Talk:Solipsism/Archive 1

Solipsism not as a stand had within the Material view of the universe, but in opposition to Materialism as a universal view
The Tormont-Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary defines Solipsism only as a philosophy which is;

"1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified. 2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality."

This is to make definition necessary for what 'self' this means in a Solipsist context.[Normxxx Here: 'Self,' as would all terms in a solipsist world, be strictly undefined and undefinable (what could you possible use as a source of definiens?) ] From the article it is taken as the "conception" of self, the mind. Which if viewing other physical selves and refuting those as an external reality it must. Although it definitionally must regard them as an internal reality; true to the one self. Therefore all reality is true not imaginary as it is then the only factor of idea in which there is any knowledge of self. It is reality but only as far as it is part of the self, because it is the only constitution of the self; having no external reality means one's own external body cannot be reality or the construction of the self above & beyond the perception of it for that implies a uniformity of nature in a material world beyond the self; only one's idea of which is what makes the singular reality possible. Therefore it is not correct to see Solipsism as generative of other minds for their own capacity, that doesn't exist to the Solipsist, only that it is generative of how the self knows them. I notice in certain regards this entry seems to assume Solipsism means body and it's senses not the ideas of those senses as it must mean to not be an assumption outside Solipsism, i.e. a physical root for the self instead of only the self being real. As the article is implying that your physical being is the only one that exists with the mention of death as an objection. Being that Solipsism is only infallible in the realm of idea, death as such cannot be even for means of posterity an objection. If only because the state of idea in the realm of death cannot be reasoned one way or another in theory. The same is true of the language argument, the answer isn't "boredom," because boredom itself implies an external source of stimuli, but rather that you yourself create meaning for language, words are true to themselves as far as a self makes them, it is the meaning one alone applies to them which make them exist, which if they did not exist as true to the self, the self would not exist in that it is built out of it's understandings which, in Solipsism, is seen as itself; language is a result of asserting the self, it is not learnt, the meaning of language is synthesized arbitarily from perceptions the self is left to in reflection. The 'brain in a vat' mention is another contradiction; Solipsism is an ideology without presuppositions, not a presupposition that it's conception of self within the universe is the only one of them to exist in the universe, but that it's conceptions in their entirety create the universe indistinguishable from the self.>[Normxxx Here:''  Much of this is true but besides the point. For convenience, we use language as if'there were a real world (whatever that means) inhabited by no fewer than 6.5 billion souls or so. ] Nagelfar 03:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"We" ? 1Z 18:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

normxxx02:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

David who?
And what objections does he have exactly? 207.99.6.125 08:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, this sentence needs more explanation than just what is there, currently... --NightMonkey 10:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I removed it. Here it is:

A deeper objection, raised by David Deutsch, among others, cannot.


 * Without further citations, more mention of his devestating objection, and some justification for its noteability and relevance, it doesn't merit inclusion. --NightMonkey 09:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * David Deutsch's argument i s here1Z 00:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism and Taoism are not Solipsism
This article is extremly confused about Eastern philosophy. It is not that the real world is denied by Taoism and Buddhism, but that the self is redefined to include all of the real world. The belief is not that the world is illusion within the mind. I also notice in the objections a lot of arguments relating to Hinduism, which is, again, not really solipsism. In hinduism, one IS essentially considered to be God, which forgets he is god on purpose so as to have fun. But the Hindus believe that many people are God at once, not just one person viewing the rest. Also, this article itself says that solipsism does not make someone God, so the whole thing is contradictory.


 * "...but that the self is redefined to include all of the real world." Well, sort of.  Nothing is redefined, nothing changes.  The self was the real world (a.k.a. totality) all along, and being the All, there is nothing that can separate itself from the self to make observations and spout this philosophical nonsense.  Enjoy the dream, in which "you" and "I" are mere temporary (temporal) characters. jkl_sem 15:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide delusion
When stating that human beings live in a state of "illusion", a worldwide delusion, you're completely rejecting human feelings and human beliefs. That even if we are living in an illusion, this illusion IS our reality, thus making the illusion the realest it can possibly be. So by one completely ignoring the acceptance of reality, if or if not this reality is an illusion, this illusion throughout humanity has been recognized as a reality, thus putting solipsists back to step 1. --Starsky


 * The very idea of solipism rejects human beliefs. Also the idea of illusion and reality you are using a different from the definitions used in Solipsism.Bengaska 15:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell
Is there any place for the Bertrand Russell anecdote? http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/91q3/moresolip.html AnonMoos 06:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added it to the metaphysical solipsism page. I think there is a case for re-integrating that page with this one as it is rather short.1Z 18:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong defintion?
I was taught that Solipsism meant "The belief that I am the only thing that exists" and that the view "The self is the only thing that can be known to exist" was called Skepticism about the Material World. The important distinction of course is belief versus knowledge. Conflating the two together makes the rest of the article confusing to me.


 * I think I'm responsible for that and open to it being altered if that is majority opinion (which it probably is). I think solipsism is fundamentally an epistemological position on what it is possible to know, but recognize I may be in the minority.  This article in Encyclopedia Britannica takes the epistemological position, as do other sources (you can do a google search for 'solipsism epistemological' to find them).  I would ask, however, that if the epistemological position is not in the forefront, that it least be mentioned in the article. Unended 05:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * i agree, solipsism as i know it is phil of mind, not epist so much. I'm going to remove the meta vs epist distinction from the introduction? hope this does not upset anyone. Spencerk 07:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Descartes
Descartes: "I think therefore I am" seems to me to state this philosophy in a nutshell. Since it is such a famous quote, is there a reason it doesn't appear in the article? Is there a distinction between solipsism and Descartes' thoughts? 82.12.124.3 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, technically, Descartes was a dualist. But since Descartes' God was so easily dispensed with, Descartes (almost inadvertently) also gave rise to modern solipsism.  So, I added some words to the Intro.  &rArr;  normxxx|  talk   &rArr;   email  03:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that "I think therefore I am" is solipsism in a nutshell. For this reason, to say "I think therefore I am," is far different then saying "I think therefore everything else is." Descartes' statement is an affirmation of his own existence, it doesn't concern the rest of the universe. In general a solipsist would agree that "I think therefore I am," however; not everyone who agrees with that statement would be considered a solipsist. Not by a long shot. Nom Déplûmes 16:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a picture of Descartes previously uploaded into wikipedia by user Marcelo Reis. The picture is the public domain. I thought this article needed at least one picture and Descartes is relevent to solipsism. lee378

Nonsense
"All of these objections can be dispensed with an appeal to the solipsist's free will."

