Talk:Solipsism/Archive 3

Tomas Ryal
I'm pretty sure that the "Ryal, Tomas" author in the references section is a spoof. 'Tomas Ryal' is a character in a bad Paul Auster-rip-off novel called 'The Amnesiac', by Sam Taylor. Taylor has even gone to the trouble of creating a 'Tomas Ryal' page on Wikipedia. The only reference on that page is to a URL registered by the same person who runs Taylor's own website. Google "Tom Ryal" and you'll only find pages that are somehow related to Sam Taylor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr George Matthews (talk • contribs) 13:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Incorporate lucid dreaming?
Maybe this article should incorporate the fact that many people use lucid dreams as an argument for solipsism. They say that if the mind can create entire worlds like within lucid dreams— that have the same amount of sensory perception and realism as "actual reality" does— than our "real world" could also be an illusion. Lucid dreams, if you've had one, can feel very realistic and the senses of smell, taste, touch, hearing, and sight are all completely fully functional142.176.117.239 23:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Satanism
It bears a mention in here somewhere, possibly under culture references since the importance of Satanism as a religion is probably debatable, but that Anton LaVey declared solipsism 3rd highest amongst "The Nine Satanic Sins", behind pretentiousness and stupidity. Despite not becoming canonized as a "sin" until 1987, the underlying themes of these statements are found throughout LaVey's writings, and are thus a major part of Satanism even prior to their inception.

"3. Solipsism—Can be very dangerous for Satanists. Projecting your reactions, responses and sensibilities onto someone who is probably far less attuned than you are. It is the mistake of expecting people to give you the same consideration, courtesy and respect that you naturally give them. They won’t. Instead, Satanists must strive to apply the dictum of “Do unto others as they do unto you.” It’s work for most of us and requires constant vigilance lest you slip into a comfortable illusion of everyone being like you. As has been said, certain utopias would be ideal in a nation of philosophers, but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, from a Machiavellian standpoint) we are far from that point."

See http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/Sins.html for the full list.

If no one has a legitimate objection, I will toss in a blurb to the effect in a few days or so. Assuming no one beats me to it. -- JSAtkinson 08:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be done to improve the article?
It's only B-class, but there are no tags on it.

Any ideas?

1Z 22:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Gorgias: Sophist, yes; but Solipsist?
I'm not sure that Gorgias' On Nature or the Non-existent really qualifies as solipsism. Indeed, his wiki page says

"Gorgias is the author of a lost work: On Nature or the Non-Existent. Rather than being one of his rhetorical works, it presented a theory of being that at the same time refuted and parodied the Eleatic thesis. ...  The argument has largely been seen as an ironic refutation of Parmenides' thesis on Being. Gorgias set out to prove that it is as easy to demonstrate that being is one, unchanging and timeless as it is to prove that being has no existence at all."

Even with this aside, the first point "Nothing exists" would seem to include "I," and the third point "Knowledge about it cannot be communicated to others" definitely includes "others," even if only from a non-communicable standpoint. Therefore, I am deleting this section from the page. If anyone feels otherwise, or has sources which describe his work as Solipsistic, feel free to re-add. TheStripèdOne 03:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Although actually, it does seem like an important starting point for solipsism. Maybe it should still be mentioned after all? I'll leave it to more wikified minds than mine. I dislike its blatant fact-stating without any sort of explanation as to views regarding it, though. TheStripèdOne 03:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

pathology
Can anyone include some specific information about a crisis where one worries about solipsism. Isn't this a symptom of certain mental illnesses such as dissociative identity disorder, schizophrenia or obsessive compulsive disorder?

On the section titled "Philosophical solipsism as pathological": Objection, argumentative!! Sustained! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.0.106 (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

References needed
This page is in desperate need of references. This is Wikipedia, not a college essay. If you've taken time out to write long comments on this page, please take a fraction of that time to cite sources on the main page. MarkBul 18:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this page needs references. "This article needs additional citations for verification" is the tag placed upon this article. The lack of citations causes this article to be less reliable and less trustworthy. The overall ethos of this article should be professional and its purpose should be to be an informative overview of the topic of solipsism. I plan to be adding citations in the overview, history of solipsism, solipsism, psychology, and psychiatry, questions about solipsism,and responses sections. lee378 —Preceding comment was added at 18:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

KUDOS
It's been some time since I visited this page. But whoever was majorly responsible for its rewrite deserves a paean of praise! It is vastly improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Normxxx (talk • contribs) 01:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * new comment*

If that's true I'm glad I didn't see it before. It's lacking citations and seems devoid of objectivity in many places.

From the 'Consequences of Solipsism' section:

"It should also be noted that invocation of quantum mechanics in support of ideas outside of physics, by non-practioners in support of an argument is frequently the province of charlatans."

Really? Says who? Care to provide a citation? Evidence? Anything beyond opinion?

I've removed that quote, no doubt there are many more.

Apologies if I'm doing this wrong... I notice this post isn't quite like the others, my first time using this site.

