Solipsism

[Partinobodycula]

First let me say hello to everyone. Although I was raised a Catholic, I have not been to church in over forty years, and I would never have thought that I would find my way to a Catholic forum.

But I do enjoy sound reasoning, and so I often search for websites that have an interest in philosophy. I seldom interact or participate in the discussions, for I am one of those people who are quite content with silence. I have no pearls of wisdom to offer, and no great intellectual knowledge to impart. I’m an uneducated, unread, simple lover of logic and reason.

I stumbled upon this site while doing a search on the subject of Solipsism. A subject of particular interest to me, because I am a firm supporter of the irrefutability of Solipsism. There was a thread in this forum a while back that dealt with this subject, and it appeared that although many argued against it, there are few who truly understand it.

Although I don’t feel any need to vigorously defend my views, I thought that I might take a moment to explain Solipsism, and answer any questions other members might have.

As with most belief systems and philosophies, there is no one definition that holds true for all adherents, but in a general sense, Solipsism is the belief that nothing can be known to exist outside of one’s own mind. It’s not that a Solipsist knows without a doubt, that nothing exists outside of themselves, it’s just that there is no way to know for sure. Everything that one sees, or hears, or feels, or tastes, or smells, may simply be an illusion. A Solipsist does accept the possibilty that everything that they see is real, they simply recognize the fact that they can never know for sure. All that a Solipsist knows for sure, is that I am. Everything beyond this one simple truth must be accepted on faith.

Solipsism does not preclude a belief in God. A Solipsist can be a Christian, a Jew, or a member of any faith. After all, if everything truly is an illusion, then that illusion suggests a creator, and a purpose. If one can accept all of reality on faith, as Solipsists do, then is faith in God really so much of a stretch.

People who do not understand Solipsism mistakenly argue that it is irrational for a Solipsist to interact with a world that they believe may be only an illusion. Is it irrational for a Christian to pray to God? If it is rational to pray to that which you cannot see, is it no less rational to interact with that which you can see? Regardless of its origin or nature, “reality” is all that a Solipsist has, and thus it is perfectly rational to interact with it.

Let me reiterate, the Solipsist does not believe with certainty that reality exists only in their mind, they simply admit that it is impossible to prove otherwise. Beyond this simple assertion, all Solipsists, just like the believers of any doctrine, are free to interpret their beliefs as it suits them.

If anyone here has any questions or thoughts on the subject I will gladly do my best to address them. If not I will return to the silence from which I came.

 

[JDaniel]

First let me say hello to everyone. Although I was raised a Catholic, I have not been to church in over forty years, and I would never have thought that I would find my way to a Catholic forum.

But I do enjoy sound reasoning, and so I often search for websites that have an interest in philosophy. I seldom interact or participate in the discussions, for I am one of those people who are quite content with silence. I have no pearls of wisdom to offer, and no great intellectual knowledge to impart. I’m an uneducated, unread, simple lover of logic and reason.

I stumbled upon this site while doing a search on the subject of Solipsism. A subject of particular interest to me, because I am a firm supporter of the irrefutability of Solipsism. There was a thread in this forum a while back that dealt with this subject, and it appeared that although many argued against it, there are few who truly understand it.

Although I don’t feel any need to vigorously defend my views, I thought that I might take a moment to explain Solipsism, and answer any questions other members might have.

As with most belief systems and philosophies, there is no one definition that holds true for all adherents, but in a general sense, Solipsism is the belief that nothing can be known to exist outside of one’s own mind. It’s not that a Solipsist knows without a doubt, that nothing exists outside of themselves, it’s just that there is no way to know for sure. Everything that one sees, or hears, or feels, or tastes, or smells, may simply be an illusion. A Solipsist does accept the possibilty that everything that they see is real, they simply recognize the fact that they can never know for sure. All that a Solipsist knows for sure, is that I am. Everything beyond this one simple truth must be accepted on faith.