I am sorry, but this is without any philosophical ground. Whilst the first two objections might be "dispensed" of, I don't think the solipsist can dismiss the fatal argument of language. Language is a public form of life which is not only encountered privately but also publicly, within a certain social context. When the solipsist says "I exist" (and this is not WP:NOR, you will find that philosophers such as Wittgenstein mentioning it) he assumes the existence of something which he wishes to deny; it implies the public shared world of others. Furthermore, an appeal to logic or empirical laws of nature will contradict his solipsistic position, since that is an appeal to a non-mental, public world shared by others. --Knucmo2 23:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If your brain were in a vat, why could not the programmer who is outfitting you with all the information about the "external world" also not outfit you with language? Objection dispensed. Unended 02:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * True enough, but the 'brain in a vat' thought experiment itself is a refutation of solipsism, since all else but the mind in the 'brain in the vat' (including the 'brain in the vat') is part of an external world the mind is busy denying! All that that experiment proves is that you can induce a total illusion in a 'mind'— and my dreams prove that!  &rArr;  normxxx|  talk   &rArr;   email  04:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the brain in a vat is just a way to get people to think. It isn't actually what solipsism is about.  All solipsism must maintain is that information exists.  It needs not brains or vats.  The "external world" is all information.  All we know is that this information exists.  We know not from whence it comes.  The "information" is the "external world" as you know it.  Solipsists need not deny the existence of any external world.  Only that one can have any knowledge of it, since all we really know is that we possess information, source unknown and validity forever unconfirmed.  I agree your dreams prove that one can induce a total illusion.  And that is sufficient to prove (epistemological) solipsism's validity, but most people (such as apparently yourself) require further argumentation, because they do not understand.  Hence, the brain in the vat.  Unended 03:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Many, many years ago, when I became a convinced solipsist,  I came up with a refutation to DesCarte ("I think; therefore, I am!"), with apologies to Bishop George Berkeley.  If you assume a God who created you for an instant, with your memories intact, then for that instant (which would have no duration in time), you would only <I>apprehend</I> you are <I>thinking</I> (the actual act of <I>thinking</I> requires some time duration).  Nevertheless, I eventually came to realize the primacy of DesCarte's dictum; but I could go no further— ergo, solipsism!

"Furthermore, an appeal to logic or empirical laws of nature will contradict his solipsistic position, since that is an appeal to a non-mental, public world shared by others."


 * That is so trivially refuted, I can only believe you have not given much thought to the subject. Who says those "others" are not merely phantoms of my own mind?  The <I>"non-mental, public world shared by others"</I> visited by the "delusional" or even me (or those "others") in my ("our") dreams is readily conceded not to exist! What's so special about the 'real' world, except your delusional perceptions (or mine)?

Solipsism is irrefutable! normxxx<font color="#FF0000">| <sup style="color:#FF00FF;">talk    email  21:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you talk of MY (another mind) perspective on solipsism then? Or am I just another phantom. [of course you are!]   When you say "who says" - well I assume therefore you mean that only you could say that others are phantoms of your mind [But any of the phantoms could claim as much.]- since no one else exists.  If you are convinced that I am a phantom - why have you felt the need to respond to such a phenomenon?  Could your disagreement with my belief exist if there was not another mind [Sure; I invented you to ease my boredom.  Probably for the same reason that YHVH created man, if you believe such.  Are you telling me that there can be no Atheists, because to say you don't believe in God, first you have to premise God?  That's a puerile argument.]- I think not - no such conflict of beliefs would have arisen in the first place; solipsists would see no use in communicating with another subject as there would be no subject assumedly to communicate with.[There are thousands of virtual worlds out there, all created by versions of my mind for their own amusement.  What's one more?]  Enough of such business - I am not hostile to solipsism, just that the "free will" dismissal is out of the question. [Well, I have no quarrel with that; as one user said, "free will" is probably undefinable at best and meaningless at worst— certainly to a solipsist.]--Knucmo2 00:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ::Let's just deal with the statement "Solipsism is irrefutable!" for a moment. Can you refute that we are in the verbal/conceptual realm here, and that this realm can only deal with... this realm?  The map is never the territory.  Words refer to other words, which refer to other words ad infinitum.  This is a maze of mental monkeys chattering away the same nonsense 24/7, even in our sleep, all of it referring back to itself.  If there is only my mind, please kill me now so I can have some peace (sorry, I know I didn't manage to refute solipsism, but if I really believed it I would have committed suicide many years ago... the verbal/conceptual can be fun, but if it were all that is then we are in a funhouse full of mirrors, an endless maze that we sometimes can't stop running long enough to get some sleep). jkl_sem 15:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is easy enough to dispense with. You ask why any solipsist who was "convinced" that you were a "phantom" would respond to you.  The answer is simple: because there is nothing else to do.  If you are only a figment of the information I possess, not real, but all I possess are figments, why should I not engage you?  I have nothing to lose, and you preoccupy my time (as I perceieve it).  If I am a brain in a vat, and some mad scientist created you to intellectually spar with me, why should I not spar?  What else do I have to do?  Within this world, the intellectual debate gives me something to do.  It passes the time.  Is there no use for a solipsist to communicate with "another subject"?  Of course there is.  What else is he/she to do?  Even if you are a figment of my imagination or somebody else's imagination that I get the pleasure of perceiving, why not talk to you? Unended 07:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Whilst I despise your arrogance in dismissing free will a meaningless and undefinable thing (much as the Logical positivists dismissed ethics as meaningless) I shall state that this debate must continue elsewhere. It is clear that this debate has no longer any bearing on this article - we'll discuss via email. --Knucmo2 13:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry; I really didn't mean to be so brusque, but I was wearing my solipsist hat! I simply do not see how any term may be formally defined in the solipsist universe, nor how such a term could solve any problems or answer any arguments.  Again, as a neo(?)logical positivist/scientist, I fail to see how (1) the concept of 'free will' may be operationally defined (or at least unambiguously defined, sans paradoxes and contradictions), or (2) that it has any content worth (scientifically) exploring.  As a metaphysician, I really haven't given it much thought!  I will await your correspondence; I will admit, I have not explored this subject for many, many years.  Have there really been some (new) and valuable insights? (WARNING: I absolutely reject a deterministic universe.) normxxx<font color="#FF0000">|  <sup style="color:#FF00FF;">talk    email  22:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * First, stop with the arrows; they're unnecessary and somewhat irritating. More importantly, this discussion is going nowhere.  Opinions from real external philosophers can be included, but this original research debate is pointless. Superm401 - Talk 03:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I had already made the point that the debate was going nowhere previously by the way. My original reservations about the article were not original either (Wittgenstein and stuff borrowed from IEP) - of course it went off on a tangent. --Knucmo2 13:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Very good, boys, I believe that this debate actually was quite productive! It showed briefly that the solipsism argument is valid, and just gave me a goose-skin feeling about how all the philosophy might just have taken a prolounged disgression after Gorgias ; ) Maybe all our work and efforts are out of fear worse than the fear of death - the fear of boredom. I think you both are ready to publish something : ). --

RfC response
not that this is really all that productive an argument... ;-)  ... but free will itself cannot be explained.  free will implies that a valid choice exists, and a valid choice implies incompatible outcomes.  therefore something exists in the mind (the un-chosen outcome) which can not be created by the mind - so where did it come from?