Defining Solipsism
'Solipsism' is self-defined by its etymology. "Only the Self exists". The problem is, what is meant by the Self? The individual personality? If only my perceptions exist, there cannot be any mind to experience such perceptions.That would be as if reflections could exist without the mirror which produces them. Similarly, if the Self is the/my mind, and this alone exists, we have a mind without a user,or thoughts without a thinker. If on the other hand, we call the thinker the Self, the mere fact that thought is necessary to form judgements inevitably implies a deficiency of knowing - since, if I knew everything, there could be no occasion to think about anything. What is evident is that this 'Self' is independant of form or any sense of 'my'. In the way that an actor is independant of the roles he plays. If we did not distinguish and separate consciousness in terms of these artificial costumes composed of chemicals (bodies, including brains) there could be no such distinction as 'me' and 'you'.If I dream that I am at a conference with many people of different nationalities and both genders, I observe everything from the standpoint of the form I identify as 'me'. But on waking to reality, ALL these people, including 'myself', vanish into something more substantial. Or if we take six billion drops of water and put them together, can we really argue that they have any individual existence? Are they not now an ocean, such that a fresh count of their total number would arrive at precisely one drop? The essence of Solipsism, ever since its origin among Christian mystics, is the search for the identity of ' I '. Who or what IS I? The puppet, whose brain is made of wood, may come to believe he performs actions. He may consider himself superior to other puppets.He may even arrive at the idea that his strings are his real self.But unless he can abandon forever all attachment to form and individual identity, he can never see the truth- that he is in reality, in terms of everything he appears to do, devoid of all life or will other than that of the Puppeteer. He has a choice- he can either deny his existence, or he can make a quantum leap and claim to be the puppet-master. Colcestrian 20:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

EPR Experiments?
From the Explanation section: Although some recent work in physics (EPR experiments) is suggestive, it is likely that solipsism and materialism are impossible to differentiate empirically.

I assume that this is refering to the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen thought experiment. I do not see the linkage between the concepts -- how would any experimental resolution of the EPR Paradox constitute either support for or refutation of solipsism? This smells like the old "appeal to quantum physics" philosophical charlatanism. I mean, whatever evidence science might produce, it could of course just be "made up" by the solipsist. There is no way to demonstrate that the experimental data is actually real, from the solipsist's point of view. If anybody understands this better than I do, please speak up. Otherwise, I'll be back in a few days to delete this reference. At a minimum, it should link to the EPR article. Randall Nortman 17:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just removed that sentence. However, I'm still uncomfortable with this section -- is solipsism actually antithetical to materialism? Solipsism deals with epistemology, not with reality -- that is, it is a claim about what is knowable about reality, not about reality itself. The claim is that nothing beyond the self is knowable with certainty. This is not incompatible with materialism, which simply states that there is only one kind of "stuff" in the universe. But I am not an expert in philosophy, so I'm not going to be bold enough to remove/rewrite this section. --Randall Nortman (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Morality
I don't think this page should credit "god" with the very much human concept of morality. If "god" were moral, there would be no need of the Book of Job to explore "his" immorality. Or, we could look at it another way - "he" being the one true solipsist, and we the figments of "his" imagination. Koshebezsmertny (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Responses - Language
Human language is the very foundation of human consciousness. Using language as a refutation of solipsism seems more harmful to our understanding of parent: language than child: solipsism. Remember, language does nothing to confirm an external world; it might even pose the one obstacle to its irrefutability. Science and philosophy reach an insurmountable barrier in language - any language. Read one book on Semiotics and notice how reality quakes in the vivisection of human language. Koshebezsmertny (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My two cents
I believe that solipsism is the only correct worldview, but that's just one man's opinion. 195.68.89.135 (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Wehrli here
I removed some references to the book by Wehrli also cited here over at some physics articles because they just linked to a page where he tries to sell his book. Since no text is available at the link, and furthermore, the available texts are pretty cocky and his theory seems rather bogus, I think, linking them here in Wikipedia is inappropiate. The book is also linked here. I suspect it's unrelated spam, but maybe somebody with a proper background can check it, too. -- honk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.246.226 (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Solipsism is ***NOT*** the belief that only the self exists.
No known inidividual ever made the claim, that only the self exists. The beginning of this article is accurate. The rest of the article contains the POV of people who don't understand Solipsism. They merely provide their own personal thoughts on the subject, and for the most part they don't understand solipsism. They provide no citations, not even original research. All they offer is their own bull shit based on their misunderstanding of solipsism. Solipsism claims the thing we can know with absolute certainty is our own thoughts and feels. The only thing we can know with certainty is ourself. This does not mean that nothing else exists. It just means we can't know with 100% certainty what else besides ourselves exist.


 * Uh, no. First of all, sign your posts (if I had a penny for every time I said that...). Second, all assertions are referenced by the long list of notes, references and reference works at the bottom of the page. If you think the content of the page is wrong, show this with a reliable reference, not by whining about how the article is bullshit (spelled all together in most cases, actually). Third, it's obvious that the only thing we know for certain is that we exist. The rest is all belief. This is true in all cases (but let's not start a philosopy discussion, shall we). Solipsism is the belief that there is nothing apart from the self. -- 23:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why it is so hard considering solipsism wrong?
If even accepting that super-dubious statement of that 'The only thing i know existing is my mind'[1], and even further, accepting (blindly) conception of 'All of world can be my illusion', and then realising not all of world is directly controlled to you you think there's 'BUM' (massive unconscious mind). But stop, you CAN'T know whether 'BUM' exists, you only know YOUR mind exists. Then, solipsist say 'world is my illusion' but HOW can one know IF the illusion EXISTS? If we state, that the only thing EXISTING is your mind, you can't go then stating something else exists, like even works of that mind. If you state [1], you live in nothing, but how parts of nothing can be different to each other?

But since you get 'The only thing i know existing is my mind' statement, and 'I think, therefore I am' conclusion i can ask four questions:

-Why if I THINK, then i am?

-Why it is stated that I THINK?

-Why I KNOW my mind exists?

-Why i know that my mind EXISTS?

those can be summed with:

-Why is my mind is supposed to be the ONLY thing to exist?

-Why i know only one thing exists?