Solipsism does not preclude a belief in God. A Solipsist can be a Christian, a Jew, or a member of any faith. After all, if everything truly is an illusion, then that illusion suggests a creator, and a purpose. If one can accept all of reality on faith, as Solipsists do, then is faith in God really so much of a stretch.

People who do not understand Solipsism mistakenly argue that it is irrational for a Solipsist to interact with a world that they believe may be only an illusion. Is it irrational for a Christian to pray to God? If it is rational to pray to that which you cannot see, is it no less rational to interact with that which you can see? Regardless of its origin or nature, “reality” is all that a Solipsist has, and thus it is perfectly rational to interact with it.

Let me reiterate, the Solipsist does not believe with certainty that reality exists only in their mind, they simply admit that it is impossible to prove otherwise. Beyond this simple assertion, all Solipsists, just like the believers of any doctrine, are free to interpret their beliefs as it suits them.

If anyone here has any questions or thoughts on the subject I will gladly do my best to address them. If not I will return to the silence from which I came.

Welcome to CAF Partinobodycula:

(Man, you sure coulda chosen a shorter handle!) Anyway, wasn’t it Samuel Johnson who, after listening to some Solipsists outside his store, went outside and kicked a rock, then said, “Thus I refute you.”? I suppose one must, after all, make choices. As we know, there are those who will insist that nothing can be known except what is outside of us, that all there is is “matter.” Perhaps they should each be given guns and led to the dueling range.

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

First let me say hello to everyone. Although I was raised a Catholic, I have not been to church in over forty years, and I would never have thought that I would find my way to a Catholic forum.

But I do enjoy sound reasoning, and so I often search for websites that have an interest in philosophy. I seldom interact or participate in the discussions, for I am one of those people who are quite content with silence. I have no pearls of wisdom to offer, and no great intellectual knowledge to impart. I’m an uneducated, unread, simple lover of logic and reason.

I stumbled upon this site while doing a search on the subject of Solipsism. A subject of particular interest to me, because I am a firm supporter of the irrefutability of Solipsism.

Welcome to the forum! You’re a man after my own heart. I don’t subscribe to Solipsism but it contains an element of truth.

There was a thread in this forum a while back that dealt with this subject, and it appeared that although many argued against it, there are few who truly understand it.

Although I don’t feel any need to vigorously defend my views, I thought that I might take a moment to explain Solipsism, and answer any questions other members might have.

As with most belief systems and philosophies, there is no one definition that holds true for all adherents, but in a general sense, Solipsism is the belief that nothing can be known to exist outside of one’s own mind. It’s not that a Solipsist knows without a doubt, that nothing exists outside of themselves, it’s just that there is no way to know for sure. Everything that one sees, or hears, or feels, or tastes, or smells, may simply be an illusion. A Solipsist does accept the possibilty that everything that they see is real, they simply recognize the fact that they can never know for sure. All that a Solipsist knows for sure, is that I am. Everything beyond this one simple truth must be accepted on faith.

The Solipsist knows for sure that thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions are occurring and (s)he believes they are experienced by a person, i.e. herself or himself.

Solipsism does not preclude a belief in God. A Solipsist can be a Christian, a Jew, or a member of any faith. After all, if everything truly is an illusion, then that illusion suggests a creator, and a purpose. If one can accept all of reality on faith, as Solipsists do, then is faith in God really so much of a stretch.

If it is taken literally Solipsism means that only one being exists.

People who do not understand Solipsism mistakenly argue that it is irrational for a Solipsist to interact with a world that they believe may be only an illusion. Is it irrational for a Christian to pray to God? If it is rational to pray to that which you cannot see, is it no less rational to interact with that which you can see? Regardless of its origin or nature, “reality” is all that a Solipsist has, and thus it is perfectly rational to interact with it.

But the “reality” is interior and known directly whereas the exterior world is inferred.

Let me reiterate, the Solipsist does not believe with certainty that reality exists only in their mind, they simply admit that it is impossible to prove otherwise. Beyond this simple assertion, all Solipsists, just like the believers of any doctrine, are free to interpret their beliefs as it suits them.