old and appropriate Descartes joke - Descartes had just finished writing his famous line "I think, therefore I am" and was sitting back savoring it, when his butler came in and asked him if he'd like a cup of tea. Descartes thought about it a second and said "no, I think not...", and promptly disappeared from the universe. ;-)  Ted 09:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Saffism
Nixdorf: You were right to remove; sounds like just another "philosophical" restatement— which would need a very strong magnifying glass to note the nuance of difference (if any). normxxx<font color="#FF0000">| <sup style="color:#FF00FF;">talk   ? email  02:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds
The International Encyclopedia of Philosophy

"In introducing 'methodic doubt' into philosophy, Descartes created the backdrop against which solipsism subsequently developed, and was made to seem, if not plausible, at least irrefutable. For the ego which is revealed by the cogito is, Descartes held, a solitary consciousness, a res cogitans which is not spatially extended, which, as such, is not necessarily located in any body, and which accordingly can be assured of its own existence exclusively as a conscious mind. (Discourse on Method and the Meditations). This view of the self is intrinsically solipsistic, and Descartes evades the solipsistic consequences of his method of doubt only by the rather desperate expedient of appealing to the benevolence of God. Since God is no deceiver, he argues, and since He has created man with an innate disposition to assume the existence of an external, public world corresponding to the private world of the 'ideas' which are the only immediate objects of consciousness, it follows that such a public world actually exists. (Sixth Meditation). Thus does God, in Descartes' philosophy, bridge the chasm between the solitary consciousness revealed by methodic doubt and the intersubjective world of public objects and other human beings. It should be clear that this particular evasion of solipsism cannot be availed of by a philosopher who at one and the same time accepts the Cartesian picture of consciousness and rejects the function attributed to God by Descartes - in view of this it is scarcely surprising that we should find the spectre of solipsism looming ever more threateningly in the works of Descartes' successors in the modern world, particularly in those of the British empiricist tradition."

See reference for more...

In A Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd ed. rev., St. Martin's Press, 1984), CSICOP Fellow Antony Flew calls solipsism "the theory that I am the sole existent. To be a solipsist I must hold that I alone exist independently, and that what I ordinarily call the outside world [including my body] exists only as an object or content of my consciousness. This doctrine, though doubtless psychologically very difficult, if not impossible, to hold, is philosophically interesting in that many thinkers have thought it necessary to attempt refutations, or even to admit that, however bizarre, it is strictly irrefutable. Once we concede...that the immediate objects of sense experience are mind dependent (ideas, impressions, sense data, etc.), it is indeed questionable whether we can argue validly to the existence or nature of a mind-independent external world."  <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;  normxxx<font color="#FF0000">|  <sup style="color:#FF00FF;">talk   <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;   email  02:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Nearly all objections can be dispensed with by an appeal to the solipsist's free will.
I haven't a clue as to what is meant by that statement. In trying to find the original source (and maybe a further explanation), I googled the web and discovered that the identical definition of solipsism which appears on the wikipedia article page also appears in over a dozen other web encyclopedias and stores/sources of information.  At this point, I would suppose it impossible to establish who was copying whom. But can anyone tell me the meaning of the headline phrase? <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;  normxxx<font color="#FF0000">|  <sup style="color:#FF00FF;">talk   <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;   email  04:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol, that was what my original post was about. I don't think any philosopher or thinker of note has ever said that! --Knucmo2 10:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I apologize for our off-topic argument; I came into the middle somehow, and thought you were challenging "solipsism" per se. My thing is "philosophy of science" and, I have discovered that (probably because of the roots in empiricism, etc.) many, if not most, scientist/philosophers are closet dualists!  I readily admit solipsism is completely impractical and probably an empty philosopy as noted; but it has one virtue, as far as I am concerned, it incontestibly refutes dualism!  In fact, if we do away with Descartes' God, even he was a solipsist!


 * P.S. Based on further research, I believe that Wikipedia has the claim on priority of definition! None of the other definitions reflect the evolution of the definition (even to the stripping down of Deutsch's 'objection,' which I consider to be excellent!)   They simply seem to reflect the most recent change (but one!)


 * P.P.S. What can Free Will possibly mean to a solipsist!?!  I mean, mustn't one assume Free Will (or some equivalent) if one is a solipsist? What is it that the solipsist's Free Will is free of!?!<font color="#FF0000">&rArr;  normxxx<font color="#FF0000">|  <sup style="color:#FF00FF;">talk   <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;   email  20:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Solipsism versus Other Philosophies
If you check out my latest addition to the main page, you will see why I am a solipsist (it sounds better than 'naive materialist'). <font color="#FF0000">&rArr; normxxx<font color="#FF0000">|  <sup style="color:#FF00FF;">talk   <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;   email  00:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

counter the final objection
calling it empty and without content fits nicely into the zen and buddhist view (^_^) And btw, I am a solipsist and would not mind answering any question regarding it. Jiohdi 21:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Corrected the responses to the objections, as they were all showing a bias of someone who is not obviously not understanding solipsism from inside that belief. there were "we" and social constructs given as answers, where no solipsist could contemplate such as part of reality. Why would a solipsist bother to correct things for others he does not consider real? Because they are real parts of his own being, and their misunderstandings are part of his overal insanity that he may be seeking to cure... just as one body is made of many parts, one reality is made of many minds...which are ultimately one. just like word and paint can both be running very different code on the same machine at the same time, two minds can be holding different data and still be a part of one whole.

There was also a notable antagnoism towards anyone who takes this view seriously, as I do. Jiohdi 01:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * : Please accept my apology, but I find solipsism philosophically and spiritually primitive and immature. It is the viewpoint of the average two-year-old child.  However, I will admit that from my own personal standpoint (Eastern, advaitist, nonduality) solipsism contains a grain of truth that is entirely lacking in 'everyday' delusive subject-object relations.  There is only self, but self is not the mind and neither excludes nor includes the possibility of 'others'. jkl_sem 20:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We needn't go too far into motivations; for solipsism, that's a whole other thing. I edited your edits to bring the thing more in line with Western philosophy (and correct some grammar), although I agree that Eastern philosophers have studied solipsism (probably more thoroughly than we in the West), but under different names.  My specific objections are invisibly embedded (do a 'page edit' to see them) on the main page.  I think a very useful addition would be a new section comparing and contrasting the Western and Eastern philosophies of solipsism, introducing us to the Eastern philosophical terms and their precise definitions (as best we can manage it) in English.  Do you feel up to that?


 * P.S. "sterile philosophy," now in the last objection, simply means it leads to a dead end; there can be no further analysis or questioning. Taking anything on "faith" is not an acceptable philosophical position in Western philosophy (for the reason that there can be no further analysis or questioning, among others), except in Western religious philosophy, which is usually distinguished as distinct. In other words, since there can be no counterargument to a "faith" argument, it is not itself acceptable as a counterargument.<font color="#FF0000">&rArr;  normxxx<font color="#FF0000">|  <sup style="color:#FF00FF;">talk   <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;   email  20:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the recent re-edit after I reverted. Nice clarification, and didn't expand the argument into a message-board post. If we could get some sources and citations, that would be good too. Ultimately, any "objection" that we can reduce to a link (either within WP or to something authoritative externally) is a great improvement. Something like:
 * no one cares :see nihilism.