-Why my mind is that the only thing existing? etc

As you can see, solipsism is unable to answer any of these, as it is only concerned about those statement and conclusion. -- 82.209.225.33 (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Christian View regarding Solipsism
Paul, (Saul of Tarsish), later named Paul after his Damascus Raod Conversion, states, with regards to the mind;

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of God except the man's spirit within him? In the same way, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians, ch 2 vs 10- 12)

Iris Russell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.157.203 (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Solipsism syndrome removed.
I removed the section on Solipsism syndrome because there is no citation. If you have a valid source, reinclude it and cite it properly. I am extremely well-versed in psychology. If this "syndrome" exists, it isn't in any diagnostic manual. I've checked the ICD and the DSM. Your word of mouth does not qualify as a reputable source. Dead men&#39;s bells (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Objectionable verification
Some people, who may be considered to be of more relevance on the subject of solipsism, may point out with conviction, that it is nigh impossible to try to justify solipsism without the mere attempt being an act of refutation. If you believe that your mind is the only mind that can be proved valid, then why would you write an article on the subject if by doing so you were only writing to aspects of yourself? This is a topic that is of much interest, as it shows just how closely solipsism is related to egoism (but not egotism). In what relevance I can relate without my attempt being its own refutation, I must attest that solipsism must be considered by anyone with a questioning mind. It has been said in another article that solipsism only verifies that you can justify the existence of other minds but not your own, and to this I must scoff. You can never feel the pain of another short of some vicarious revelation, vicarious meaning exactly, "felt, but not through your own perceptions". People like to believe that they can relate to others but they can only truly say that they believe that they have related to something that they hope might exist which could have the same experiences that they have. This can not be proven to be true, only hoped that the belief must be the truth. This is the core of solipsism, and existentialism. You can debate, but are you only debating to another part of the mind? Freud located the Id, the Ego, and the Superego, but might there be a Paraego, which would serve to create the experiences of others independent of those we experience? This assumption can not be too far-fetched when we realize that the subconscious actively does the same thing when we sleep. Could two parts of the mind carry on the same task so that one half of your experiences are realistic, while the other half are fantastic? The core of this whole statement should be, if you are a solipsist, are you only fulfilling some ego-quota by writing to people that are only a reflection of yourself and your mind? 12.210.167.228 (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Cybal Carnus


 * Does this help any?


 * Solipsism and the Problem of I


 * Einstein’s Relativity tells us no-thing existing alone can have any meaning.
 * For anything to have meaning it must be able to be compared relative to something else.
 * This applies to the mind as well. A mind existing alone can have no meaning.
 * For a mind to have meaning it must be able to compare the mind it calls “I”
 * relative to another mind it recognizes as “Not I”.


 * Without “Not I” there is no meaning to “I”.
 * If I existed alone, I could not call myself I, because “I” would have no meaning.
 * A solipsistic mind could not know what “I” means.


 * cckeiser (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Final objection(s) to solipsism, comments
I decided to word things a bit differently so they make more sense to those without background in nondualism.

My main objection is that stopping where solipsism does is dangerous - the sense of being unsure about a 'world out there' is interesting, but it demands further exploration to avoid drawing irrational conclusions.

(1) The 'subject' (me) needs 'objects' (you) to define myself, as a subject cannot become its own object! Think about it. There is no mirror within me to be able to look at myself in. This suggests that what I really "know exists" is the reflection of every mind BUT my own! I'm the one missing here.

(2) Solipsism does not question the notion of a "me" standing apart from the perceptual field, observing it. If you think about it, this is VERY obviously in question, and further calls into question my existence as a separate entity. "I don't feel all that real, and it seems I dedicate much of my life to feeling MORE real" - Ring any bells?

(3) Solipsism does not factor time into the equation. "Mind" encompasses past/present/future. In fact there is no evidence of a past or future - the past is "gone" (i.e. not there). Future is entirely imaginary - otherwise fortune tellers would be out of business. If I'm a point of consciousness centered on 'now', the mind could be an illusion.

I myself am in doubt, and so is my "mind" (past/present/future).

If you wanna go down the rabbit hole, go down all the effin' way. Peace, out. jkl_sem (talk)


 * I don't think this is relevant to the neutrality issue. It's not meant to be debating whether solipsism is valid, only whether the article validly reports what solipsism is... 74.73.27.206 (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Mm, but there is no discomfort in debating it, surely?

You reason that to reason there must be a reason that you reason, and the reason is that you perceive the reasoning. That is your "self". You need no mirror.

And in such, the reason of perceiving is that you perceive to perceive, and the only provable thing is that you are in a reality that is proof only by what you perceive. Yes repeated words are necessary. 122.57.38.208 (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My mind is the only thing that exists
If so, how could it be that (A)I would be aware of the fact (how did I gain a viewpoint separate from my mind in order to observe its status?), and (B) care enough to claim a belief or philosophical viewpoint? Everything is self-referential if my mind is the only thing that exists. 'Outside the mind' is my mind. 'The external world' is my mind. 'Other minds' are my mind. If solipsism were true, it seems I would have to be somewhat nutty to first make up all these concepts (other minds, other people, etc.) and then declare them to be nonexistent. Maybe I just like building mental houses of cards and knocking them back down again, as well as debating philosophy with imaginary characters I made up? I think I need a "me-ambulance" to take me to myself (a.k.a. the nuthouse). Just some musings, sorry if I wasted your time... :) jkl_sem 16:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not really like that. It's just that you'd believe all you perceive is like a hallucination, all of it is just tricks inside your mind, the only thing existent. You're not looking at it from the outside, since there is no outside. In this way, it can't be refuted. Slartibartfast1992 23:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mm. The moment we are made, we perceive from inside ourself. There is no outside, all that exists is me. It is impossible to prove anything else exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.38.208 (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

'''How can one state that all percievable mental phenomena are just tricks of mind? on what grounds?''' if its my mind that creates the mental things in itself, then why this mental phenomena are out of my control, that's where the biggest error is made in solipsistic statement when said that " I create my mental phenomena", if it is so, why experianceble phenomena that common sence calls reality is not dependant to my will? and if reality is created by unconsious mind, how this unconsious mind is characterized and identified as such? One can not attribute a name to anytihng other than experianceble/observable agents. To my mind David Deutsch masterfully qualified solipsism as diguissed reality as it is incapable to prove anything rather than misleading us with puting the words off their original, logical meanings. (G. Bibileishvili)

Recent comment on Solipsism by Gia Bibileishvili
Guys, after reading the main article on solipsism I am left with the feeling that the creators of the page share the solipsistic point of view or actually tend to justify the absurd ideas of solipsism.