I don’t think you are free to reject the reality of the mind and become a materialist!

If anyone here has any questions or thoughts on the subject I will gladly do my best to address them. If not I will return to the silence from which I came.

That would be a great pity. The Solipsist need not necessarily seek solace in silence!

 

[Jim_Baur]

I think that in a sense Kant was one.

Also, I think that Kant forgot were all knowledge begins–in the physical senses.

For me, the objective reality of the physical world is real.
The subjective experience will be different from person, subject, to person, subject.

 

[Partinobodycula]

(Man, you sure coulda chosen a shorter handle!) jd

JDaniel, actually it could do with one more letter.

Anyway, wasn’t it Samuel Johnson who, after listening to some Solipsists outside his store, went outside and kicked a rock, then said, “Thus I refute you.”?jd

I’m curious, do you believe that Johnson’s argument was a legitimate refutation of Solipsism?

I suppose one must, after all, make choices. As we know, there are those who will insist that nothing can be known except what is outside of us, that all there is is “matter.” Perhaps they should each be given guns and led to the dueling range.

God bless,
jd

Indeed we all make choices. That’s the beauty of life. We all get to decide for ourselves how we see fit to live it, and in the end I suppose that’s what matters. I’m not qualified to judge your life, it’s yours and you’re free to live it as you see fit, and that’s as it should be. That’s life. I can’t judge the veracity of your choices, I am more concerned with the character of your actions.

So what does it gain me by being a Solipsist? It gains me the realization that I may get to the end of my life and find that there is nothing there. No God, no judgment, no streets of gold, or lakes of fire, and all that I will be left with is the realization of how I lived my life. That I am certain, will be judgment enough. So I make my choices today, knowing that I may have to live with them forever. What I believe, is not as important as how I act. That is the evidence of my character. My soul if you will. Whether there is a God or not, I wish to be content with the character of my life. I make my choices not based upon what others will think, or what God will think, but upon the most important judgment of all, my own. I have no need of judging you or your choices, you are wiser and more qualified than I. I am content to leave you to judge yourself.

All of your choices are yours and I respect them. May you be content with yours, as I am with mine.

 

[Partinobodycula]

That would be a great pity. The Solipsist need not necessarily seek solace in silence!

There are a number of reasons why I remain silent, but they do not have to do with my being a Solipsist.

Words do not come easily for me. I am not the smartest or most educated person around, in fact I only have a ninth grade education. I don’t know who Kant was, or what epistomolgy is, I’m just a simple person. So oftentimes I notice a subject that interests me, but by the time I have written out a response the discussion has moved on without me. So I console myself with the knowledge that I have gained much, merely by contemplating the answer, and that my opinion was not of much importance anyway. People believe what they choose to believe, and my words will not change that. It is enough if they simply change me.

 

[tdgesq]

Let me reiterate, the Solipsist does not believe with certainty that reality exists only in their mind, they simply admit that it is impossible to prove otherwise. Beyond this simple assertion, all Solipsists, just like the believers of any doctrine, are free to interpret their beliefs as it suits them.

Epistemic Solipsism. The problem is this: You make the affirmative statement that it is impossible to prove otherwise, but you haven’t provided any evidence. The burden is on you to demonstrate that it is impossible to prove Solipsism is false. Good luck.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Epistemic Solipsism. The problem is this: You make the affirmative statement that it is impossible to prove otherwise, but you haven’t provided any evidence. The burden is on you to demonstrate that it is impossible to prove Solipsism is false. Good luck.

I concede an error on my part. Although I can see no possible way to refute Solipsism, I cannot claim that it is impossible to disprove.

But you are welcome to attempt to disprove it if you wish.

Can you offer me some evidence that reality does exist outside of my own mind?

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel, actually it could do with one more letter.

Interesting.

I’m curious, do you believe that Johnson’s argument was a legitimate refutation of Solipsism?

I’m curious: why should it matter? And, if you say that it really doesn’t, why did you ask the question?