Not that that's a valid argument, but it's a decent example. -Harmil 22:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Normxxx, I'm sorry by your recent edits are not actually encyclopedic. You seem to be carrying on a discussion in this article as if it were a message board. Please, re-write your contributions in the style which is used across Wikipedia. -Harmil 13:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What is your problem? My most recent additions were taken with only minor edits from the International Encyclopedia of Philosophy, whose credentials are at least as good (and probably better than) yours.  They are also properly referenced.  As far as I am concened they pass muster; if you don't like them, you are free to modify them in accordance with your whims.  Arbitrary deletion constitutes vandalism!   <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;  normxxx<font color="#FF0000">|  <sup style="color:#FF00FF;">talk   <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;   email  23:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you feel that way. Here is a list of concerns with regard to your edits:
 * You introduce a question in an argumentative style. This is a fine style for a lecture, not an encyclopedia
 * It is not a requirement of encyclopedias that they be terminally boring, and the more modern encyclopedias (such as Wikipedia) are becoming increasingly less 'formal.' The object is to convey information/knowledge as painlessly as possible.  What's wrong with a question that captures the essence of the contrast between solipsism and non-solipsism? You think some tedious locution would be preferable?
 * Heavy use of italics for emphasis in ways that communicate little or no extra information to the reader
 * Reduced the amount of emphasis
 * Use of underline which conveys no information and makes the text harder to read for many users
 * Eliminated underlines
 * You've extended the introduction substantially, which makes navigation harder, while adding information which isn't actually introductory
 * Broke out the addition to the Intro (to a separate section)
 * Incorrect use of &mdash;
 * From the Manual of Style: "The em dash is used in much the same way as a colon or set of parentheses: it can show an abrupt change in thought or be used where a period is too strong and a comma too weak. An em dash can have spaces on either side or not, depending on the writer's preference or in-house style rules" I might add that in modern usage, the em dash is used in preference to a semi-colon or colon.  However, I removed a few (and substituted a : ; or .)
 * The final paragraph is a tautology, and should not end with an exclamation point in any case.
 * I am afraid I don't see the tautology (if such exists). Restating the definition in another form (for emphasis) is not a tautology. I eliminated the ending exclamation point, which was intended to indicate that this was a restatement of the premises arrived at by argument and contrasting with the view of the 'last (non-solipsistic) man alive.'
 * I hope you're not taking this personally. I think the idea is good, but the execution needs to be re-thought. I initially reverted your edit with a comment suggesting how it could be re-worked. That wasn't intended to be a brush-off, but an honest invitation for further contribution. Simply re-working it according to Wikipedia style would resolve all of my concerns.
 * Well, I tend to take it a little personal when I am brushed off, intentionally or not. When I was a young systems engineer, I occasionally had a manager that would tell me, "I have a rock in mind; please go off and design me a rock." So, I would go off and design a rock and take it to the manager, who would promptly say, "That's not the rock I had in mind; please try again!"  It took me a while to realize the futility of that; by the time I became a chief systems engineer, some 20 years or so before I retired, I just laughed at such a request. Your current request is much more reasonable, and I have tried to accede to it (within reason).
 * Trying to push the edit through without resolving those concerns isn't helping either of us. -Harmil 03:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;  normxxx<font color="#FF0000">|  <sup style="color:#FF00FF;">talk   <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;   email  20:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My, but inline edits make it hard to tell just what it was that I had said. I wish you would not edit my comments that way. :-/
 * It's really quite simple. The bulleted text was yours; the indented text was mine. This follows the standard wiki discussion format; or, are you just trying to be argumentative?
 * I found this statement interesting: "It is not a requirement of encyclopedias that they be terminally boring, and the more modern encyclopedias (such as Wikipedia) are becoming increasingly less formal." This is a statement that I see on Wikipedia fairly often, and usually from someone who is looking for an excuse to have a conversation in the form of an article edit. Q&A of nearly any sort borders very closely on original research if the questions have not been asked and answered before.
 * And here I thought I was being original! (Can you provide a reference of one other such quote?)
 * If the questions have been asked and answered before, then an encyclopedia can simply record the results, rather that the conversation.
 * This shows a basic misunderstanding of philosophical discourse. You think all of Plato can be resolved in one or two sentences per book?
 * However, you have cleaned up the edit, I suspect about as much as you're going to, so I'll leave it to other editors to take it from here. -Harmil 07:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no quarrel with that. <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;  normxxx<font color="#FF0000">|  <sup style="color:#FF00FF;">talk   <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;   email  00:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Bias removed
As a philosophical category of analysis, the viewpoint of the solipsist is entirely empty and without content :That is, other than coloring the world with a shimmer of illusion, with or without the solipsism, the world would remain absolutely the same&mdash; so where do we go from there? Viewed in this way, the solipsist seems only to have found a facile way to avoid the more difficult task of a critical analysis of what is 'real' and what isn't, and what 'reality' means. has no place in a factual record, it is nothing but an opinion made by those who do not share the solipsist view and contradicts the importance mentioned above it. Jiohdi 15:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But this was listed as an <font color="#990000">objection or counterargument to solipsism and it is a good one, so please don't remove it. Simply add your (solipsistic) counter-counterargument!

<font color="#FF0000">&rArr; normxxx<font color="#FF0000">|  <sup style="color:#FF00FF;">talk   <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;   email  20:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

its really an opinion which makes a valid objection, but it was written too universally, so I have modified it and edited it to make it more accurate. Jiohdi 22:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice change. But be careful; for the solipsist, "reality" is meaningless! So, I added single quotes to that last "reality."  What do you think of my new section on "Solipsism versus other philosophies?"  Still hoping for a compare & contrast between solipsism and the Eastern philosophies.  Have fun!  <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;  normxxx<font color="#FF0000">|  <sup style="color:#FF00FF;">talk   <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;   email  23:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my reality, that of a solipsist, is not meaningless, as I find meaning arises from my concern over my next move... I care about pain and pleasure and understand both of them arise from my own very being. I also experience my true nature as uncreated, unpuprosed and possibily random beyond simply unpredictable...and so every move I feel I am actually able to make is a gamble to some degree and behind all goals I find a single goal... peace of mind. understanding that I am all that is, the whole of reality helps me to see the interconnections between my point of view and that of those who inhabit my mind... my inability to find total peace of mind without attempting to bring peace to those parts of me who currently suffer... like the many cells of the one body.Jiohdi 02:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

about the eastern philosophy
I agree that many E philosophies don't see a distinction between the self and the rest of the world. But I think the link between saying that everything is one and saying that only the self exists is tenuous. If everything is one, to call it the self seems egoistic. Do any eastern philosophies actually say that only the self exists, and everything is part of the self? WhiteC 15:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But, if they argue that they are merely a small part of the whole, then they are dualists (see Descartes and Bishop Berkeley). But see my latest addition to the main page (Solipsism and other philosophies) to see how all dualisms (of me and the other) simply reduce to me and my unconscious.