 * 'Wait!'

I'm the person who added the section on solipsism from the viewpoint of "general nonduality" under Eastern philosophies. I'm not a philosopher nor a mystic, just an ordinary guy whom nondualism makes perfect sense. Please read my section... I have to agree solipsism is absurd, childish, petty nonsense. HOWEVER: within it there is a sort of pointer, like a road sign that says "Reality, turnoff 10 miles." I am forced to admit solipsism makes more sense than the confused, jumbled, scattered, subjective, arbitrary subject-object nonsense commonly believed, in which *YOU* and *I* exist by virtue of our mothers repeating "This is me... and that's YOU! me... YOU! Me... YOU!" over and over again above our cradles. Sorry to interrupt, I just had to get that out... please continue below ;). jkl_sem 14:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

For me the evidence of absurdity of the solipsistic worldview is clear and i will try to explain my point here:

Firstly, in my opinion to solve the so called "unsolved" problem we should discuss the semantics of the words that are used in the solipsistic proposition "I am the only mind that exists". If we agree that the sentence is comprehensible in some way, we should admit that words of the mentioned sentence bear some meanings that are authentic in their own way and that each word even though having numerous contextual meaning must have its determined and agreed boarder of the meaning it entails, so to speak, the word I means the selfness and can be understood as the word substitute to the feeling of selfness and can't be expressed out of its original and authentic meaning if at all used in any common sense way. Selfness in its immanent meaning implies non selfness once it shapes the scope of selfness. As the word meaning can not be boundlessly spread in its meaning, that is why word has scope and it is placed in scopes in order to express difference/uniqueness of the agent to be expressed. The same can be said about the rest words used in the solipsistic proposition and we can see that the whole idea of the solipsism is nothing more than a tricky exaggeration/overlap of the meaning of one word over other words (their meanings)contained in the expressed proposition. As a result we get extremely obscure and absurd ideas expressed in visibly clear form, backed by so called plausible egocentric logic.

So why at first solispism looks as the idea that is impossible to reject? Because it is centered in the ego of the perceiver and zooms in the meaning of the ego to its boundless and unthinkable scales, thus creating the blur picture of whole proposition it is contained in. The common sense can not tolarate the solipsistic point of view and that is why it is natural to have defensive reaction of the psyche towards antagonistic agent. As mental concepts need to have knowable meanings in order to be actualized from behavioral/emotional side, our mental capacity can not digest the ideas that represent the chaotic state of words in their undescriptive nature. Thus if we try to express the solipsistic meaning in its non-speculative form we will have the follwoing picture:

if we overlap the meaning of the word I over the whole meanings of other words, we get - IamtheonlymindthatexistI or IamItheIonlyImindIthatIexistsI, further IaImtIhIeIoInIlIyImIiInIdItIeIxIsItIs or simply IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII....(one can improvise with endless variations of each words of the sentence as the words in solipsistic expression simply lose their destination)

So we can see that not only the sentence looses any meaning but the "I" concept of selfness transforms into boundless or absurd state..

Guys, lets get back to natural progression of life with its endless diversity of forms, meanings and ideas, lets perceive and enjoy the fullness of life instead of dwelling on the unthinkable emptiness of solipsism!

Gia Bibileishvili

Is this following line actually necessary? Solipisim is a view that ignorant and conceded fools share while living in denial and in a small self-absorbed world. It is a value judgment, and I don't think it has any business in an encyclopedic article. 155.212.41.197 20:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Matthew Graybosch

Sorry Gia, words are just a method of communication that we learn. The use or arrangement of words have no impact / should have no impact on philosophy. If you would like to disprove solipsism use ideas, which are expressed by words, not words themselves.122.57.38.208 (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A page on Solipsism that doesn't mention Stranger in a Strange Land? I'm shocked, simply shocked. Xoder 06:05 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Issue with the Article's Arguments
Wait a second; doesn't the very existence of socio-cultural human value systems that have to be taught to you indicate the existence of someone else out there? I mean, if you really are the only person out there, wouldn't the only value system be a solipsistic one? Also, what's with the lack of Matrix references? -HurriSbezu


 * To answer questions (1) and (2), no. The very existence of socio-cultural human value systems that have been taught to me would indicate only the existence of information.  How that information came to me (whether by a human civilization of which I am physically a part or through electrodes hooked up to my brain by a mad scientist) is unknowable. Unended 23:29, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

ok
look i sort of appreciate what your all doing here, but none of you are real, its pointless for any of you to discuss this since any conclussions you guys come up with are meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.138.218 (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * just accept reality for what it is and enoy yourselfs, i wont allow antything to bad to happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.138.218 (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, YOU'RE doing all of this. Nidht (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Idealism
Idealism is the view that there is ONLY mind. Platonism - as taught in Philosophy classes - It the belief in Plato's theory of Forms. Platonism is often referred to as Platonic Dualism, as it posits not one, but two fundamental substances, matter and the Forms, with which one is aquainted by a spiritual intellect.

This page doesn't really exist
I am bored, so I conjure[1] up this imaginary page - and to make it more interesting, I conjure up an imaginary thingy called the universe to plug this page in :D [1] not "conjured" - there is no tense other than the present, of course - unless i decide there will be.

'Objection'
'Another argument against solipsism is that it has no goal and no way to be applied. The question used in such an argument is, can it be applied? Does it lead to a better or a happier life, in the viewpoint of the solipsist, or anyone else? In other words, if the solipsist believes that nothing is real and there are no goals, what can he spend his time doing and why not just die?'

