Replies to another Catholic's solipsism questions

[Ben_Sinner]

Hi everyone,

I saw a message board from avemariaradio.net’s messase board.

forums.avemariaradio.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=155795

One of the posters was asking for good rebuttals for some questions he/she had regarding solipsism:

The poster defines solipsism in this context though:

"Solipsism means that my immediate conscious experience is all that exists. Note that my definition of Solipsism specifically excludes the idea that "only the self exists."

I was wondering, as well, what would be some good rebuttals against "my immediate conscious experience is all that exists." ?

Here is his/her rebuttals in advance to some of the arguments that may come up:

***A) If Solipsism is true, then everything will happen as I want it - this is a bad argument. Even if immediate experience is the only reality, it does not follow all immediate experience is freely chosen. This is why I carefully defined Solipsism above: I don’t mean that only the self or its freedom is real because the self is never immediately experienced, so it is actually beyond immediate experience.

B) If Solipsism is true, then I have written Shakespeare’s works and came up with Quantum Mechanics - bad argument for the same reason. Even if immediate experience is the only reality, it does not follow that I created my immediate experience.

C) Solipsism cannot be true because you can’t convince someone Solipsism is true: as soon as you say only your immediate experience is true, your audience will be reflecting on his experience and realize your experience can’t be all that exists. This argument is good, but does not preclude the problem noted above: Solipsism is possible as an entirely private opinion.

D) Solipsism precludes all meanings and therefore precludes morality: quite so. But a Solipsist won’t care about that.

E) Solipsism does not explain causes of my experience - it notes that all my experience is simply as such. This is also a bad argument. Solipsism only acknowledges what is immediately experienced, which precludes causality (which is not immediately experienced.) Hence, Solipsism would not even presume there is a need to explain where one’s experience originates from, as it does not presume there is a cause to experience.***

I figured I could get some good answers on this board about this.

 

[z_0101]

"Solipsism means that my immediate conscious experience is all that exists. Note that my definition of Solipsism specifically excludes the idea that "only the self exists."

Then what the poster is describing is not Solipsism:
Full Definition of SOLIPSISM
: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism

 

[GEddie]

The good thing about solipsists is they don’t talk about other people.



ICXC NIKA

 

[Rhubarb]

I’m moved my GE Moore’s Argument from Common Sense when it comes to solipsism or any sort of skepticism of the external world. Sometimes it’s called “Here is one hand.” Here’s how it breaks down.

1. If solipsism is true, then it is not the case that I have hands.
2. It it is the case that I have hands.
3. Therefore, solipsism isn’t true.

The above argument is a simple modus tollens and is quite valid. Moore defends (2) through the use of common sense. There are certain things that we know through deeply held experience with them and to our common sense. It would be laughable to argue that we have no hands. (Assuming a paradigm person, ie. setting aside abnormal cases)

 

[spiderweb]

"Solipsism means that my immediate conscious experience is all that exists. Note that my definition of Solipsism specifically excludes the idea that "only the self exists."

I’m not a philosopher, but this definition seems to be a contradiction in itself.

If the immediate conscious experience is all that exists, than that statement excludes all other existence. But if that excludes the idea that “only the self exists”, than there must be existence beyond the immediate conscious experience which contradicts the previous statement.

 

[spiderweb]

Another thought that comes to me is if the immediate conscious experience is all that exists, what about things that were immediately experienced in the past. Do they cease to exist because they were in the past and you are not immediately experiencing them now in the present?

Example: The solipsist person is unconscious, or perhaps in a coma. During this time by some accident, a finger gets broken. They reawaken a minute later. Now they immediately experience the pain of the broken finger. Yet they did not immediately consciously experience the breaking of the finger. Therefor since they didn’t immediately experience the breaking of the finger, then their finger isn’t broken. If the finger isn’t broken, then why are they immediately and consciously experiencing the pain from a finger that was never broken.

Hope that makes sense