 * "...and saying that only the self exists is tenuous." Yes, indeed. If only the self exists, there's nothing separate from it to say anything or observe anything.  Imagine a child in the womb commenting on how big his mother's tummy looks from the outside.  So yes, saying that only the self exists is actually a false statement.  All statements are false because there is nobody separate to make them (yet they appear to appear, which Advaita does NOT deny.  Appearance is appearance, reality IS). jkl_sem 15:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Jiohdi: Can you provide us with an authoritative opinion here?

<font color="#FF0000">&rArr; normxxx<font color="#FF0000">|  <sup style="color:#FF00FF;">talk   <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;   email  21:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism recognizes the notion of self and soul as a chicken and egg problem with out answer... if the self is all there is, how is it possible to perceive or dream something other than what the dreamer is? if the dream is not the dreamer, than what is the dreamer? if the dream is an exact match to reality itself, then the dreamer can never be certain of that as a fact since he only ever knows his dreams or perceptions... so the Buddha placed this in the category of questions that must be refused as they only cause sufferings to those who ponder them too seriously... he said that there is no permanent self and the opposite view was equally flawed. (many western buddhists ignore the last part and cling to the first and in doing so make the absurd statements that self is just an illusion).Jiohdi 18:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Beautiful! Great minds not only wrestle with the same questions, but seem to come up with the same set of solutions (or, non-solutions), independently. Buddha's irresolvable 'chicken and egg,' —questions that must be refused as they only cause sufferings to those who ponder them too seriously— conundrum has been recognized in the west, at least since the time of the Ancient Greeks (is there anything they didn't think of?)  This is relective of Xeno's paradoxes and Kant's antinomies: equally plausible and opposite arguments to explain the same thing, but which are irresolvable.  <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;  normxxx<font color="#FF0000">|  <sup style="color:#FF00FF;">talk   <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;   email  20:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "...if the self is all there is, how is it possible to...dream something other than what the dreamer is?" Becuase selves have an inherent ability to imagine things that don't exist?1Z 17:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "if the self is all there is, how is it possible to perceive or dream something other than what the dreamer is?" Who is asking this question?  All questions subside when there is nobody separate from the self to ask them.  This may offend some philosophers, who thrive on questions, questions, questions.  And of course, there are never any answers, always more questions that point to questions, that point to questions... There is only the peace of self, in which all questions are answered before they are asked They do go on forever if you keep asking, they're verbal/conceptual, self-referential and utterly dependent on other concepts.  It's just a never-ending maze.  Let it all drop.  Somehow, some way the ceaseless search must end.  Then Peace.  And you can still enjoy navigating the maze, too (which is something of a miracle, pardon the word). jkl_sem 15:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Solipsism versus Other Philosophies
Which I had cut out and put here... This was a new section titled "Solipsism versus Other Philosophies " by Normxxx. The (lengthy) part I cut out is immediately below. Reasons for moving it to the talk page follow...

In all particulars, it is virtually impossible to distinguish between solipsism and the dualist philosophies, e.g., of Descartes or Bishop Berkeley. We have only to substitute the solipsist's "unconscious" for the dualist's God as the author of all (apparently) external events and objects. Indeed, a similar argument may extend to most other systems of philosophy.

"[M]ost philosophers, for the last two millennia at least, have been— and still are— quarreling about whether the world is actually there, the material machine we experience during working hours at least, or if it is a bunch of ideas, something not material anyway, the material world being some kind of perceptive illusion. The two warring factions are called materialism and idealism; none too original. Idealism often— after its most famous proponent— is called Platonism. Religious thinking tends to be some form of idealism.

"Solipsism is idealism taken to extremes, only one dreamy substance existing, that of ones own ego and its entire universe. In so [simplifying things], it becomes fully congruous with a straightforward, non-dualistic materialism, 'naive materialism' as cocky sophisticates call it. That is the beauty of it. It suddenly emerges as a perfect unity, a fusion of two ways of incompatible thinking, as there is no compartmentalization between the ego and the rest of the Universe. The trouble, both with materialism and idealism, you see, is that they invariably end up with an embarassing dualism between the thinking I and the rest of the world.

"Materialism seems straightforward, but then most people find they have the mind-body dualism as a problem. They shouldn't, because that specific problem arises from taking for granted that minds somehow are non-material (that is: idealistic ghosts in the materialistic cupboard, outright magical, non-physical ghosts). If you stay a sane, 'naive' materialist, realizing that the mind is a material machine in action, the brain PC writing to its screen, no dualism is perceived. [To the 'naive' materialist, the 'mind' is no more ephemeral than the execution of a computer program.]

"Now, if you follow me on the solipsist road, looking around, what do you see? The normal world, exactly identical to the drab materialistic one of working hours at least, but you can have no mind-body dualism problem any longer, as all of it is a monolithic you, your thought, your dream if you prefer. Idealism is pooh-pooh as well, as you and the world together are just one 'idea', one thought, one dream. So, you think, how nice: I can live, I even have to live in this one, undivisible world, and obviously I can toss a coin to decide whether I call it "solipsist" or "naively materialist", as they are fully congruent, phenomenologically fully identical, but clinically free from dualism, from any dichotomies."

If we reduce most other systems to a duality between "ideas" and "matter," then to the question which category determines the other, one may answer: But, it is clear from the arguments of all philosophies, that one can only infer the existance of matter and ideas, from their appearance in one's own consciousness. Hence, all other philosophies than solipsism must make certain inferences about the 'Universe' in order to proceed. 
 * 1) matter (materialist position);
 * 2) ideas (idealist position);
 * 3) neither (empiricist position);
 * 4) we cannot know (agnosticist position);
 * 5) that debate is empty (pragmatist position);
 * 6) both (eclecticist position).

... OK that is the end of the bit I cut out.

I didn't delete it wholesale because I thought that would be quite rude, since it is quite lengthy, and it may contain some useful points. But I have several problems with it.

1)The above text includes numerous quotes, but none of these quotes are from famous philosophers--they link to an external site that I can't even read (possibly because I'm color-blind). If the text is supposed to refer to some external authority, then I don't see this article as an authority on the subject of solipsism.  If the quotes are supposed to be from someone worthy of mention in an encyclopedia, they need to have references to those people.  And if the material is supposed to stand by itself, regardless of who said it, then there shouldn't BE any quotes there at all.

2)Much of the above text is POV--it exhibits a point of view which not everyone may agree with. It keeps saying things like "solipsism is..." rather than "[philosopher X] thinks that solipsism is..."  In other words, it seems to be a personal opinion, rather than an NPOV definition.

If the author of the above section would like to respond to these criticisms, then perhaps we could figure out how to incorporate some of the text back into the article. WhiteC 01:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The very first paragraph of the new section, on solipsism versus dualism, relies on the article from IEP which is used to authenticate so much of the rest of this article on solipsism. I agree my other sources were not very famous, but the content is beautifully argued— that should count for something— I believe I can find the more serious philosophical antecedents/references for each of these beautifully argued points— and will.