To me, this seems like a double standard. For the realist, life still has no goals. Realism has little effect on the average person's life. It's not like solipsists just wander around while everyone else is playing some sort of RPG; whether the world is an illusion or not, there's no point in life, no win condition, full stop. Also, no references. 99.244.97.75 (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Realism is compatible with having goals. For instance, a realist can belive their good deeds leave the world a better place. 1Z (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well. I guess, but that's a rather broad 'goal', especially since there is no absolute 'good'. A solipsist could easily say that they're living because they like life. Is that not as valid a 'goal'? I'd say it's more valid, in fact, since 'leaving the world a better place' really has no meaning outside of a moral system of one's own devising. A realist could say, for example, that everyone should commit suicide in order to minimize pain; that is, that life is pointless without an ineffable God to guide the way. 99.244.97.75 (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

constructivism
What about the relation to Constructivist epistemology, especially radical constructivism? --92.225.213.115 (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Solipsism in infants is a section? Are you kidding?
This section offensive to Solipsism as a valid philosophy. If you're going to talk about solipsism in infants, why don't you discuss "Liberalism in children" in the Liberal wikipedia page? Or "Republicanism in children" in the Conservative wikipedia page? It just doesn't make sense; it's an insult to the philosophy itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.5.199 (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (Moved new section to bottom per convention) The currently cited reference does not explicitly support the claim that infants are solipsists. However, a quick Google search revealed sources that properly back it up.  Unlike liberalism or conservatism, 'infant solipsism' is not a school of thought, but a developmental phase.  Because psychologists do in fact discuss the idea that all infants begin solipsistic (if that's a word) I think it is worth mentioning. -Verdatum (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I must state for the record: I knew that I was a solipsist from birth onwards. I also really like to talk to myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.139.218 (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Applicability
While this section many pertain, the text following does not belong in an encyclopedic entry. It merely posesed unanswered questions rather than clarifed a concept. Therefore, I have deleted it. It was probably vandalism because it suggested suicide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.156.57 (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Quality Standards" and "Expert Needed," good luck
Someone just delete this article and try again from the top. Maybe an historian or scientist can address the matter, because the adherents to the philosophy are evidently too clouded in their cognition to compose a substantial and coherent article. It reads like a string of opinions and afterthoughts. The core problem is that many of the contributers are likely sure that this article does not in fact exist, and therefore write it as they see fit without regard for concise presentation required for the externally conscious reader. There's a paradox here that destines this article to failure in a wiki. If the article were instead well-written, there would certainly be flags regarding neutrality. I think this article will never be free of flags, but I'll check back now and then to see if I'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.74.143 (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha ha. You're right. It certainly needs some work, and that is an interesting way of thinking of the problem... --137.195.250.2 (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was about to See Also this article, and visited it. I gave it a look, and while it seems interesting, I don't understand how it rates a "B"..."The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards."  I won't oppose a change, but it seems to me that his is not a B.  I would say it fails "without major issues".  I won't revert if someone disagrees, but I am changing this to a C.- sinneed (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This really does need help. Just attack any paragraphs that begin with a question. For crying out loud, this article is to ANSWER questions, not make more then answer them halfassly. That is, unless you think the question is only part of your imagination and you're too lazy to use it any more.173.115.203.20 (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * An article should not be written by "adherents to the philosophy".


 * Anyway, I'm not sure that this article should exist as a philosophy article (rather than a psychology article). I have very little training in philosophy, but I have not seem much evidence that the term "solipsism" has much meaning in formal philosophy, and that it isn't synonymous with something like subjective idealism. Looking around the web, it seems that the main references to solipsism are from amateurs proponents or people who just use it as a straw man. The one "philosophical" source given asserts that "No great philosopher has espoused solipsism. As a theory, if indeed it can be termed such, it is clearly very far removed from common sense." 71.182.244.126 (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Solipsism, in all defintions I have found (princeton.edu, webster, etc), call it a "philosophical theory". Cartesian approaches are inherently solipsistic and the questions raised by solipsism are based in common philosophical presuppositions (ie. experience is necessarily private to each person, etc). The "philosophical" source quoted above suggests the same (and is rather biased against the assertation). However, the Stanford Encyclopedia has a great article on the subject which explores it from all angels (here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/ ). If anything, I think that the "problem of other minds" page and this one should be combined, they are aspects of the same question. 68.102.235.228 (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Prevalence
Does anyone have any information about how common it is for people to have solipsistic thoughts from time to time. Any ideas on roughly what percentage of people wold have ever come across the idea in their lives? Any ideas on how many people actually BELIEVE that solipsism is true? Also does anyone have any more information on links between worrying about solipsism and OCD? I have disabling OCD and worrying about solipsism is a huge obsession of mine that is EXTREMELY distressing to me. Can anyone here relate to this?


 * I can't answer your question with any certainty. But I'm quite sure that there are relations between solipsism and delusion (psychosis). I had two schizoaffective psychotic episodes and my delusional states of mind during that time based mainly on solipsism. I can tell you: It was also EXTREMELY distressing to me because I got more and more convinced of the truth of solipsism.
 * After these episodes I started to look around in several support groups and I met really many clients with psychological problems experienced distressing solipsism thoughts.
 * And the relation between solipsism and psychosis seems quite obvious to me: When you are the only being in the world and you construct the external world in your mind, you must be extremely complex and one could call that megalomania! On the other hand, if the world is something you are just imagining, it's quite clear that there are links between the ongoing in the world an your state of mind (because the ongoing in the world is something that only happens through your mind). And that's a quite easy explanation for several types of delusion: First of all "the delusion of reference", which is often the basic for a bigger delusional complex, also the delusion of guilt or sin, the persuasion of being God is closely related to solipsism and so are the several types of religious delusion, and the grandiose delusion. Hearing commenting voices is a little bit like delusion of reference, when incidences seem to comment your thoughts, what could be explained with solipsism.
 * So I strongly think but cannot prove for sure, that there is a strong relation between solipism and delusion or psychosis. The prevalence for psychosis in the population is known. You can read it in the articles (about 1 percent).
 * How many people, who don't get really mentally ill, have distressing solipsistic thoughts from time to time, I cant say. But I experienced, that some kind of solipsitic thoughts appear to healthy people, when they get confronted with the philosophy of mind and consciousness (especially Descartes) and radical constructivism epistemology.
 * --LLassek (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What is it called
What is the name of the phylosophy "style"(i dunno what to call it) of believing even the mind itself is an illusion just like any other perception? --TiagoTiago (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a bit silly
If only one's own mind exists, and other people's mind do not, then why does said people still annoys us from time to time against our own wills. Like this challenge, for example.