Indeed we all make choices. That’s the beauty of life. We all get to decide for ourselves how we see fit to live it, and in the end I suppose that’s what matters. I’m not qualified to judge your life, it’s yours and you’re free to live it as you see fit, and that’s as it should be. That’s life. I can’t judge the veracity of your choices, I am more concerned with the character of your actions.

Why?

So what does it gain me by being a Solipsist? It gains me the realization that I may get to the end of my life and find that there is nothing there. No God, no judgment, no streets of gold, or lakes of fire, and all that I will be left with is the realization of how I lived my life. That I am certain, will be judgment enough. So I make my choices today, knowing that I may have to live with them forever. What I believe, is not as important as how I act.

Again, why?

That is the evidence of my character. My soul if you will. Whether there is a God or not, I wish to be content with the character of my life. I make my choices not based upon what others will think, or what God will think, but upon the most important judgment of all, my own. I have no need of judging you or your choices, you are wiser and more qualified than I. I am content to leave you to judge yourself.

Why?

All of your choices are yours and I respect them. May you be content with yours, as I am with mine.

Why?

I do not ask the question, “Why?” repeatedly for no reason. What you have provided is a listing of several unwarranted assertions. It would be ever so helpful to understand the warrant.

The denial of “materialism” is near and dear to me. I am seeking a good refutation of it. The materialist argument is fairly sophisticated, as you no doubt know. (I’m sure you have dealt with it before.) So, what’s your secret to remaining pure to your solipsism?

God bless,
jd

 

[Partinobodycula]

JDaniel,

I don’t know if I can answer all of your why’s, but I will try to answer this question.

So, what’s your secret to remaining pure to your solipsism?

I had to think about this for awhile. You may well have thought that I would have contemplated this question already, and would have an answer close at hand. But I didn’t. So I had to do what is perhaps my greatest strength, or my greatest weakness, I’m not sure. I had to stop and think. How do I remain pure to my Solipsism?

And the answer that I came up with, is ignorance. There are so many things that I must admit that I don’t know. I don’t know if there’s a God. I don’t know if there’s a heaven or a hell, or an afterlife, or any meaning at all, to all of this madness. I just don’t know.

I think about all of the people who are so absolutely certain of the veracity of what they believe. Things which to me seem so completely irrational, yet they believe them and defend them with such vigor and passion that I cannot help but question their grip on sanity.

How could anyone believe so unquestionably in the existence of ghosts, or UFOs, or any of the countless conspiracy theories, from 9/11 to the Kennedy assassination, to secret societies bent on global domination. How could anyone truly believe these things? Not just believe them, but deny an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary. It just doesn’t seem rational. Yet perfectly normal people do it everyday.

But that’s the nature of humans I suppose. We’re always looking for patterns. We have this innate ability to take disconnected data and extraplolate a predictable pattern. But unfortunately we also have a nasty tendency at times to see things that aren’t there. As someone once said, “It’s not what we don’t know that causes us trouble. It’s what we know that isn’t so.” We have so many things that we have convinced ourselves are true, and the more complex and engrained they become, the harder they are to let go of, or even question. This has its evolutionary advantages I suppose, but it can be an impediment to the pursuit of the truth.

I am no different. I see patterns everywhere. I consider the implications of quantum physics, with its eleven dimensions, superpositions, and wave/particle duality. Surely there must be a hint of our spiritual/material nature there. But I realize that just as certain as I am of my beliefs, you are just as certain of yours. I can understand how people can ponder and theorize about the possibilities. It’s in our nature to be curious. To stare into the unknown and wonder. That’s part of the glory of life. The unknown.

But wonder as I may, I still don’t know if there’s a God. I don’t know if there’s a heaven or a hell, or an afterlife. Perhaps you do. Perhaps you are wiser than I.

I can believe many things, I can ponder many mysteries, I can even accept the possibility that you are correct, and there is more to reality than my mind alone, but all that I know, all that I am certain of, is that I am.

And so I am a Solipsist.

 

[tdgesq]

I concede an error on my part. Although I can see no possible way to refute Solipsism, I cannot claim that it is impossible to disprove.