For some off the cuff preliminary examples, see above references.

<font color="#FF0000">&rArr; normxxx<font color="#FF0000">|  <sup style="color:#FF00FF;">talk   <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;   email  03:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll have a closer look at it soon.  I suspect I may still have some problems with it, but it definitely looks better than it did before your recent changes, and I'll have to spend some time looking at it.  Thankyou.  WhiteC 05:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Solipsism versus Other Philosophies (Continued)...
Well, I am impressed. This work is very well referenced. It makes good sense, and I would suggest subheadings for the other philosophies you are comparing it to--although it is very good, the section is quite long. My remaining problem is with the last paragraph, which reads like a conclusion to a research paper... undoubtedly a very good research paper, but it seems to me to be original research in the way you put things together from different sources to reach a POV conclusion. (If you disagree, or you don't understand why this is a problem for an encyclopedia article, let me know.) WhiteC 02:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No; I do agree with you on the last paragraph. Problem is, all roads in philosophy seem to lead to one end, and one end only— just choose your end!  However, I will try to modify the end here so as not to sound like a conclusion.  And thanks for the kudos; I was inspired!  <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;  normxxx<font color="#FF0000">|  <sup style="color:#FF00FF;">talk   <font color="#FF0000">&rArr;   email  04:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I tried. But it still comes off as a kind of conclusion.  I have decided that (as Hamlet said of Horatio), the problem lies within myself, and so will attempt no further.

A newcomer here. I've rewritten some parts of the rest of the article to try and be more clear, cutting out what I felt to be some needless apostrophes and emphases; feel free to say if they distracted from the actual meaning. I also rewrote some of the objections, which some felt rather straw man-ish. I still don't really understand what is quite going on with the Wittgenstein one, but I didn't feel safe rewriting it, since parts of it seem to be a quote. I also added the morality objection; sure, it doesn't have any legs philosophically, but I've seen it come up in every single casual debate of the topic.

Also, as for the "people die" objection, I easily could have gone back-and-forth a few more rounds, but I felt it was best to cut it short. The non-solipist could volunteer to kill the solipist and find out if the solipsist was right or not, and why the solipsist was so nervous about the prospect. The solipsist could reply that he bets his unconcious brain is a fan of reincarnation, or perhaps even possession with changed memories, so 'killing' this currently awake part of his brain in the context of the unconcious won't do much, maybe. It won't be a guarenteed true death.

I couldn't find a good place to squeeze it in, but this article runs the risk of allowing for equivocation in parts. It'd be good to make it more clear when it's talking about epistemelogical solipsism vs. metaphysical. The epistemelogical variety, making the weaker claims, is much more difficult to assail and has fewer implications as well. For instance, epistemelogical solipsism could be true AND reality could exist (heck, maybe God too). Just because our only true knowledge was of ourselves doesn't mean that there wasn't an underlying reality feeding it; we just couldn't be sure. The metaphysical variety takes the radical step that because we can't prove that this reality exists under the epistemelogical version, therefore it doesn't. Yes, stating it that way makes it pretty clear it's the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, but I'm not sold on the metaphysical variety as you can see, so...  but yeah. It's somewhat similar to the transition between agnosticism and atheism ("I can't find God, therefore God must not exist.").

Anyway, as for the real reason I'm here, I also have some serious problems with the Solipsim vs. Other philosophies section. It's certainly researched, which I will assume that WhiteC checked and it's good... but lots of it seems, well, irrelevant. A bit of a background on materialism & idealism is reasonable, but there seem to be long digressions on things that don't really tie into solipsism. But I'm hesitant to just delete it. Other parts are stated assertions that seem POV. Perhaps it could even be pawned off to another page?

A few specific comments...
 * "But such an argument leads to solipsism, not dualism, since then the Descartes body could only exist as an idea in the mind of the person Descartes."

I don't think this statement is at all self-evident, and I don't think Descartes would either. Is there a source for this? I suppose we could always use the ephemeral "A solipsist might say that such an argument leads to..." There's also the fact that this argument is basically, um, false. You can certainly say that you can stop here and end up with solipsism, but then you have to show why this part of the argument is compelling, but Descartes's later statements on the existence of bodies aren't (even if he can't assume them as axioms like he does with Descartes the mind, he does at least think he's proved them as theorems.)


 * Idealism, Idealism & Modernism, Historic Roots...

As noted above, I think these sections could use some combining and shortening, unless their relevance can be more directly ascertained.


 * Solipsism is idealism taken to extremes[29], only one dreamy substance existing, that of one's own ego and its entire universe. In so simplifying things, it becomes fully congruous with a straight-forward, non-dualistic materialism, 'naive materialism,' as cocky sophisticates sometimes like to call it[30]. That is the beauty of it. It suddenly emerges as a perfect unity, a fusion of two ways of incompatible thinking, as there is no compartmentalization between the ego and the rest of the universe

What huh?! Okay, I'm actually curious to here your thoughts on this (and maybe read up a bit more on these links myself) in a forum setting, but this is not remotely self-evident for an encylopedia. Why is pure materialism equivalent to solipsism? Sure, I suppose that if you die, then your personal window to the world closes and any further material interaction is irrelevant, but that only counts if you think that only your experiences are the only thing that matter (meaning you've already accepted solipsism). But just as a quick example: if the dreamy ideal decides to rewind time to 1850 except with more ninja clowns and make everyone not notice anything different, well, so be it. If the 'ego' decides to repeal the laws of causality, again, it can do it. The materialist universe is dramatically different; there are certain laws that must be obeyed becuase there isn't any other way for them to be. The "rest of the universe" is NOT your ego.


 * Which is to say, that the choice of 'worldview' is probably arbitrary: everyone will still behave the same in the end. All 'worldviews' may be shown to be roughly congruent, at least as they affect the everyday behavior of their adherents! And all seem to nicely account for all of the everyday phenomena recognized, resulting in paradoxes only if their results are reexamined using another 'worldview.' Even the prudent solipsist looks both ways before crossing the street.

Same problem as above. This is proof by assertion, and at best should be a viewpoint attributed to somebody, not a statement of fact. Suppose that the universe is actually solipistic for me, and I "wake up" to some degree and am able to control my unconcious mind (Neo in the Matrix style?). Guess what? I don't have to look both ways before crossing the street! I can just always walk on a raised platform that automatically appears whenever I want to cross, or make myself invisible and incorporeal to passing cars, or rewind time every time my old body gets hit. Even if I haven't "woken up," if I believe the world to be solipsistic, the morality arguments in the Objections I added would result in a very different worldview (or, at the very least, COULD result in a very different worldview). The theological idealist will do whatever she believes God to command; the materialist might follow either egoism or secular humanism; but the solipsist, knowing that in some sense they created the world, can treat it entirely as their plaything. It'd be no different than something made in SimCity; you only choose to respect the rights of others because you feel like it (or, alternatively, gave some to them voluntarily), not because they actually have them. I don't believe that these three viewpoints lead to congruent actions at all. For another example, look at suicide bombers- if your soul is the only thing that truly exists, you should be happy to give up your body to please God. Materialists might do it only if their happiness or respect for others demanded that they commit suicide. Solipsists, though, well, who knows how they might react to the proposition- whether they believe that they cannot die in their own delusion and so fire away, or else that when they die, the world dies, so they'd never choose to do that option.