If only our own minds exists, then surely we can will this world to be perfect. Accidents and misfortunes will not have surprised us. Unexpected events will not happen. If this mind is all that exists we will not experience confusion, or met with a question of which we cannot known an answer to.

Wouldn't it be unnecessary to argue to minds that do not exist, pointless to get angry with others? Infact if Solipsism is true then this article would have served no purpose.

It is better to follow the middle way and not fall into the two extreme thoughts. Joseph Yiin (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You should read a section of the article called Life is imperfect, I think it answers many of your questions. Also, you are certainly entitled to your opinion that this philosophy is silly, but how does this help us build an encyclopedia? Svick (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I read that section. It seems to be play on words. There's not much else you can't define if this is how philosophy goes, but I agree that this does not help in contributing to a better article. Feel free to delete this section if you do not like it. Joseph Yiin (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is only one mind and you are it. The mind of the universe, expressing it self through this organism and it's ego. annoyance is a subjective interpretation, reclaim your mind. Joy is an intent, not an outcome :) -- Namaste@ ? 19:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wittgenstein's language argument
Can someone familiar with the subject please clear it up and add sources? I find it hard to believe that that's the sum of the argument, since it seems so simple to refute. 90.213.30.253 (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

lachrymology
In the problem of "Life is imperfect" you talk about the pseudo-philosophy lachrymology. But the link links to the Band "tool". What does that mean? --LLassek (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the article about the band – it's a pseudo-philosophy the band invented. Svick (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Has the pseudo-philosophy of a single band relevance for a solipsism article? --LLassek (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

another argument against solipsism
What about the following argumentation?:

If solipsism is true, I am God.(<Non sequitur fallacy) God is almighty.(<Non sequitur fallacy) If I am almighty, I have the power to create truth. solipsism feels horrible (almighty, but the hell of loneliness). So I don't want that solipsism is true and so it isn't!

This argument resolves solipsism but not megalomania, because in this scenario I am still God (megalomaniac) and the world and other minds exist only because I want that (I created them in my likeness). And because I want that, they started becoming independent from me (fall of mankind).

But depart of moral rejection because of megalomania: Is this argumentation against solipsism valid?? Does anybody know of someone who had the same idea and has the merit to be cited? (but all the other argumentations against solipsism and the solipsistic answer have also not citation - so I don't see a reason not to bring it into the article but my bad English language skills) --LLassek (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I find this argument very, very good, in fact I think you might have explained the whole creation of the universe LOL. However if I have created "others" in my likeness and by this they have become independent from me to the extent of a "fall of mankind", then its not megalomania anymore... it seems, because there are now real others capable of their own creations. This sounds very similar to Kabbalah and eastern teachings.

I have had strong episodes of solipsism since I was a child and in my teenage years it started to produce depression and horrible states of loneliness. I have felt is more of an emotion of extreme loneliness because I am "myself" and no "other", so it feels like the whole universe exists in relation to me. I am not "many I´s" to know or compare, I am not "many observers", just me, very strange...Even if "others" are considered real, why I am experiencing alone (from the point of view of my consciousness)? Again difficult to explain because is more of a sensation than a thought. No matter how many arguments could be raised against it, you cannot escape the realization that "you" alone are experiencing EVERYTHING (from the point of view of your consciousness), that, cannot be avoided, and seems not to have a solution (except maybe absolute love or/and dissolution of the "I"?)

Does solipsism as a psychological trait has a proper name? psychosis? --Ricardoch 07:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Responses
The "Responses" section is articulate and thorough, but it also seems like original research to me. Some cited real-world responses would be preferable to an unsourced essay. I don't have the expertise to do it myself, but I'm wondering if any other visitors to this page agree with me. TremorMilo (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)TremorMilo

An English language version?
Any chance someone could re-write (start again?) this ridiculous article in plain English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.64.183 (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What is Solipsism?
This might seem a strange thing to ask, but reading the article, the first description is "Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist." which to me is undoubtebly true. In the Explanation section however, the article talks about denial of the existance of other minds, which is bordering on insande. I feel there is an important distinction between something not being sure to exist, and denying something exists. So what is solipsism? 81.170.129.81 (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem of other minds is only a part of Solipsism, and I have rewritten the article to remove some of it's emphasis. I also moved up "varieties" (this should be the first thing any reader encounters) and rewrote them as well. Finally I added a picture. Hopefully this will give you a clearer understanding of Solipsism, although I plan on doing more rewriting in the near future.-Tesseract2 (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Eastern philosophies
The Eastern philosophies section has Eastern philosophy completely wrong. What it should say, is that there is only ONE SELF in existence and everything external to the skin-encapsulated ego is ALSO THAT SELF, including people, trees, grass, bees and physical laws - everything - which is different to solipsism which says that everything external to the skin-encapsulated ego doesn't exist. In the East they say quite the opposite, actually, that the skin-encapsulated ego is the illusion and yet so is the external world, since both concepts are a polarity, or a DUALITY.

