with the world of Nature.

Think about it analogously to a person inhabiting a dream. The person's self is one and the same with the dream world. The unconscious, which is accessed at a deeper level during dream states, may-be in "control" over the process of a dream; but, it is still part of the self.

What are your thoughts on solipsism in light of this?

I don’t see how it is possible that a person can be both the world and inhabit the world at the same time. He is either the world or the inhabitant.

Did I post the Discussion "Solipsism" some odd 2 minutes ago?

I like it. Solipsism is always good for a joke at least.

…solipsism is a philosophical thought that proposes that only the self exists, and its experiences such as himself, his place in the world and his perception of the world are either imagined, or else directed illusions.

godmustbeatheist

This definition contains an internal contradiction within the solipsist. He assumes his own existence yet designates his experience of himself as imaginary_illusory. Such extreme skepticism doesn’t allow for the existence of a definite self even as that self has experiences it acknowledges, albeit as imaginary_illusory.

ucarr

solipsism – the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

 The Apple Dictionary

This alternative definition, as applied to the atheist, leads to the statement: the collective selfhood of humanity (on earth) and, beyond that, (possibly in future) the collective selfhood of physicalist sentience throughout the universe is all that can be known to exist.

Theism, for which atheism is the negation, claims there is a cosmic dialogue between sentient humanity and transcendental¬_ universe_God consciousness.

QM provides evidence (at sub-atomic level) of entanglement of observer and observed. There is no isolation. This evidence is consistent with cosmic dialogue. It is anti-consistent with the cosmic solitude of physicalist atheism. The cosmic solitude of atheism positions sentience within a universe according to a bifurcated design that has circumambient universe and sentience separated into isolation. Science adds further demerits to this position with its observations that the physical universe has no center and no boundary.

How does its being cosmic affect this? There is no cosmos in solipsism.

godmustbeatheist

Given the supposition of the dubious self of the solipsist that only the self can be known to exist, that dubious self is the cosmos.

ucarr

Solipsism can exist in the philosophy of a theist and equally in the philosophy of an atheist.

godmustbeatheist

theism - belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures…

 The Apple Dictionary

The above definition of theism, providing a description of dynamic relationship, which is cosmic dialogue_entanglement, sets it apart categorically from atheism, which is human-to-human entanglement only.

Atheism strongly implies a bifurcation of the physics and the circumambient universe. When that bifurcation dissolves, the ensuing entanglement of the physics and the circumambient universe propagates and the cosmic dialogue_entanglement becomes active.

Claiming human is cast in the likeness of God is simultaneously saying human is cast in the image of physical universe.

Denying God separates physicalist humanity from circumambient universe along the axis of cosmic sentience-to-human sentience entanglement. Following from this, isolated physicalist humanity is enclosed within non-sentient circumambient universe of local society amidst cosmic solitude. We see, however, the vitality of organic chemistry towards sentience, and yet atheism says the organic chemistry of the circumambient universe is non-sentient. Atheism equals cosmic solitude.


metaphysics consists of categorical inquiries into reality,

180 Proof

Paradigms sever the induction-deduction oscillation. Only statements the resultants of induction are expressed; no reverse reasoning back to empirical details the resultants of deduction.

ucarr

My guess is that [the rest of] ucarr's statement in the quote makes no sense; someone smart and learned can study and tell whether it's valid or sheer nonsense.

godmustbeatheist

I don't see any "blanks" in what I wrote that need to be filled. — 180 Proof

Context matters. — 180 Proof

Yes, context matters. Induction-deduction oscillation = general ⇔ specific.

When I wrote, “Paradigms sever the induction-deduction oscillation.” I was responding to a series of claims by 180 Proof including, “metaphysics does not consist of factual truth-claims,” and “it’s not theoretical and its expressions are not propositional.”

Given these exclusions, metaphysics, as defined by 180 Proof, operates as a pure model. It’s like the root of a word without its declension, or the infinitive of a verb, without its conjugation.

To claim the results of an examination of essential attributes of existence consist of no factual truth-claims, embody no theories, express no propositions and treat phenomena with broadest brushstrokes is to invoke mystery.

This invocation harks back to ancient times when seekers of truth paid visits to the Oracle for receipt of esoteric pronouncements.

Solipsism excludes community.

Solipsism is not concerned with extraterrestrials.