If you cannot claim Solipsism is impossible to disprove, can you claim that it is likely to be true? Btw, I’m not trying to be difficult here or unnecessarily quibble, it’s just that Solipsism seems to me to be an epistemic non-starter when it is asserted. Primarily because the one making the assertion can’t marshal any evidence that would tend to make the proposition more likely than not.

But you are welcome to attempt to disprove it if you wish.

This is the skeptic’s challenge. It used to concern me, until I realized that it is not my burden to disprove every epistemological system. It’s like me asserting that “you can’t prove empiricism, rationalism, foundationalism, etc. is false.” Unless someone comes forward with affirmative evidence for the truth of an epistemic position, why should one take it seriously?

Can you offer me some evidence that reality does exist outside of my own mind?

I can, but please try to view things from a different standpoint. Ask yourself this question: What evidence do I have (a priori or a posteriori) that reality only exists in my own mind? If you cannot adduce a logically cogent argument then it may be time to reassess your epistemology. Assuming that you can, the best refutation I have seen to Solipsism is Wittgenstein’s public language requirement, which is summarized here.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Can you offer me some evidence that reality does exist outside of my own mind?

Welcome to the forum.

Two questions for you:

1. “I think, therefore I am”, this is where it stops for Solipsists. But, where do you spatially exist if you are?
2. The world you observe outside your mind, where did the idea of it originate if it’s all in your mind? It would seem, at least, that this illusion is subjective to an already existing objective reality.

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel,

I don’t know if I can answer all of your why’s, but I will try to answer this question.

I had to think about this for awhile. You may well have thought that I would have contemplated this question already, and would have an answer close at hand. But I didn’t. So I had to do what is perhaps my greatest strength, or my greatest weakness, I’m not sure. I had to stop and think. How do I remain pure to my Solipsism?

And the answer that I came up with, is ignorance.

Part:

I think that is an entirely insufficient answer. You are undoubtedly not unintelligent. In fact, the words you’ve written below are by a savvy, smart, polished writer. Your use of various nouns, verbs, adjectives is too precise to be the mutterings of a moron. So, I don’t believe for a minute that you are unintelligent! You are either: (a) much smarter than you think you are or, (b) you’re trying to pull the wool over someone’s eyes. “(a)” is a compliment, “(b)” is not, as you’ve no doubt noticed.

There are so many things that I must admit that I don’t know. I don’t know if there’s a God. I don’t know if there’s a heaven or a hell, or an afterlife, or any meaning at all, to all of this madness. I just don’t know.

What makes you/that any different from anyone else? Almost all people have similar dark periods; almost all people emotionally wander through experience at times.

I think about all of the people who are so absolutely certain of the veracity of what they believe. Things which to me seem so completely irrational, yet they believe them and defend them with such vigor and passion that I cannot help but question their grip on sanity.

In a sense, true belief is a kind of irrationalism: it is a “knowing” that is beyond even personal confrontation. Bliss belongs to the person who believes from the beginning and has never experienced doubt. Most people have to work hard for what you call: “absolutely certain veracity.”

How could anyone believe so unquestionably in the existence of ghosts, or UFOs, or any of the countless conspiracy theories, from 9/11 to the Kennedy assassination, to secret societies bent on global domination. How could anyone truly believe these things? Not just believe them, but deny an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary. It just doesn’t seem rational. Yet perfectly normal people do it everyday.

I can’t answer for those people. I can answer for myself and I truly believe the there exists an overwhelming body of evidence for God, Theology and Revelation. I believe that there is some truth in everything said. The faithful are not anywhere close to being identifiable with believers in conspiracies, and ghosts. Some people who hold such notions are probably more in need of psychiatry than the rest of us (notice that I include myself in the “normal crowd!”) know.