Just sayin'. Currently this section of the article is completely naive. Anyone who understands the Eastern ideas is probably laughing at it, which is to say, I MIGHT be too... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.58.21 (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some confusion here about what the definition of solipsism. Anything that exerts that there is only one thing in existence and that is the mind of the individual is solipsism.  To be absolutely clear, what you describe here is solipsism. --Puellanivis (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the arguments above. The Eastern philosophies section is right. Just depend on what eastern philosophies do you agree with. The above arguments come from Hinduism, there is an ultimate self or ego, etc. But in Buddhism, ego is just an illusion, there is no independent self or eternal self. In Yogacara, there is a term, Santanantara dusana (Refutation of the existence of other minds). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raynoism (talk • contribs) 13:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Arts and Culture
The movies previously mentioned do not have solipsism themes in them. In fact, they are about the opposite, getting out of ones mind and accepting reality. 222.154.102.110 (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm having difficulty understanding how "breaking out of solipsism into reality" is not a solipsistic theme. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Last consciousness?
Just so we're clear, the last consciousness in the universe WOULD be a solipsist, or rather, experience the universe solipsistically, right? (As opposed to the narrow-view "last man on earth" situation). And it wouldn't by any means be required to contemplate or understand the concept of "solipsism" (or even know that it was the only consciousness) for this to be correct? Or am I totally missing something here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.228.229 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Solipsism only indicates that an individual's (in my case, ME) mind if the only thing that exists. The last consciousness is also the first and the only consciousness, MY consciousness (or yours if you are the only mind that exists. Maybe you are.). Assuming a realist worldview in which external things actually exist physically, the last consciousness on earth would NOT be solipsistic unless the external reality didn't exist and was only a creation of his mind. But of course, his mind is only a creation of my mind ;).Voyaging (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Semiotics
In the "See Also" section at the bottom, might I suggest adding semiotics or Peirce? When I read about Berkeley and Radical Empiricism, I thought to myself, semiotics should probably be linked in here somehow. Not sure how or if I should do this, so I'll leave it up to the pros.

98.64.73.9 (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Tom in Florida

I've got a question on this
Maybe someone who knows a bit about this can tell me. Is solipsism like saying that one soul is reincarnated billions of times over to live over the lives of every human being in a predetermined order? That would mean every person you interact with is you. You're Abraham Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth. You're Hitler and the millions he killed. You're Jesus and the people who followed him. You're the hobo on the street corner and you're Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. I am you. You are me. I think I made my point here. If that's not solipsism, is that a written theory and if so what is it called? NERVUN (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I want to switch bodies with George W. Bush. --67.52.221.226 (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Solipsism means that a brain knows only its own changes. The brain experiences itself. Therefore, the brain only knows for sure that it alone exists. Everything, other than the brain and its changes, is only a supposition that the brain makes on the basis of its changes. This has nothing to do with souls or reincarnations. The notion that you describe is similar to the Hindu religion's doctrine of "tvat twam asi" (you are that). According to this doctrine, everything is basically, fundamentally, essentially one and the same. All differences are only apparent or illusions. Monistic philosophies like those of Parmenides, Spinoza, and Schopenhauer are based on this notion of oneness.Lestrade (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Lestrade


 * I agree with what you're saying but there's philosophical skepticism and then there's solipsism. The latter isn't merely agnostic about those suppositions; it draws the conclusion that only the solipcist exists. No doubt that takes a lot of rationalization and I suppose enlisting this view of reincarnation (in just such a way) might be one's example? It's hard to generalize about the solipcist's perspective without begging the question.—Machine Elf 1735  09:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

With regard to solipsism, the question is, "what is immediately or directly known by the brain and what is mediately or indirectly known?" Only the brain's own changes are immediately or directly known. Everything else is known only mediately or indirectly. Therefore, only [solus] the brain itself [ipse] is known, by the brain, to exist and have real actuality. Everything else only seems or appears to really exist.Lestrade (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

I added some information with regards with existence of the solipsist. Including the dilemma of the solipsist's need for a brain, and how the solipsist could have existed with these new variables in consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.145.145.89 (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Question
I'm wondering what happens if a person (older than the solipsist) comes out and tells the solipsist "I've been living many years before you were born, why would I be a mere creation of your mind if I've existed way before you were even conceived?" †_JuanPa_† (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The possible answer a solipsist may give is that said person was never truly there and is still not there. He/she could be interpreted by the solipsist as mere ambience for the solipsist's created world's context. Now the idea that the solipsist would make everything so that it would even be asked such a question is interesting in and out of itself (if the creating process was even conscious that is, if it was not, that poses different but interesting new options). The chronological antiquity of the solipsist is rendered apparently without answer, because time could have been created by the solipsist, in which case said question could be answered by the antiquity of the universe itself, or the solipsist can exist in possibly other universes or the solipsist is the source physical laws, making time just another construct (many possible consequences come out of this thought); another possible answer could be that time is an innate quality of the solipsist, meaning that universal time is a fantasy alike all people inhabiting the world; an alternative answer could be that the solipsist somehow maintained existence without time, therefore probably not being a person himself, which poses even more interesting paths of thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.145.145.89 (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Freud
Is there anything wrong with the Freud quote I put in the article?--RJR3333 (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Belief in God and Solipsism
I wrote this about 1 or 2 years ago. I have no citation for it and it was just my personal opinion on Solipsism. I no longer hold this opinion so I want this section deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.89.20.139 (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to delete it, delete it...nothing is stopping you, feel free to be bold. However, as a temporary measure, if it's a valid point (whether you believe it or not is inconsequential), maybe it can be developed and examined by an editor willing to look through the sources and do a little research.  If it can't be justified by sources, let that editor remove it.  If it can be expanded, it should, and I'd suggest letting it be expanded.  I'll take a look at it this week.  If I can't justify it with a look through proper sources, in the hopes of citing it to a source and polishing it, I'll remove it.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

