Is solipsism a valid argument against objective reality ? And, if so, why ? This thread is an attempt to keep solipsism out of threads about objective reality. Objective reality: Reality as it is, independently of the mind. No observer can perceive objective reality directly. Perception is necessarily colored by interpretation, expectation, etc. We make up our own version of reality in our mind which is based on (part) of objective reality (subjective reality). Solipsism: The belief that all reality is just one's own imagining of reality, and that one's self is the only thing that exists. Discuss.
Enmos, your definition of solipsism is incorrect. Solipsism is the stance that one's self and one's experiences are all that one can be sure of (to extend the skepticism beyond that scope is erroneous, being similarly amenable to doubt...).
here is a line i read that is clean as well Solipsism is not a single concept but instead refers to several worldviews whose common element is some form of denial of the existence of a universe independent from the mind of the agent.
There are several solipsisms and they do different things in relation to ideas of objective reality. Some of them are not saying there is no objective reality, just that the concept is moot. Some, like Berkeley, are saying there is none. Given that there are a variety of solipsisms and it is position not an argument, I can't really generalize about it's validity - which varies. But you can use it as a useful tool, I think, to see what you know, why you have decided you know something like there is an objective reality and what this idea does for you. This does not mesh well with the bolded portion below..... If subjective reality is part of objective reality then we are in direct contact with some of objective reality. In fact even that way of phrasing it is not intimate enough. Or potentially...selves. But that one cannot be sure there are other minds. I mean really anyone who bases everything on induction is left open to the possibility, however small, that their mind might be everything. I don't base everyone on induction, but a scientist pretty much makes that claim. (Glaucon would probably call me a rationalist, but I don't think that's it either. See a rationalist thinks that some axioms are given. To me everyone is a rationalist. Even skeptics who take their own reasoning powers and ability to consider what is possible and not possible as a given. Even phenomenalists and empiricists, it seems to me, are rationalists. They just have their axioms in their epistemology or their meta epistemology, not down on street level like many people who they label rationalists.) I think arguments from solipsism can be good humbling tools. Anyone who wants to base their knowledge on scientific methodologies needs to admit that their axioms have not been tested and that Ockham's Razor gives an extra point to models, like solipsism, that posit less entities. For the empiricist this raises a tough choice.... Do they appeal to common sense? (and open a very dangerous door and precedent) Do they admit to being rationalists? Do they throw out the OR and on what grounds?
How then does one deal with the utterly bizzare worldview/s perceived by someone who is taking or using psychodelic drugs?
Reality is nothing but a bunch of interpretation for us. Reality of atoms or DNA was not there until we discovered them, or we could not go to space without interpreting and bending the reality of our ape bodies. Similarly humans have constantly been changing their world of imagination about race, gender, enemy, friend, nation, planet, other living things, simply about everything. It does little or no effect what is "really" going on; but our perception about them makes everything. We even interpret birth, death, and status. We speak language and use communication devices to watch our imaginations and keep changing our societies and modify the existence... What reality can we talk about other than human mind?
Pure supposition. If you are hiding behind the sofa, but no-one has discovered you yet, are you not there? Moreover, a person who is colourblind knows that they can't see certain colours. So even though, for example, they can't see purple they know that it is a colour that exists. I don't understand this line, could you clarify? "We speak language and use communication devices to watch our imaginations and keep changing our societies and modify the existence."
