Solipsism

Solipsism is a philosophical concept that suggests the only thing that can be known to exist is one's own mind or self. According to solipsism, one cannot be certain of the existence of anything external to their own consciousness, including other people, objects, or the physical world. In essence, it posits that the individual's subjective experience is the only reality that can be truly known.

The term "solipsism" derives from the Latin words "solus," meaning "alone," and "ipse," meaning "self." Solipsism holds that the self is the only thing that can be directly experienced and verified, while everything else is seen as potentially illusory or unknowable.

Solipsism poses significant challenges to our common sense understanding of the world, as it rejects the notion of an external reality shared by multiple individuals. It questions the possibility of truly knowing anything beyond one's own thoughts, perceptions, and sensations. This philosophical position often leads to questions about the nature of knowledge, perception, and the limits of human understanding.

Actually, we cannot know if anything exists, not even if we exist, since we dont know if our feelings are real.

The only way to confirm feelings is by feelings, which is a circular reasoning.

Solipsism forces us to ask ourselves, what really exists? To answer it, let's look at the definition: To have real being whether material or spiritual. Okay, then what is "real being?" The definition of real is as follows: Having objective independent existence. Oh look, we've gone in a circle. The truth is, we never really question what we mean by "real" or "exist," but we lack a good definition of either of these things. Pragmatically, we should define existence to be something consistent, reasonable, and useful. Solipsism is, for this reason, off the table.

I don't see any circularity in using the external universe as a reference to prove our theories about it. This approach relies on an external form of reference, rather than using the proposition itself to prove itself. Therefore, it does not constitute circular reasoning.

It appears that your conviction is that solipsism should be dismissed because you believe it would be unhelpful to accept that nothing can be objectively determined or experienced. However, you haven't provided any reasoning beyond your opinion to support this claim.

I do agree that it is important to understand the world in a way that is useful and guides us toward a successful life. This understanding should be consistent enough for all human beings to communicate and collaborate effectively. However, this alone does not disprove solipsism. It only highlights a potential negative aspect that solipsism could be used to justify. Just like any tool, such as a hammer, can be used with malicious intent, we wouldn't argue that the hammer cannot possibly exist because it has the potential for malicious use.

Therefore, your argument against the existence of solipsism appears to be based on personal conviction rather than logical reasoning to prove its fallacy. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that using our understanding of the world, regardless of the philosophical framework, for the benefit of humanity is indeed helpful.

It is important to recognize that your argument does not provide a definitive proof or disproof of existence but rather raises epistemological questions and challenges. It highlights the limitations of subjective experience as a basis for objective knowledge and invites further philosophical inquiry into the nature of reality and our understanding of it.

Recognizing the problem allows us to acknowledge the challenges it presents and seek a reasonable solution, leading to a deeper understanding of our world and the concept of objectivity.

A clear example would be the discovery of the perception of color. The concept that color was actually all other colors except the one being seen initially seemed counterintuitive and absurd. However, by confronting the challenges presented by this understanding and diligently seeking logical solutions, our understanding of color evolved. Through scientific inquiry and experimentation, we gradually unraveled the complexities of light and color perception, leading to the development of more comprehensive theories. Over time, this process enabled us to overcome the initial skepticism and embrace a deeper understanding of how color functions in the world, shedding light on the intricate relationship between light, pigments, and human perception.

Well as ever, even the word solipsism has more than one application.

But I assume you are referring to the philosophical theory.

Cogito ergo sum as Rene said.

But, I sense and I think, so therefore I can only think that you are.

Not that I do not apply more certainty than uncertainty to the thought.

Though, as everything that we sense is converted to an internal simulation, we can only assume that our simulation is an accurate representation of an externality

So as such, I have a solipsist tendency tinged with a reasonably assured reasonably accurate sense of connectivity to something else.

If you are referring to when I said "Oh look, we've gone in a circle." then you have misunderstood what I said. I was not referring to any sort of circular reasoning. Rather, I was pointing out that the definition of "exist" uses "real," and the definition of "real" in turn uses "exist," so we don't really have a definition of either.

If solipsism is true, then there is no reason to consider other human beings as worthy of basic rights. This is one of many reasons that solipsism should be dismissed from a pragmatic perspective.

My whole point was that we don't actually have a definition of existence, so we should define it in a way that is practical. You seem to have missed this.

My apologies for misunderstanding your comment, I now understand that you were not claiming my argument used circular reasoning. I now have a better grasp of your intentions, and I appreciate your further explanation.

I also understand your perspective on a pragmatic level and how it relates to the recognition of inherent value in others. I have encountered a similar question myself, and I believe I have found a satisfactory answer. The idea is that nobody wants to be suppressed or denied their rights. By forming a collective union based on self-interest for protection, individuals argue that they will safeguard each other's rights and establish the concept of inherent value. However, it's important to note that this inherent value is essentially subjective, as it is created to secure one's own perceived rights equally.