(It should be noted that Hinduism & Buddishm are a little different on this; my impression is that rather than emphasizing that the world is you, they emphasize that you are the world, and so safeguarding the world becomes a little more important, while de-emphasizing yourself and your delusions of independence. There aren't as many magic reset buttons.  It's a matter of focus; rather than "I am the entire world, Rargh!" it's "I am nothing but part of the world").

So, yeah, enough ranting. The general point is that it'd be a good idea to make the parts of this section to keep a little more distant. I wasn't the one who stuck the "verify" tag on, but while there are lots of links, perhaps we could rephrase the assertion parts to make it more obvious who would claim this or that. SnowFire 19:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Normxxx: I chopped up your piece. It's a bit of a work in progress, so feel free to restore parts; I took out some of the statements I mentioned above as being fairly strong without much qualification or backing. I'm not averse to putting them back in, but I would suggest that they need to be rewritten to be less argumentative and more encylopedic. Currently, I got the feeling it was basically saying "and this proves exactly why every other philosophy is really solipsism in disguise!," except it didn't really seem to offer a convincing proof (and I say this outside of the fact that I happen to be a non-solipsist; there are plenty of reasonaly well-argued points that I don't agree with elsewhere, but I just don't see how, say, humanism is really solipsism by assertion. At most, perhaps Schiller was, sort of.). Plus, it lingered over the idealism/materialism ground without really adding much later on. I tried to add the notable bits to the main Idealism/Materialism section, and cut the rest, keeping the focus on solipsism and how it would relate to other philosophies.

Again, there's no rancor in this, and I think the article on the whole will be stronger for the addition... but concision is also a concern. SnowFire 23:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

206.213.209.31's changes, and the Objections section.
Jiohdi, it was good trying to clean up 206.213.209.31's work, but I think it's just entirely worse from the version before. It sounds very cheerleadery ("I still exist and it'll never be disproved! Hahahah!") and not at all encylopedia-like. The addition to the "Life isn't perfect section" is a gigantic dodge that doesn't even make tons of sense- you are you. Perhaps he or she is referring to the standard idea assumed in solipsism that you don't know your own unconscious desires and that they may be different than your conscious ones, but that's already addressed in the ignorance statement.

Another reasonable concern is the addition that TheOtherStephan made to the Wittgenstein objection. Now, I happen to agree with his point, but it seems to just be repeating what was already said in the previous sentence. I happen to not really get that entire objection at all- like someone copied some random stuff from a philosophy book- which made me nervous about removing it, since maybe it's actually a really good objection in disguise. Perhaps the best thing to do would be just to remove that objection entirely, unless someone can stand up for it. SnowFire 22:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

as it was it was all over the place, talking about YOU, the solipsist and the one speaking to the solipsist in no particular order or fashion, so I tried to unify it all into a dialogue format.... and I moved the philospophic analysis to its own section as it is not an objection really.Jiohdi 21:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Not sure I agree with the idea of moving it to a dialogue format.  The main problem is that it doesn't really allow for quite the back-and-forth the more detached, neutral format allows.  For instance, a dialogue works better when there is one consistent dissenter who has a point, but for an encylopedia entry on solipsism, we'd kind of want to mention all the problems raised with solipsism, even mutually contradictory ones.  That said, you have a point that the Objections section in general could probably use some revision to make it clearer who is doing what.


 * As for philosophic analysis, sure it's an objection. It's perfectly valid to say "this may be true, but it is useless."  In fact, this may be the most damning of all the objections provided, since it still makes its point even if everything solipsism says is true.  If you want philosophy to not be merely true but also useful to some degree (a not uncommon desire), it's a good objection. SnowFire 16:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Observations by 204.228.117.202
--Word from anonymous author - 	I myself am somewhat of a Solpsist, but not exactly the true meaning. I believe that everything exists, but only exists around me. For example, a person is to believe that everything they have experienced in their life is led up to be exactly what they are at that moment, and latter experiences will build them up to be somebody important. They also believe that everybody exists, although not in that body at that exact time. What we are seeing as people is simply an illusion from possibly another "universe", "time", or simply not exist at all. Upon one's death, they could believe that other "universes" or "times" realize this, but do not pay much attention. Much like a graph with six billion lines, each showing the events of one persons life, and as one ends another starts, and these lines merge with others although the lines do not know of themselves or lines around them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.228.117.202 (talk • contribs)


 * (Moved here from article) // Nnp 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Skepticism vs. Solipsism
''Re: "Solipsism is first recorded with the presocratic sophist Gorgias (c. 483-375 BC) who is quoted by Sextus Empiricus as having stated:

Nothing exists

Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it, and

Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others

Solipsism is generally identified with statements 2 and 3 from Gorgias."''

I believe these statments are basically Skepticism and not fundamentally Solipsism.

For your consideration:

Skepticism:

Fundamentally Skepticism originated as a response to the eternal debate between Realism and Idealism. The Skeptic intervened with the observation we cannot determine whether Reality is real or an illusion, therefore the debate between Realism and Idealism can never be settled. We will never know the truth. A more radical form of Skepticism is a natural extension of this observation which then assumes since we cannot know this fundamental truth about Reality, and everything is part of Reality, we cannot know the fundamental truth about anything.

Solipsism:

Fundamental Solipsism begins where Skepticism leaves off. The Solipsist states ‘I don’t care’ whether Reality is real or an illusion. If I cannot tell the difference, then to me there is no difference. The only thing that matters to me is how I perceive Reality. If I kick a rock I will perceive pain whether or not the rock is real or only an illusion in my own mind.

Rational Solipsism goes further in its observation that since I know I exist, but I cannot be certain anything else actually does, then the only Reality is the Reality that exists in my own mind. It makes no difference what so ever if there is independent existence beyond my perception. If I do not observe it; it does not exist in my Reality. Fundamentally we are all Rational Solipsist within our own minds as the only Reality we can be aware of is the Reality which we personally perceive. Whether our perceived Reality is a true representation of what actually exists is beyond our ability to ascertain since we can only know what exists within our own perceptions. When we perceive an object we are not actually seeing the object itself; we examine the image of that object that is projected within our own minds. We cannot know for certain how any other mind is perceiving that same object, or its own Reality.

Absolute Solipsism takes the concept to its extreme and states since the only truth that exists is in my own mind, and my mind is the only mind I can be certain exists, then everything I perceive must be an illusion of my own mind. No thing, and no other minds, really exists. I am absolutely alone in my own Universe.