But that’s the nature of humans I suppose. We’re always looking for patterns. We have this innate ability to take disconnected data and extraplolate a predictable pattern. But unfortunately we also have a nasty tendency at times to see things that aren’t there. As someone once said, “It’s not what we don’t know that causes us trouble. It’s what we know that isn’t so.” We have so many things that we have convinced ourselves are true, and the more complex and engrained they become, the harder they are to let go of, or even question. This has its evolutionary advantages I suppose, but it can be an impediment to the pursuit of the truth.

The interesting thing here is that you do believe that there are causes. Causes imply an exteriorizing view. So, all is not absolutely internal with you. You do interact with the material environment, as well as the immaterial environment.

I am no different. I see patterns everywhere. I consider the implications of quantum physics, with its eleven dimensions, superpositions, and wave/particle duality. Surely there must be a hint of our spiritual/material nature there.

In another thread I brought up the idea concerning the question of what is it that atoms consist of? We learn from reading other posts that an atom’s nucleus is 50,000 times smaller than its electron shell. Therefore, it would take an unimaginable number of electrons to fill the area between the outermost reach of an electron and the outermost surface of an atom’s nucleus. If that’s the case, of what does that surrounding shell consist (besides electrons)? In order to exhibit frequency, vibrations, it cannot consist of a medium as we might know it, as that could be a hindrance.

continued . . .

 

[JDaniel]

continuation . . .

Consider that we each consist of about 7*10 exp 27 atoms (give or take) and only 1/50,000th of those atoms is that which we might regard as something that could express solidness, yet though we are not metal-hard, we are solid to some degree. Could it be that our “spiritual/material nature” is there, unseen at the quantum level, as that which composes the nothing-ness, if you will, of each atom’s interior with the atom’s protons, neutrons and electrons?

But I realize that just as certain as I am of my beliefs, you are just as certain of yours. I can understand how people can ponder and theorize about the possibilities. It’s in our nature to be curious. To stare into the unknown and wonder. That’s part of the glory of life. The unknown.

But wonder as I may, I still don’t know if there’s a God. I don’t know if there’s a heaven or a hell, or an afterlife. Perhaps you do. Perhaps you are wiser than I.

I have seen a good many of the arguments for His existence, I have read a good deal of His Revelation, I have read of NDE’s. When one adds up the evidence for His existence it is overwhelming compared to the sheer lack of evidence for the antithesis.

I can believe many things, I can ponder many mysteries, I can even accept the possibility that you are correct, and there is more to reality than my mind alone, but all that I know, all that I am certain of, is that I am.

And so I am a Solipsist.

I am not asserting that I am correct. All that I’m saying is that there appears to be a preponderance of “pro” evidence and a dearth of “con” evidence. Also, you are using “words.” Unless you can prove to yourself - and you are your own the toughest nut to crack - that everything you think is Reality exists from your optic nerve inward, which I think is impossible, you must engage the external world at least in a dualistic manner. But, I’m sure you are already doing that!

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Welcome to the forum.

Two questions for you:

1. “I think, therefore I am”, this is where it stops for Solipsists. But, where do you spatially exist if you are?

Does that matter? Partinobodycula does not have to spatially exist

1. The world you observe outside your mind, where did the idea of it originate if it’s all in your mind? It would seem, at least, that this illusion is subjective to an already existing objective reality.

The idea of an outside world from a solipsist POV originates in the mind. An illusion does not have to be subjective to an already existing objective reality just as God’s knowledge does not have to be subject to an already existing reality.

Now I do not think Partinobodycula is a real solipsist. If he were he wouldn’t be making an argument to us, non-existent figments of his imagination.

 

[empther]

Solipsism is easily disproved.

Pick up a book on calculus. Do you understand it? No? Then it cannot be a product of your mind. It really exists outside of you.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Tdgesq,
If I may, let me address your questions in a different order than you presented them.

Partinobodycula;8626444:

Can you offer me some evidence that reality does exist outside of my own mind?

I can, but please try to view things from a different standpoint. Ask yourself this question: What evidence do I have (a priori or a posteriori) that reality only exists in my own mind? If you cannot adduce a logically cogent argument then it may be time to reassess your epistemology. Assuming that you can, the best refutation I have seen to Solipsism is Wittgenstein’s public language requirement, which is summarized here.