While I acknowledge your pragmatic viewpoint that treating people with value implies, they must possess value, and if they lack value, we wouldn't treat them as such, I believe both statements are not entirely accurate. The first statement partially holds true in the sense that treating individuals with value reflects a subjective value assigned by oneself. However, it does not necessarily indicate inherent value.

The second part of the statement is also flawed because it assumes that if individuals lack inherent value or are not treated as having inherent value, they would have no rights or protection. I disagree with this notion because if we accept that something's value is attributed by our personal valuation, it explains why certain things hold more value for specific individuals while not for others, and vice versa. This demonstrates that value is not inherent but subjective, based on the individual assigning it.

An example that supports this perspective is the well-known saying, "One man's trash is another man's treasure." This saying aims to convey that value is not inherent but rather dependent on the individual's subjective judgment. Contrary to the second part of your argument, if everyone universally agrees to assign subjective value to all individuals, then everyone would value each other to the same extent. Therefore, it is not merely pragmatic for people to give value to others; rather, it becomes necessary for their own protection. This forms a collective mentality of safeguarding one another, even when recognizing that nothing holds inherent value.

Your explanation was an elegant summary of my understanding.

I must agree with you that value is subjective. I am not arguing under the assumption of inherent value, but I do believe that all human beings should be considered as of value. Morality, from my perspective, is a matter of minimizing suffering, and creating the best outcome for the most people. It is in the end up to the individual to decide the meaning of "right" and "wrong." Nonetheless, most of us agree on some basic principles of morality, just by human nature. I concede that solipsism does not mean that other humans will not be treated as of value, but I still hold that the position that other people and objects exist outside of our minds is more practical than solipsism. Even though someone very logical will not lose their morality or will of living simply from solipsism, it is prone to that, and the "common" philosophy is not as much. For that matter, solipsism is unnecessary, and somewhat meaningless. I assert that solipsism can be assumed to be false, as there is no real benefit to the individual in believing that it is true, (or perhaps you can demonstrate otherwise) and as I have already pointed out, what existence is is in great part at our discretion, so there is no reason not to simply apply the term to what we experience according to reason. Existence being defined as "you and your experiences, no more no less" isn't a particularly useful construct.

I agree that solipsism could have a negative impact on many people who lack the necessary principles to cope with such an idea. For instance, individuals often believe in the inherent value of things, but if they were to realize that inherent value doesn't exist, they might struggle to justify their own sense of value. Only by recognizing that value comes from within could they begin to accept this notion. Therefore, most people would find it challenging to embrace solipsism without it negatively affecting their lives and their values.

However, I can't dismiss the need for understanding solipsism entirely. It's possible that gaining a more accurate understanding of the world could lead us to answers for questions we didn't even realize we were searching for or questions we believed to be unanswerable.

In conclusion, I wouldn't casually share the concept of solipsism with just anyone. Instead, it should be discussed with individuals who are genuinely interested in understanding it and possess the necessary foundational knowledge to accept it without significant consequences. Personally, when I first encountered the idea, it fascinated me and made perfect sense. Furthermore, my strong grasp of subjective values and reality enabled me to accept the concept without experiencing negative emotions.

How does solipsism give us a more accurate understanding of the world? Thus far, you have argued that it allows us to recognize the subjectivity of value, but this is easily seen to be true with or without solipsism, as value is simply a human construct.

One way solipsism can help us understand the world more accurately is by emphasizing the subjective nature of our perceptions and experiences. It prompts us to critically examine the limitations of our own senses, biases, and interpretations. By recognizing that our perception of reality is filtered through our individual consciousness, we become more aware of the potential for bias and subjective distortions in our understanding.

Moreover, contemplating solipsism can foster a sense of intellectual humility and curiosity. It reminds us that our understanding of the world is limited and encourages us to remain open to different perspectives and possibilities. By acknowledging the subjective nature of our own consciousness, we may become more receptive to alternative viewpoints and more willing to engage in intellectual inquiry and exploration.

You have convinced me that solipsism has its importance.

In the vast expanse of life's frontier, we proclaim ourselves explorers, boldly venturing forth. Yet, beneath the surface we tread upon, lies a hidden realm we hesitate to explore, held captive by our fears. It is in the depths of the unexplored, where profound mysteries dwell, that fissures fracture our certainties. We profess a thirst for knowledge, growth, and evolution, while our subconscious veers away from the truths we dread. The paradox unfolds as we chase answers, shielding the enigmatic riddles, forever yearning for the truth we circle, apprehensive to fully embrace.

Overall, the passage reflects on the complex interplay between our thirst for knowledge, our fears, and the paradoxes inherent in our pursuit of truth and understanding. It encourages us to recognize and confront our fears, to explore the depths of knowledge, and to embrace the truths we seek, even if they challenge our existing certainties.