Note that neither fundamental or rational solipsists genuinely entertain the concept their minds are the only minds that exist. Their fundamental abstraction is in the observation of their own Reality and make no real distinction between Realism and Idealism, while the absolute solipsist is squarely in the Idealist camp. Absolute Solipsism garners the most attention and is almost universally defined as the exclusive definition for Solipsism. Since Rene’ Descartes famous exclamation “I Think; therefore I am!” most modern philosophy is an extension of Fundamental or Rational Solipsism prejudiced by the philosopher’s own leanings toward either Realism or Idealism.

The Demise of Realism:

Until the latter part of the 19th century our perceptions of Reality developed from the unchecked debate; despite the protest of Skepticism and Solipsism, between Realist and Idealist. While Realism propagated in the West, Idealism maintained its influence in Eastern philosophy and Religious concepts. Western philosophy has the Realist concept the Mind exists in the Universe. Eastern philosophy maintains the Idealist concept the Universe exists in the Mind.

Western Science is descended from Realism as is most Western Religious concepts. Both maintain a Dualism of a real world fabricated from an unknown fundamental substance in which we are only participants and have little or no control over anything outside our own bodies. Eastern philosophy is more Holistic in its approach maintaining the Buddhist concept there is emptiness at the heart of all matter and we are all connected and responsible for our Consensus Reality.

Late in the 19th century Western thinking began to change, and by the beginning of the 20th century a full fledged revolution took place as the leading minds in physics discovered they had all been transformed into metaphysicist. Bohr, Heisenberg, Einstein, Planck et al, realized the study of the physical was essentially the study of the metaphysical nature of Reality. Einstein’s proclamation “Reality is an illusion; albeit a persistent one.” discarded Realism down the Quantum rabbit hole taking Skepticism along with it. Contrary to the proclamation of the Skeptics that we can never know the true nature of Reality, it was Western Science that unraveled Realism to discover there really isn’t a fundamental particle anywhere to be found. Once we dissect our physical universe down to the Planck length we found all matter really is composed of “emptiness” and Reality is a Grand Illusion. The question now confronting Quantum Theorist and Philosophers is how does that illusion work?

cck

29 April 2006

C.C.Keiser

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cckeiser (talk • contribs).


 * The Case for Solipsism.

The place to begin is at The Beginning, but in order to do that we must first give an answer to two of the fundamental questions confronting philosophy. The first is The Fundamental Question; "Why is there "Somethingness" and not Nothingness?" The second question is closely related, and that is the question of the First Cause of "Somethingness."

Of course I know "Something" exists. The fact that I am asking the question is proof sufficient. Even if I entertain the Idealist concept that all I perceive is an illusion, and then embrace the Solipsist proposition the illusion is only in my own mind, I am still left with the fact that my mind exists. My mind is "Something," so therefore "Something" exists.

In order for Something to exist, Something must have always existed. The reason is, we cannot get Something from Nothing. A true Nothingness is devoid of all essence so therefore there is no-thing in Nothingness to induce evolution into Somethingness. The "Null Set" is the most stable of all probabilities and is consequently beyond perturbation. The very unnature of Nothingness precludes any possibility of transformation. If a true Nothingness were ever the case, a true Nothingness would always be the case, and there would be a zero probability of any thing ever existing.

I exist! I am "Something," therefore Something must have always existed, and the answer to the Fundament Question "Why is there Somethingness and not Nothingness" is simply because Nothingness cannot exist. The odds of Nothingness ever existing is nil! The second question of First Cause is therefore rendered moot. There never was a First Cause; "Somethingness" is Infinite.

If we entertain the Realist concept of materialism, were a substance exists, then it must exist in something; a container of some kind. If it exists in a container than we must trace that container bact to the First Container; back to its First Cause. We can say the physical Universe is the container of all substances, but is the physical Universe the First Container, or is it contained in yet another container as the Quantum Theorist propose?

Eventually we must arrive at the First Container which contains everything but is not itself contained. This First Container would then be an Infinite and Unbound Singularity, and we therefore arrive at the very same conclusion as the Idealist. There is just no way to get Something out of Nothing. Somethingness is Infinite and there never was a First Cause.

This brings us to the next fundamental question; "What is "Somethingness"?"

We really don't know. We use circular definitions of one unknown quality to define another unknown quality, and then go back and use the second to define the first. Something that "Exists" is that which we perceive to be "real" What is "Real" is that which we perceive to "Exist"! The only consistency in our definitions is "that which we perceive." All is perception. For anything to exist it must be able to be perceived by our senses. Our senses instruct our minds what is being perceived. Therefore all that exists, exists in our minds. Without perception there is no existence, and without a mind there is no perception. Without mind there is no existence. What is the "Somethingness" that exists? That Somethingness is Mind. The Mind is the only certainty. It is the only existence we can be certain of. All else is uncertain and dubious. If A is equal to B, and B is equal to C, then A is equal to C. My mind; my Consciousness is the infinite Somethingness that exists.

Which brings us to Solipsism: My Mind is the only Mind I know for certain exists! Since all I can know about any thing is what I perceive, and every thing I perceive is perceived by my own mind, I cannot determine the true nature of anything existing external of my own mind. Therefore everything I perceive is my own mind. My mind is the infinite Somethingness that exists. It is the only thing that in fact exists, therefore all else must be part of my own consciousness. Every thing I perceive does not actually have an existence independent of my own consciousness. Every thing my mind perceives is an illusion generated by my own mind, but since I am not consciously aware of manifesting this illusion, everything must be synthesized by my subconscious mind for my conscious mind to perceive. If I have a conscious mind and a subconscious mind, how many other minds do I have that I am not consciously aware of?

The Solipsist Solution to The Problem of Other Minds.

All other minds are Alter-Egos of my own mind. I know about Multiple Personalities where one person can exhibit two or more different personalities which in some cases are vastly different to each other; even different in gender, but they are all manifested by the same consciousness which is often not aware of its own alter-egos. These alter-egos can be of different ages, have different skills and speak a different language unknown to the other ego. We are all each others Multiple Personalities, and all of my other alter-egos compose my subconscious mind. It is from all these other egos I receive the information I use to create my our perceptions of Reality. It is the information I receive from my subconscious mind that enables or limits my own abilities and forms the illusion of a physical Universe.

In an Infinite and Unbound Singularity of Consciousness there is infinite room for infinite egos. No ego is the First Ego. All egos are equally the First Ego and therefore share the same infinite consciousness. The only thing that separates one ego from another is it own perspective. It is this difference in perspective that gives each of us our own individuality and gives meaning to our own minds.

C.C.Keiser May 17, 2006

cckeiser 01:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Link removed by request. My apologies. (I'm still learning the Wiki-ways)

If you also have an objection to the rest of this submission; which is basically "original research", even thought it is based on the traditional philosophical debate on Solipsism, please feel free to remove it entirely. I will not be offended in the slightest.

It is obviously not a NPOV, and was submitted here for the sole purpose of providing the Solipsist point of view which is not, in my opinion, very well represented in the article.

cckeiser 03:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)