As it concerns Wittgenstein’s argument of public language, it seems rather silly to me. Not that I’m saying that Wittgenstein is not smarter than I, but the idea that someone capable of creating all of reality, from quantum strings, to supernovae and black holes is incapable of creating language, because language requires a previous social interaction with which a Solipsist has no experience, seems rather simplistic. If you do believe that this is a legitimate argument, then let me ask you this.

If you are not an atheist then you most likely believe that God created reality. Was God cognizant of language before His creation developed it? Or did God’s creation teach God language?

Also, let me clarify, I do not claim to necessarily be the creator of my reality, only that I am incapable of knowing whether anything exists outside of my own mind. There may indeed be a creator, a God if you will, but I have no way of knowing. Even if He should appear descending from the heavens on a cloud, performing miracles and wonders, I still would not be able to tell if He existed only in my mind, or not. This is a limitation of my own consciousness, not a statement on the existence of God. For me, God too, must be accepted on faith.

Partinobodycula;8626444:

But you are welcome to attempt to disprove it if you wish.

This is the skeptic’s challenge. It used to concern me, until I realized that it is not my burden to disprove every epistemological system. It’s like me asserting that “you can’t prove empiricism, rationalism, foundationalism, etc. is false.” Unless someone comes forward with affirmative evidence for the truth of an epistemic position, why should one take it seriously?

Forgive me for issuing such a challenge. It is true that the onus is on me to at least attempt to prove my position. Asking people to disprove my beliefs was inappropriate. Although in my defense people often treat Solipsists as simpleminded, and Solipsism as a “non-starter” as you say. If this is true, it should be easy to disprove. Perhaps we can at least agree that I am not simpleminded. (I realize that that’s asking a lot)

 

[Partinobodycula]

If you cannot claim Solipsism is impossible to disprove, can you claim that it is likely to be true?

Well, “likely” is a subjective term, but I will attempt, if not to meet this standard, then to at least raise some interesting arguments. Let me preface this by saying that I do not plan to go into any great detail at this point, but I only wish to raise as I say, some possible arguments. I will be leaving plenty of questions and objections unaddressed for now.

I will present two arguments. Forgive me, I don’t know if these arguments are inductive, or deductive, or what. My ninth grade education fails me at this point. But I will present them as best I can, and let the readers decide. (I much prefer the second argument)

The first is, just how real is “reality”?

Men have been trying to figure out what “matter” really is for thousands of years. Breaking things down into smaller and smaller bits, in an attempt to discover just what it is that all of this “stuff” is made of. Molecules, atoms, particles, fermions, bosons, strings. It seems that the closer and closer we look, the less and less “stuff” there really is.

But perhaps we’ve finally reached the end of the chain of discovery, and we can say defintively that this is what reality is made of. It may be very, very, very tiny, but there really is some “stuff” there.

But wait, there’s not just a question of how much “stuff” there is. There’s also a question of just what “there” is. Heisenberg tells us that we may not even be able to say exactly where these little bits of “stuff” are, except in some generalized, kinda, sort of, around here type of way. But that’s to be expected I suppose, after all these are waves, and waves are by their nature spread out. They don’t have a definitive positon.

But this is only when we’re observing them. Stop observing them and they could be anywhere. Not just anywhere, they could be everywhere, at the same time. That seems a little bit spooky. So long as I’m watching it, it’s sorta there. But the instant that I turn my back, it could be everywhere. Reality is a very ethereal place. If this isn’t an illusion it sure acts like one.

So what does this prove? Nothing really. Then why did I bring it up you ask? Well let’s think about this for a minute. If this reality really is just an illusion, how would I know? What would I look for to tell me whether all of this “stuff” is real. I mean it’s beginning to look pretty ethereal already, but that really doesn’t prove anything.

How would an “illusory” realty differ from a “materialistic” reality? I would conjecture that in a “materialistic” reality we should be able to reach a definitive set of laws that govern every known phenomena. There must at some point be an answer as to why everything is the way it is. There must be a point where we can break these little bits of “stuff” down no further. We should be able to find an ultimate answer.