There is no such thing as interstellar solipsism. — god must be atheist

godmustbeatheist is a witty sitename. Notice how it assumes (ironically) a relationship between God and human. Even when making a little joke at the expense of theism, we have an atheist (I presume) who invokes human-sentience-to-cosmic-sentience entanglement.

While serious, godmustbeatheist notes how solipsism excludes community and is not concerned with extraterrestrials, and then s/he denies interstellar isolation due to solipsism.

I say we're most earnest while joking.

This is a difficult topic to broach as there is not much discussion of either of the header concepts, solipsism or confederacy. Solipsism is not well understood due to the prevailing modern lifeworld of shared objects of thought, and the reluctance of people to become detached from that reality and become alone, for one. Confederacy is not well understood, because those that were and are confederates don't directly discuss the regime, and only really a solipsistic person will endeavor to create meanings that are beyond what are openly shared as objects of understanding. Solipsism is understood to be something like only having certainty in one's own mind, and descending degrees of detachment from shared understandings of the world after that. Confederacy is understood to be something opposed, if not the opposite, of solipsism. Although, it is not understood to be that particular opposition specifically, but it is about people joining together whereas solipsism is about being alone. This discussion will open by arguing that solipsism is everything from the tendency to be solitary (being alone) to experiencing what are considered today as being symptoms of mental disorder, and that confederacy in the modern period has been an organized effort to undermine solipsism for the purposes of political/ military power, economic production, and socialization. Modern confederacy was initially a system of scientific racism, psychiatry, positivism, and philosophy (and more), but it continues today as established western social order that includes just about anything that keeps a person from thinking individually. Examples include a democratic ethos that is internalized by an individual that allows majoritarian influence, identity politics, conditioned fear of having an incorrect or delusional idea, the lifeworld of shared experiences of media, ironic neo-victorianism where casual racism, sexism, sexual inhibition etc. is impolite/ improper and social sanctions on the individual are contrasted with scientific racism, sexism and sexual repression being the social values that the solipsist had challenged. An ironic reversal of confederacy. This is actually a very complex topic, in need of a second paragraph.

One of the most significant writers of confederacy, was Thomas Hobbes, that the solitary individual is primitive, and that (modern) society required a contract or enhanced bond or agreement between people and the State (Monarch) is small part of the spirit of the confederate machine. That there were/ are people that demand individual freedom against this confederacy, has been and will continue to be an ongoing focus of conflict, within the individual (perhaps manifesting in disorder (crime to madness)) to global (perhaps manifesting in global destruction). The designs against this solitary, primitive individual an island unto him/herself, perhaps maybe on one island more than another, have led to the doctoring of knowledge, scientific over metaphysical thinking, the medicalization of deviance, psychiatric codification of individualist thought, compelled labor, prioritizing practical knowledge over theoretical, eliminating kinship ties that insulate the individual to promoting social ties which destroys the individual, replacing organic community with state social services, and really so much more it is a complex regime. Obviously, confederates thought about the word that embodied their collective ethos and it is really quite simple for a person to challenge the constructs that are against them as an individual. Especially those social organizations that are disciplinary, corrective, controlling, totalitarian, and typically composed of people who have no personal dissonance with the controversial nature of the organization they are involved, so long as there is a confederacy that mutually agrees it is okay. In terms of the scientific understanding of confederacy, as science is part of the contemporary confederate regime, a confederate is someone who agrees to work together with a larger group in order to study an individual who has no knowledge of the confederacy. This scientific objectification of the relative solipsist, and the willingness of the confederate individual to organize in some manner to 'alienate' individuality illustrates the obtuse nature of the anti-solipsist.

Let me just run this one by you folk. Not an essay, no proofs, just a perspective, a context.

It seems there's broad agreement that solipsism is neither provable nor disprovable, and likewize for a larger, extra-self world, that we're part of.

So, it might be more fruitful to try understanding what kinds of worlds engender solipsism. Is the last person alive a solipsist? I suppose, technically, in a way, though they might not otherwise have been, if their parents also were there for example.

The difficulty with other minds comes about because 1st person experiences are sort of private. Is your red my red? I don't experience your self-awareness, since, well, I'm not you. In fact, I can't — even in principle — not without being you, in which case I'd no longer be me, which is nonsense. Self-awareness is essentially indexical, a kind of self-knowledge, and bound by self-identity.