question
How would a solipsist respond to a (citation needed) in this article? Do they believe there is proof of their position or that there is no citation needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.5.186 (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This article ostensibly describes the beliefs of solipsists and is not meant to support or refute it. Solipsists believe there is not proof of their position; however, claims about the beliefs of solipsists must be properly cited like everything else on Wikipedia. Ienpw III (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Solipsism
I think a revamp for the latter half of this article is necessary. The majority seems to half been written by someone who decided to use it as his/her own vehicle for showcasing their metaphysical viewpoints. No citations, just complete complete opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michanniel (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course re-word whoever wrote, but citations could be easily added. It is a staccato, not really joined-up cross-citation tour of relevant philosophies. Just as it may not be an orthodox presentation by a 'leading thinker' does not make it non-encyclopaedic. Indeed it WP:PHILOSOPHY, plagiarism like that is to disparaged even more strongly.  Unless that is you believe in strong paternalism! -  Adam37   Talk  22:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible new category for solipsism...
I skimmed this. This may have been mentioned. It will be hard for me to articulate this, but I will try my best. My theory is, solipsism: I am conscious at this moment, but I have always been conscious, and my physical existence is what has changed. There is only one consciousness, and I can only be one at a time, but I have been conscious as the other people that "exist" around me, and their consciousness and behavior that I am perceiving is actually like a memory, or shadow of a previous or future life. Every choice and decision is one that I had made when I was them. My memory of being that person has been forgotten, or stored in the mind. Like reincarnation. We can sense these past lives through empathy ( or sympathy, whichever applies to this ), or déjà vu. This would mean, however, that time doesn't exist. That we live on a plane of existence where we are born, we interact with our past ( older people? ) and future selves ( younger people? ) on what has been the same plane of existence since our creation ( or when we created ourselves ). People in history that we "learn" about are just really old memories of ourselves that our minds have for some reason decided that are so long ago, they can't exist with us in our current consciousness. Or perhaps that our consciousness has been " jumping" around time making us live at different moments which is why there is so much variety in the existences of the "people" around us. For example, in one life we were a beautiful woman who died in a high speed car crash. We experience death ( either consciously or not, for an eternity or a millisecond ), and we are " reborn" as an effeminate man with a serious psychological fear of airplanes and roller coasters ( or anything really fast or related to our "death"). Along the line our new and/or similar experiences change us into completely different people that we love or hate at the moment in our current life. AUP December 29th, 2013 757 am. My iPad doesn't have the button for me to sign and date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.105.35 (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Metaphysical vs epistemological solipsism
Although the introduction describes both, much of the rest of the article is true only for metaphysical solipsists (eg., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#Main_points, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#Last_surviving_person ), and is false for epistemological solipsists. This seems highly misleading to those unaware of the distinction. Not sure what to do here. Ienpw III (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No reply after two months, so I am listing examples of the above complaint:


 * 1) Main points
 * 2) "Possibly the most controversial feature of the solipsistic worldview is the denial of the existence of other minds." (A feature only of metaphysical solipsism; other solipsists do not concede such existence but do not deny it either)
 * 3) "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." (see 1.1)
 * 4) Psychology and psychiatry
 * 5) Last surviving person (Is Psychology and psychiatry even the right section for this subsection?)
 * 6) "whereas a solipsist believes that his or her consciousness is the only one in existence regardless of who else, if anyone, is living. If the last surviving person is a solipsist, he or she will believe that even when others were alive, there never had been another thought, experience or emotion other than his or her own." (see 1.1)
 * 7) Relation to other ideas
 * 8) Idealism and materialism
 * 9) "On this scale, solipsism can be classed as idealism. Thoughts and concepts are all that exist, and furthermore, only the solipsist's own thoughts and consciousness exist. The so-called "reality" is nothing more than an idea that the solipsist has (perhaps unconsciously) created." (see 1.1)
 * 10) Cartesian dualism
 * 11) "but solipsism usually finds those further arguments unconvincing. The solipsist instead proposes that his/her own unconscious is the author of all seemingly "external" events from "reality". (this subsection actually earlier does not state that all solipsists deny external reality. However, this part makes that mistake again)
 * 12) Radical empiricism
 * 13) "Solipsism agrees that nothing exists outside of perception" (see 1.1)
 * 14) "The solipsist would say it is better to disregard the unreliable observations of alleged other people and rely upon the immediate certainty of one's own perceptions" (not actually the specific complaint I had earlier, but solipsism is a positive viewpoint, not a normative one)
 * 15) Responses (I'm not going to pick out specific examples here. The whole section is uncited, unclear, at times contradictory, and in keeping with my complaints above, often fails to distinguish between varying types of solipsism. It is in need either of a major rewrite or deletion.) Ienpw III (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Multiple Issues
As the article gives undue attention to metaphysical solipsism (or, more accurately, does not give due attention to other forms of solipsism) I have added the POV template to the article. I'm not certain whether this is the right one, but as far as I can tell it mostly fits.

The article is also generally poorly written beyond its introduction, with scads of references to "the solipsist", rhetorical questions, and other poor style. It reads more like International Art English than an encyclopedia. Ienpw III (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The subsection Samsara under Relations to Other Ideas is too vague, sloppy and somewhat misleading, in addition to lacking in citations. Moreover, this subsection seems unnecessary, given the subsections on Hinduism, Advaita Vedanta, Samkhya and Yoga etc. that follows and thus may better be deleted. Nidhishunnikrishnan (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The article does not need to be long, so there is good case for deleting most of the unreferenced material.1Z (talk)

- - - - I just added a new "See Also" topic: Subjective Idealism (Mar 10, 2014) - - - -

Deleted
I have deleted the uncited Responses section per the arguments above. Ienpw III (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)