On the other hand if this is merely an illusion, then the illusion will never end. There will always be another question. Like the layers of an infinite onion, there will always be another layer, and another layer. There will always be another mystery to explore. We will always be enticingly close to the answer, but we will never quite get there.

If “materialists” are correct then we should be able to prove it. We should be able to find a TOE, a theory of everything. Unfortunately, if the Soloipsist is correct, they will never be able to prove it. There will always be another mystery to explore, another layer to peel back, another question to answer.

I can’t prove that reality is an illusion, I can only hypothesize about what such an illusion might look like.

And this leads to argument number two. The question of inflicted suffering.

If I were creating reality I would want a reality with obstacles to be overcome, struggles to be endured, wrongs to be righted, characters to be tested, and endless mysteries to be explored. I would want an adventure. I would want a reality much like this one.

I don’t want streets of gold, and choirs of angels. I can’t help but believe that these would bore me quite quickly. I want an adventure. I look back at times past and think, oh what a wondrous experience that must have been, to live in times such as those. To me life is a gift to be lived to the fullest. Embracing everything it has to offer. All the joys, all the pain, all the happiness and the sorrow, the struggles and the achievements. Hardships aren’t the scourge of life, they are the essence of it. They are the things that give life meaning. To persevere, to endure, to overcome, and to do so with honor and humility. That is the beauty of life.

Look back at those whom you admire most, did they live lives of leisure? Or do we tend to save our greatest respect and honor for those who endured the most? Yes, I often yearn to live a life of comfort, but there is within me also, a part that yearns to live a life such as those whom I respect the most. If I were the creator of this world, that is the world I would create.

But therein lies the problem. For although I voluntarily embrace the struggles and hardships, what of those around me? Must they endure also? Can I justify their suffering? Would I inflict such pain, simply for my own selfish reasons?

The answer of course is no. I couldn’t do such a thing. I accept these trials of my own free will, but I will not inflict them on others. Either I am inflicting this suffering on us all, or some God is choosing to inflict this suffering, or the only one really enduring this, is me, and that I can accept.

Being unable to prove the existence of God, I must conclude that the only consciousness here is mine.

And so I am a Solipsist.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Part:

You are undoubtedly not unintelligent. In fact, the words you’ve written below are by a savvy, smart, polished writer. Your use of various nouns, verbs, adjectives is too precise to be the mutterings of a moron. So, I don’t believe for a minute that you are unintelligent! You are either: (a) much smarter than you think you are or, (b) you’re trying to pull the wool over someone’s eyes. “(a)” is a compliment, “(b)” is not, as you’ve no doubt noticed.

JDaniel,
It is in fact true that I only have a ninth grade education, and that I’m not an avid reader. I don’t think that I’ve read a book in almost a decade. Probably, an early book on string theory. But what I lack in education I make up for in persistance. I will generally stick at something until it satisfies me. That is especially true with my writing. Whenever I write I keep a dictionary and a thesaurus handy, choosing just the right word.

A habit of mine is to every year set a challenge for myself. Sometimes they’re physical challenges, sometimes cerebral. Oddly, this years challenge is to edit one of my favorite poems, Renascence by Edna St. Vincent Millay. I have always liked this poem, but felt that some parts of it needed some minor changes.

So I suppose both your (a) and (b) apply, I truly am uneducated, but I am only as unintelligent as you judge me to be.

Edit: JDaniel, I would like to add that it is a pleasure reading your posts, Thank you

 

[Partinobodycula]

Solipsism is easily disproved.

Pick up a book on calculus. Do you understand it? No? Then it cannot be a product of your mind. It really exists outside of you.

empther,
I can appreciate your argument. But it would be pointless to create a reality in which I knew everything. Where would the mystery be, the quest for discovery. It’s the things that I don’t know that make life so wonderfully appealing.

But I appreciate the response.

You’re right though, I know diddly about calculus.