Is anyone actually a solipsist?

[peter22]

"My mind is the only thing that I know exists", or to paraphrase Descartes, I am thinking therefore there must be something existant to do the thinking, (the basic instantiative argument), therefore my mind exists.
I have a problem with the sceptical argument though. I mean aside from the fact that that doesn't necessarily follow (they could just be free floating thoughts), what is the conclusion? I must suffer eternal ennui and ponce around wearing black, annoying people at parties with my angst? I can't believe that anyone would actually BE a solipsist (well one of my old philosophy lecturers was, but he was a nut case...wait is that a tautology?).

So that's really my question. Is anyone here a solipsist and if so, how do you justify your position? Are you doing it because you truly believe that everything may not exist, that you're in some kind of crude Matrix-like simulation while your brain and spinal column is in a jar under the sands of Mars?

 

[quatona]

"My mind is the only thing that I know exists", or to paraphrase Descartes, I am thinking therefore there must be something existant to do the thinking, (the basic instantiative argument), therefore my mind exists.
I have a problem with the sceptical argument though. I mean aside from the fact that that doesn't necessarily follow (they could just be free floating thoughts), what is the conclusion? I must suffer eternal ennui and ponce around wearing black, annoying people at parties with my angst? I can't believe that anyone would actually BE a solipsist (well one of my old philosophy lecturers was, but he was a nut case...wait is that a tautology?).

So that's really my question. Is anyone here a solipsist and if so, how do you justify your position? Are you doing it because you truly believe that everything may not exist, that you're in some kind of crude Matrix-like simulation while your brain and spinal column is in a jar under the sands of Mars?

Don´t take it the wrong way, but I think you are lumping a couple of things together here that do not necessarily belong together. Descartes´ cogito, solipsism, a particular lifestyle, Matrix.

So what precisely is it you have a problem with?

 

[peter22]

OK perhaps I ranted a little incoherently. Rephrased simply, is anyone actually a solipsist? If so, could you explain how you came to that conclusion?

 

[quatona]

Well, I am not a solipsist although I find some of the elements of solipsism not unreasonable.
I don´t even believe that I can conclude that my self exists.
So I guess I can´t be of much help.

 

[toirewadokodesuka]

"My mind is the only thing that I know exists", or to paraphrase Descartes, I am thinking therefore there must be something existant to do the thinking, (the basic instantiative argument), therefore my mind exists.
I have a problem with the sceptical argument though. I mean aside from the fact that that doesn't necessarily follow (they could just be free floating thoughts), what is the conclusion? I must suffer eternal ennui and ponce around wearing black, annoying people at parties with my angst? I can't believe that anyone would actually BE a solipsist (well one of my old philosophy lecturers was, but he was a nut case...wait is that a tautology?).

So that's really my question. Is anyone here a solipsist and if so, how do you justify your position? Are you doing it because you truly believe that everything may not exist, that you're in some kind of crude Matrix-like simulation while your brain and spinal column is in a jar under the sands of Mars?

i heard this argument before. then the bloke went on to talk about perception... the sense... empirecism... etc... basically the idea is human senses are limited, therefore impiricle evidence is not absolute, therefore nothing is really proven with science etc... thats where solipsism kinda comes in i think. i know therefore i am... but heres a question... what if thought is limited too? ... can we truly know anything, or are we just walking, talking mysterious freekozoids!!!

 

[toirewadokodesuka]

im not a solopsis, im a migigleshabob!

 

[acropolis]

OK perhaps I ranted a little incoherently. Rephrased simply, is anyone actually a solipsist? If so, could you explain how you came to that conclusion?

I don't think it's possible for someone to really believe that everything outside their minds is false. Sure, they could claim that's what they believe, and it might make sense to them on a certain intellectual level, but I cannot believe that anyone would truly, in their deepest thoughts and actions, believe that everything their senses tell them is false.

 

[peter22]

I don't think it's possible for someone to really believe that everything outside their minds is false. Sure, they could claim that's what they believe, and it might make sense to them on a certain intellectual level, but I cannot believe that anyone would truly, in their deepest thoughts and actions, believe that everything their senses tell them is false.