Why is that a problem anyway? Well, because of certainty, problems of induction, Occam's razor (parsimony), skepticism (doubt), ... Unlike Cartesian "cogito ergo sum", other peoples' self-awarenesses are like noumena, always just over the horizon.

• (Most folk sport some sort of self-awareness. Differentiating introspection and extrospection, cognitive capacity to separate self and other, ability to understand and use a mirror, an inwards awareness of thoughts, feelings, experiences of self, a sense of continuation.)

And so, it seems to be logical worlds — or worlds that engender logical thinking at least — that lead to the problem of solipsism, since it's logic that forms the boundary between (deductive) certainty and uncertainty in the first place.

Take standard (logical) reasoning:

• identity - in particular
• non contradiction
• the excluded middle
• (modus ponens, modus tollens, double negation (introduction))

Now what can you deduce from a self-identity (like p=p) alone? Not much.

Certainty by deduction is logical (and rational), but, as per above, there's no deductive proof of others' self-awareness. Self-identity, as mentioned, is characteristic of self-awareness, and that's (also) to say logical identity. However, given just this identity does not imply much, including the nature or existence of something else.

And so, a sound proof of something extra-self hits mentioned boundary. Thus, solipsism shouldn't be all that surprising, in fact, we should expect something like that to come up. Our world is such that self-identical, logical thinkers can run up against solipsism, as a matter of "safe" reasoning therein. And philosophers sure are infatuated (or even obsessed) with certainty.

Mystery exposed...?

Anything is difficult to discuss without a point of reference. I use modern project as designing against solipsism as the basis of my post, but I could discuss it as descartes has structured it as being a basis for rational doubt. That is a more specific modern design, so I look at critical thought such as postmodernism as being part of a struggle to redesign solipsism. Such things as turning one against social construction, disciplinary institutions (panopticon) and fascism etc and even an openness to schizophrenia as gently nudging the reader towards solipsism. Panopticism gets a person to watch themselves as if they are always being watched. This has a different effect on the introspective ( a dimension of solipsist) than the other oriented. To me this much abused modern method is just one part of a complex that causes disturbances in people who tend to be solipsistic. I can just as easily look at paranoia and delusion as bodily defenses of a person who is turned against or resistant to the social, as just mental disease. I see solipsistic movement in the right-wing against imposed collective social measures, and think that what doctors call mental health issues is an emergent natural force. It could be my solipsism talking but the invisible construction of ideas imposed on a mass of living growing material bodies will force it to change in a way that is not necessarily in line with social controls. Solipsism, in this era, has been designed against and possibly will be the force of the bodily will. Maybe solipsism had its day in the platonic world and descartes was just one of a changing body against its tyranny. Possibly the living body cycles between solipsistic eras and intersubjective ones.

I don't look at solipsism as a completely ideal state. I'm an idealistic solipsism realist, while realists are solipsism idealists: they make the conventional idea of solipsism seem unreal. An argument against it.

I didn't understand your question about battles. It's not how they are viewed but many battles have likely been fought over solipsism. Any fight for individual freedom is going to involve independent thought, which involves only having certainty of one's own mind and being critical of the validity, soundness or even existence of anyone else. (Are these monarchists even real?)

As for the questions about guerilla vs conventional: the ideal guerilla is a freedom fighter, a partisan, a resistance member. The ideal conventional soldier unquestioningly follows orders from the command chain of a regime. The ideal guerilla is not an ideal conventional soldier and vice versa. Neither are inherently good or evil. The ideal guerilla is the solipsist and the ideal conventional soldier is the confederate.

If solipsism is the litmus test: is platonic realism or cartesianism more limiting of individual freedom?

Solipsism isn't the most problematic of possibilities; even given it's truth, pragmatically speaking, nothing changes from our perspective. We would still be trapped within the illusion of a world where other minds exist. As McDoodle points out, even if the works of Shakespeare are actually created somehow (per solipsism) by my own mind, in order to get access to them I still need to read them, and I still can only best interpret them by making considerations to Shakespeare as a once extant mind rather than by assuming or acting as if the works are procedurally generated by my own subconscious mind. That is to say, in order to get access to Shakespeare's works, I need to in action embrace the possible illusion of his existence in order to acquire the materials, bridge the language gap, develop understanding, etc. I could still learn about Shakespeare and hold to hard metaphysical solipsism, it would just pose continuous semantic hurtles as I constantly (and without pedagogical benefit) make the clarification that the works of Shapeskeare were actually created by a part of my own mind which I am now consciously scrutinizing.