I don't agree with that definition. Or rather, if that is the definition then Solipsism is moot, because that basically applies to us all: We only experience the external world indirectly. However, the materialistic position is that our experiences come from an external world and are, within their limitations, consistent with that external world. To have any meaning, Solipsism must presume that this distinction between our perceptions and the external world does not exist, so that the causative direction is reversed: The external world is caused by your experiences, not the other way around. I have designed a test of Solipsism. It is not entirely conclusive, but useful for practical purposes: MRC_Hans' practical test of Solipsism .(tm) Disclaimer: This experiment might not only bruise your ego, but also your body, so you undertake it entirely at your own risk. I will not be held responsible for any consequences, including, but not limited to, loss of pride, peace of mind, teeth, etc. 1) Find a busy city street. 2) Wait for large aggressive looking male to walk by (generally, the more tattoos, the better). 3) Walk up behind said large aggressive looking male and direct a solid kick at the lower, rear portion of his body. 4) When he turns, tell him: "That was because you mother is so ugly". 5) Observe. You will soon have tangible evidence for the following: a) You exist physically. b) At least one other entity exists physically. c) You and that other entity are in communication, both abstractly and physically. d) The other entity probably has a mother. You may conclude that all your observations are, after all, part of an illusion, but the experience should convince you that you had better treat the illusion as reality . Good luck! Hans Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
LOL Fantastic ! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If solipsism is true then one cannot die, right ? I mean, putting an imaginary gun to one's imaginary head isn't going to end everything there is.. So if someone here truly believes in solipsism, please explain why you won't pull the trigger.
External to what? It does not have to be a causal relationship. They are not separate. To say, for example, that 'I' am causing a dream I experience is misleading. The dream and I are not separate things. Only more so in the kind of solipsism you are talking about. 1) people who are not solipsists seem to manage to make errors in such situations. And repeatedly. In fact I would say most of us seem not to treat whatever it is that is happening with the respect it deserves, using this criterion. But solipsism makes, generally, no claim to control or things being pleasant. It is not about being a God, generally. I don't know about you, but even things that most people consider a part of themselves, most people have trouble fully controlling. Urges, emotions, reflexive responses, etc. Even given the materialist models of the self, we already have experiences of parts of ourselves we cannot control and that can do us harm. Why should solipsism require total control of the SELF, when we do not have total control of our selves.
I say DNA and atom were there, but we did not know until we discover. This is same as your "hiding behind sofa" scene. And for the sentence you asked for clarification: "We speak language" means we redefine the physical world according to sentences, symbols and ideas. None of them is physically exist, only in our minds and culture. None of them is conceivable by other creatures other than humans (sometimes even humans don't understand certain parts). "We use communication devices": Yes we can not fly thousands of miles like birds, but we can deliver our knowledge all around the world using TVs and computers. This requires unnatural gadgets. And we circulate our ideas (imagination) through those devices. "and keep changing our societies and modify the existence": You can find various examples on how humans change their societies and play with the rules of existence. I hope it is bit more clear now. If it's not please do not hesitate to ask for more.
Good point. I should be careful about my own generalizations of the word 'humble' and its related forms. Some need humbling. Some do not. I was thinking of instances where humbling is appropriate, in this case in relation to the total confidence of empiricists who regularly trot out Ockham's Razor to dismiss things. To a Buddhist, a phenomenalist, a solipsist most empiricists - or intellectuals who use science as their litmus test - are positing 'extra' entities, something empiricists look down on, for example, theists for doing.
I have to say I do not think you read my post. I said that even in the common sense + science view of the world we have selves which we cannot control all of. We can talk about a sudden urge overwhelming us. We can talk about thoughts or worry that we cannot stop. It is us, but be cannot seem to control it. Why should it be different when everything is the self. You still have a self portions of which you cannot control, or, at least, it seems that way. And I find it very strange you are referring me to post # 12, since this is post I quoted and responded to.
A standard objection against solipsism is the existence of suffering. If everything truly would be the product of one's own mind, or if "the self is all there is", then how come the self would invent suffering? Why would there be disease, murder, drought, poverty and so on? Especially if you posit a kind of solipsism where the self is also in control.
It is good you added the qualification. I think most of us can see how we can cause ourselves pain on occasion. There is no reason to assume a solipsistic self could not also do this. Perhaps it would be even more likely as a way to relieve boredom or as a byproduct of boredom. It could fantasize its way into all sorts of trouble...... just like us.
