An argument against Solipsism

[lelinator]

but the rest of the universe might be a subjective illusion which the solipsist constructs.

In the above quote it’s the inclusion of the word “subjective” that I have a problem with. It’s self-evident that if reality is an illusion, then I don’t knowingly “construct” it. I don’t choose what it looks like, and I don’t choose how it acts.

So in what way is it subjective?

And solipsism doesn’t deny the existence of objective truths.

 

[Gorgias]

It’s self-evident that if reality is an illusion, then I don’t knowingly “ construct ” it.

It is? How else do you account for it? Are you suggesting a ‘Matrix’ style reality? How would you demonstrate that to be true?

And solipsism doesn’t deny the existence of objective truths.

Do you deny the objective truth that I exist?

 

[Dan123]

lelinator:

And solipsism doesn’t deny the existence of objective truths.

Do you deny the objective truth that I exist?

You’re overlooking the ‘knowable’ part. Solipsism doesn’t reject the idea of objective truth/reality, simply observes the constraints on someone knowing that truth.

 

[John_Martin]

The sensible object will either confirm or deny the intelligible object that is in me (the object known in the knower).
A “solopsist” will be disappointed or happy based on a re-examination of the object with the external senses (re-looking at the external object), thinking to have known it falsely or truly. It will happen, no matter the philosophical assertion of his delusions. The external object will be the measure that drives his happiness of knowing.

 

[Gorgias]

You’re overlooking the ‘knowable’ part. Solipsism doesn’t reject the idea of objective truth/reality, simply observes the constraints on someone knowing that truth.

Fair enough… but the alternative is “you’re not really real; only I am. I hope.” So, for a solipsist, the idea that’s being accepted is “you’re not real; at best, I can say you’re a projection of my subjective perception.”

 

[Dan123]

Fair enough… but the alternative is “you’re not really real; only I am. I hope.” So, for a solipsist, the idea that’s being accepted is “you’re not real; at best, I can say you’re a projection of my subjective perception.”

I feel like you keep falling into a binary here, where if someone can’t be certain of A they must believe not(A). A solipsist doesn’t have to believe other people are projections of their own mind, the idea is about confidence levels.

Compare the confidence levels that you’d have for the existence of a close personal friend, the Queen of England, and some guy named Jeff in some town you’ve never visited or heard of. You have vast more first hand knowledge of your own friend circle than of most other people on the planet. You’ve likely only seen pictures/video of the Queen of England, hard to fake especially given how long she’s been there but you still have much more evidence of her existing than Jeff, some guy I made up.

 

[Gorgias]

I feel like you keep falling into a binary here, where if someone can’t be certain of A they must believe not(A).

I don’t think that this is where I’m coming from, although I’m open to discuss it. I think, rather, that I’m saying that, “if you can’t be certain of A, then you must be willing to believe ~A.” And, if ~A is absurd, then “I disbelieve the only alternative to that absurd claim” is unreasonable… no?

 

[Gorgias]

Compare the confidence levels that you’d have for the existence of a close personal friend, the Queen of England, and some guy named Jeff in some town you’ve never visited or heard of. You have vast more first hand knowledge of your own friend circle than of most other people on the planet. You’ve likely only seen pictures/video of the Queen of England, hard to fake especially given how long she’s been there but you still have much more evidence of her existing than Jeff, some guy I made up.

Apples and oranges, and not at all what solipsists assert! The question isn’t whether one particular person exists, or even whether the Queen of England exists. The assertion, rather, is “no one except I myself exists.” That’s a horse of a whole 'nother color – and, to accept it, actually requires some rather unreasonable mental gymnastics, IMHO!

 

[Dan123]

I don’t think that this is where I’m coming from, although I’m open to discuss it. I think, rather, that I’m saying that, “if you can’t be certain of A, then you must be willing to believe ~A.” And, if ~A is absurd, then “I disbelieve the only alternative to that absurd claim” is unreasonable… no?

Overall sure. Of course it’s hard to know you’ve identified “the only alternative” and that there are no other possible alternatives; and that you have sufficient information to determine if something is reasonable or not. But again a solipsist most likely believes you’re real, while acknowledging that certainty has a lower upper limit than their certainty about other things, most notably their own self.

 

[Gorgias]

Of course it’s hard to know you’ve identified “the only alternative” and that there are no other possible alternatives

Umm… you yourself identified that the issue is “A” or “not A”. So, I’m arguing the unreasonableness of the “not A” case you’re suggesting.

But again a solipsist most likely believes you’re real, while acknowledging that certainty has a lower upper limit than their certainty about other things, most notably their own self.

Still having a hard time with that description. “Most likely believes you’re real” means dealing with me as if I were real. If you were dealing with me as if I were real… would you assent to the proposition that actions I take – with respect to you – weren’t necessarily real? (The particular action I posited, at the top of the thread, was “tossing a rock at your nose”.) If, having been bonked on the nose with a rock, you would conclude “not really a rock; not really Gorgias tossing a rock”, how reasonable would that assertion be???