This may very well be a strong argument against solipsism (certainly a good argument against behaving as a solipsist would), but it is not a deductive proof against it. In order to do away with the possibility of solipsism entirely, some sort of (what is now considered "the metaphysical") claim regarding the fundamental nature or "source" of existence must be raised and subsequently justified. Per my understanding of physics and epistemology: we're not there yet.

. . . so I look at critical thought such as postmodernism as being part of a struggle to redesign solipsism. Such things as turning one against social construction, disciplinary institutions (panopticon) and fascism etc and even an openness to schizophrenia as gently nudging the reader towards solipsism. — introbert

The struggles that you are referring to were, in my opinion, entirely justified. Understandably, there was little thought given to what would happen when the struggles succeeded, and they did succeed, at least in some measure. (I don't think they are yet over, but that's another issue) I don't think anyone in those movements thought of solipsism as the goal. On the contrary, faced with their opposition, solipsism was a non-starter. The mistake was to cast the argument in terms of freedom. They would have been more accurate if they had thought of their movements as struggles for recognition and inclusion. That might have prevented, or mitigated, what happened next.

What happened when the revolutionaries joined the mainstream is that the erstwhile oppressors felt like victims. So they hi-jacked the rhetoric of freedom as yet another way of fighting back. It's too late to prevent that now, and so we find ourselves in great difficulty.

But what all this shows, I would suggest, is that society is not a monolith. It is a battle-ground - not even one battle-ground, but many. As a philosopher, it is more convenient to think of the struggle as a dialectic, though it won't help to think, with Hegel, that progress is guaranteed, or that there is any kind of end to it.

We have to recognize that there is no vantage point above the battle that allows issues to be settled without a struggle. Or if there is one, we haven't found it yet.

I would also like to suggest that you might think about recognizing that in a battle, solipsism is not helpful.

It's not how they are viewed but many battles have likely been fought over solipsism. — introbert

I'm afraid I don't know anything like enough to debate why various battles have been fought. I would be very surprised to learn that any battles have ever been fought over solipsism. It seems rather unlikely. But as I say, I'm not a historian.

You say: -

individual freedom is going to involve independent thought, which involves only having certainty of one's own mind and being critical of the validity, soundness or even existence of anyone else. — introbert

I'm getting the idea that your idea of solipsism is essentially radical individual freedom. That's somewhat unusual.

the ideal guerilla is a freedom fighter, a partisan, a resistance member. The ideal conventional soldier unquestioningly follows orders from the command chain of a regime. The ideal guerilla is not an ideal conventional soldier and vice versa. Neither are inherently good or evil. The ideal guerilla is the solipsist and the ideal conventional soldier is the confederate. — introbert

You are giving me a very simplified sketch of a very conventional view of what is required of a soldier in these different kinds of warfare. From the little that I know about it, I would say that the simplifications amount to distortions. I don't think we're going to reach agreement about this. I'll just repeat that so far as I understand it, fighting a war involves team work on one's own side - whether it is guerrilla warfare or conventional - and an enemy group or team. I don't see how solipsism could function at all in that kind of situation, even if it amounts to no more than a belief in the primary importance of individual freedom.

Why would I accept solipsism as a litmus test of anything? Neither Platonic realism nor Cartesianism say anything at all about individual freedom, so far as I know.

What valid reasoning/logic allows for solipsism to not necessarily be true? — gsky1

If you take solipsism seriously then why would you ask others who you cannot be certain exist about it?

It is this idea of of a necessary truth that creates the snag. Doubt can be raised but the possibility of raising doubt is not a good reason to doubt. Why would one even think that solipsism is true? What does one have to give up in order to accept it as true?

I think therefore I am. You think therefore you are. Hence solipsism is wrong. Simple. — Devans99

To me, your thoughts exist in a different sense to mine. Certainly the word "solipsism" does not possess a shareable public sense (hence the lack of solipsism conventions), but that is of course of no concern to the solipsist.

As I understand it, both Plato and Descartes are against error, and I support both in that respect. Both are in favour of rationality and I support them in that.

I don't think that solipsism has anything to do with that.