That was pretty much my conclusion too.

 

[quatona]

Thena again, "I don´t think anyone can..." is not really a strong argument, and the conclusion is equally weak. The community of philosophers won´t be overly impressed, I´m afraid.
Sounds more like a self-affirmation, to me.
Just saying.

 

[peter22]

Then aagain, "I don´t think anyone can..." is not really a strong argument, and the conclusion is equally weak. The community of philosophers won´t be overly impressed, I´m afraid.
Sounds more like a self-affirmation, to me.
Just saying.

Absolutely. I'm not saying I have a strong counterargument. As far as I'm concerned, the solipsist argument is actually pretty compelling. I still don't like it though.

 

[acropolis]

Thena again, "I don´t think anyone can..." is not really a strong argument, and the conclusion is equally weak. The community of philosophers won´t be overly impressed, I´m afraid.
Sounds more like a self-affirmation, to me.
Just saying.

The fact that solipsists seem oddly reluctant to test their theory by destroying their body suggests they don't really believe what they say.

I'm very sad that the philosophical community won't be impressed. But I am comforted by the fact that since I exist outside any solipsists mind, there isn't anything I could say or do that would change their perception.

The way I see it is this: If my mind is the only thing that exists, then the only thing preventing me from changing anything and everything about my reality is my belief that it is impossible to do that. Since I took up solipsism for a time after a brief but passionate love affair with Descartes' Meditations, but was still unable to create even the most trivial of inconsistencies within reality, I must conclude that there is something else besides my mind which prevents me from changing reality to better suit my desires. And if there exists something outside my mind, then I cannot be a solipsist.

 

[Steezie]

Solipsism does make a sort of twisted sense.

How do you know that the world outside your mind exists?

Because I can see it, interact with it, touch it etc etc

But thats all stimulus outside your mind

However the one problem I have with it (And why I dont subscribe to it) is that while the stimulus may be outside your mind, it has to enter your mind to be made sense of. So that throws a wrench into the entire idea, at least for me

 

[toirewadokodesuka]

I don't think it's possible for someone to really believe that everything outside their minds is false. Sure, they could claim that's what they believe, and it might make sense to them on a certain intellectual level, but I cannot believe that anyone would truly, in their deepest thoughts and actions, believe that everything their senses tell them is false.

i dont think its that everything is plain false, rather just that everything stands non absolute. true / false, humans stand inbetween these realities i think.

 

[toirewadokodesuka]

i think if u wanna throw a wrench into solopsism u must prove ur existence, or the existence of something else 100% ... can anyone do that?

 

[Steezie]

i think if u wanna throw a wrench into solopsism u must prove ur existence, or the existence of something else 100% ... can anyone do that?

I think, therefore, I am.

 

[Steezie]

double post

 

[toirewadokodesuka]

I think, therefore, I am.

haw haw... not really any other argument for proof really.

 

[Steezie]

haw haw... not really any other argument for proof really.

That quote has a lot more to do with it than you think. The mere fact that your mind can create a reality, means that reality has to be real in some sense as it can be created in your own mind and your mind can take reality into itself and make sense of it, making it real.

Of course if you disregard anything except the mind then yeah its hard to prove reality. You have to look at circumstantial evidence as well, and of that there is MOUNTAINS.

 

[peter22]

Steezie

The mere fact that your mind can create a reality, means that reality has to be real in some sense as it can be created in your own mind and your mind can take reality into itself and make sense of it, making it real.

That's not really what Descartes meant. Put simply:

P 1. If I am being deceived, then my mind exists.
P 2. If I am not being deceived, then my mind exists.
P 3. I am or am not being deceived.
C: My mind exists.

This is only applicable to the first person. You can assert that you exist, but I can just reply that I'm imagining you saying that.

 

[Steezie]

Steezie



That's not really what Descartes meant. Put simply:

P 1. If I am being deceived, then my mind exists.
P 2. If I am not being deceived, then my mind exists.
P 3. I am or am not being deceived.
C: My mind exists.

This is only applicable to the first person. You can assert that you exist, but I can just reply that I'm imagining you saying that.

However if I exist, then its reasonable to assume that YOU also exist