Though I admit, I don't think that what is usually called rationality is anything like the whole story. But I don't think solipsism has anything to do with that either.

Freedom plays a part in all this, of course. But freedom is not the same as solipsism.

The idea of matter being a theoretical construct is independent of solipsism. We do not directly experience matter, let's say, a tree. Why? Because we can only experience the physical sensations of touch, taste, sound, light, and odor. We have no special tree-sensing sense. From our physical sensations, the idea of a tree arises in our mind. The idea is a theoretical construct, i.e., something that unites and makes sense of what we are directly experiencing, in the case of the tree, brown and green, a feeling of roughness, perhaps, the scent, too. A "brain in a vat" could experience exactly what we experience yet no corresponding tree would exist. — Art48

Let’s ignore the brain in VAT for a moment as the can of worms you’ve opened with solipsism is enough to deal with for now.

One thing at a time dear,

So back to the theoretical construct…you are walking along one sunny day contemplating the fact that trees are not real as your tree sensing sense is missing that day till suddenly you run into a tree and hit your head slightly … at this point does it actually matter if the tree is a theoretical construct or a physical construct? How would you answer this very pertinent question of solipsism ?

Addendum

So, what about reasoning then? Useless posturing? No, of course not. It's not to abandon reasoning, or throw hands in the air in futility, rather the opposite. It's to recognize the difficulties involved in knowledge acquisition; something students of history (of science and philosophy in particular) should know all too well. Common sense, heuristics, careful inductive and abductive reasoning are indispensable for anyone wishing to learn, and that's the natural modus operandi of most healthy individuals in any case. (Outside of philosophy, solipsism is largely pathological, reported by doctors and asylums.)

Numerous philosophical branches have been charged with solipsism, including, but not limited to, Cartesian skepticism (obviously), (pure) phenomenology, subjective idealism (and some other idealisms), postmodernism (when applied in metaphysics). It crops up in numerous places, and is occasionally used argumentatively to deny just about anything, i.e. a rhetorical tactic.

But, in the requisite Wittgensteinian tradition, languages sure help. Regardless of whether or not there are private languages, public languages enable sharing of experiences.

The Hard Problem of Consciousness

The Chalmers style mind-body problem derives from a dichotomy:

• the format of 1st person phenomenological experiences, qualia (introversal)
• the 2nd/3rd person world of objects, processes, bodies, brains, etc (extroversal)

And the apparent intractability:

• 1st person experiences do not derive others' self-awarenesses and such, and are thus incomplete — solipsism
• physicalism (or whatever) does not derive qualia, and is thus considered incomplete — the hard problem of consciousness

From mind to body:

the leap from the mental process to a somatic innervation — hysterical conversion — which can never be fully comprehensible to us — Sigmund Freud (Notes Upon a Case of Obsessional Neurosis)

the puzzling leap from the mental to the physical — Sigmund Freud (Introduction to Psychoanalysis)

From body to mind:

412. The feeling of an unbridgeable gulf between consciousness and brain-process: how does it come about that this does not come into the consideration of our ordinary life? This idea of a difference in kind is accompanied by slight giddiness — which occurs when we are performing a piece of logical slight-of-hand. (The same giddiness attacks us when we think of certain theorems in set theory.) When does this feeling occur in the present case? It is when I, for example, turn my attention in a particular way on to my own consciousness, and, astonished, say to myself: THIS is supposed to be produced by a process in the brain! — as it were clutching my forehead. — Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations, Part I)

So we have a context where solipsism and the hard problem of consciousness comprise yet another dichotomy.

Not sure you have a hard grasp of solipsism...but I agree with the essence of your position.

Solipsism gets lots of scorn in philosophical discussions...but it seems right on the button to me.

If "knowledge" is possible...all I can be sure of is ME.

I see other stuff out there, but while I am confident (perhaps unadvisedly so) that I exist...ALL of what else seems to exist MAY BE nothing but an illusion within ME.

If you take solipsism seriously then why would you ask others who you cannot be certain exist about it? — Fooloso4

If I take solipsism seriously, then all the posts in this thread are mine. There are no others, and therefore I am not asking them. Rather, an aspect of myself is asking aspects of myself. It's a very curious thing, but in accounting for the way things appear to be, the solipsist ends up just substituting 'self' for 'world' and 'aspect' for 'individual', and otherwise having a view of things indistinguishable from the non-solipsist.

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).