In the vast tapestry of mythological tales, a recurring metaphor unfolds. It is the story of a knight's journey into the depths of the forest, where the darkest point becomes the nexus of transformation. Each knight, a different fear must be faced to rescue the imprisoned princess. Within this narrative lies a profound truth: our greatest treasures lie concealed beneath our deepest fears. To conquer and overcome, we must confront the very things we avoid and flee from. Yet, wisdom reveals a deeper realization—we cannot truly vanquish our fears, but rather learn to coexist with them as perpetual victors. This understanding is the key to unbiased enlightenment. It requires releasing emotional attachments to preconceived beliefs and embracing all possibilities, even those we fear the most. Rather than dismissing them as impossible, unhelpful, or undesirable, we seek to uncover the knowledge they hold and discover how to coexist harmoniously. It is through this lens that we gain a richer understanding of the world.

In our exploration of solipsism, I am grateful to have shared insights on its utility. Moving forward, let us engage in fruitful discussions on understanding the world through its lens. As a community, we can open new doors, unveil profound questions, and confront emerging challenges. By recognizing even the most undesirable answers, we realize that they do not alter our reality, but rather reflect what already exists. Thus, there is nothing to fear in seeking answers, for they are already inherent within us. Instead, let us pursue the truth, regardless of its nature, and grasp how even answers once deemed dreadful and unwanted may hold deeper meaning. I have encountered individuals who professed inherent values while denying subjectivity, yet failed to recognize that the subjective nature of answers does not diminish the value they always attributed. It demonstrates how things devoid of inherent value can possess tremendous personal significance. This unveiling of answers does not change our reality, but unveils the understanding of what already exists. Therefore, let us embrace the answers without fear, no matter how atrocious, preposterous, or contrary to belief they may initially seem. Let us approach them with logical, critical, and professional minds as we unravel the mysteries of our world.

number one, we don't decide what is true based on PURE SPECULATION of the potential consequences (this is known as "motivated reasoning")

number two, you clearly have no idea what solipsism actually is

in 29 seconds,

solipsism does not prove that your body "exists"

dubito ergo cogito ergo sum

i doubt, therefore i think, therefore there is a thinker of some unknown description that i call "me"

this is an indisputable and logically necessary fact

and the foundation of all epistemology and ontology

i am the apophatic phaneron

You cant prove that you doubt or that you think.

i only need to prove it to myself

and you only need to prove it to yourself

also,

i'm pretty sure you think, otherwise you would not write

also,

i'm pretty sure you doubt, because you are asking me to prove

Assumption =/= proof

Anyone can assume that his thinking exists, but it is still just an assumption.

There is no proof that I write or that I exist or that I think. You just assume it to be so.

There is no proof that I asked you to prove anything. That is just an assumption.

If assuming something makes it true, tben everything is true.

If someone sees someone else fly off the ground, they may be insane, if everyone sees someone fly off the ground it is verifiable.

The difference is that one is abnormal from the rest while all is not abnormal from itself.

Science is objective reality and therefore verifiable by anyone.

Solipsism posits the idea that if everyone sees something happen that does not make it true but rather what everyone believes to have seen.

It questions the idea of certainty since everything is seen through your subjective lens and captivated within your own mind.

Being that this is true, we can acknowledge that no person can experience objective reality but rather their subjective interpretation of it.

Therefore, it challenges whether there is any objective reality at all.

Ultimately, there is no way to prove there is an objective reality. This is because all evidence and everything known to a person is known through their subjective lens as it was computed and understood within their mind. The goal of this is not to waste time proving or disproving the idea of solipsism as solipsism acknowledges that there is potentially an objective reality but rather says there is no way we could prove its existence. Our goal is to discuss the questions and challenges that arise from accepting the idea of solipsism and acknowledging that objective reality is not verifiable and understand how we can go about our lives everyday within our subjective world and still hold people accountable to our subjective standards. It is also to address the questions and the line between objective reality and subjective reality which are typically well defined but, in this case, it is seen as though objective reality is a castle built upon sand of subjectivity as it is not truly objective but rather a subjective standard. Moreover, it is a truly fascinating concept to discover and contemplate. What can we learn from solipsism and how can we use it to better understand the world? This is the topic.

i am reading the words which you wrote

they exist as verifiable code

therefore

you exist

a writer of those words

exists

unquestionably

you seem to be completely missing the point

even if all of this is some sort of elaborate fever dream

the laws of physics are still immutable within this dream

the laws of logic are still immutable within this dream

so,

the definition of FACT remains unchanged

There is no way to prove that I wrote the words or that you are reading them. There is no way to prove that the words exist.

There is no proof that they exist. There is no proof that they are verifiable.

This is an excellent article:

I understand your point, rather you're missing that one's own experience of objective reality is still a subjective and unknown experience to others since it is still experienced within your subjective mind. Therefore, objective reality could be experienced differently between individuals.

your response is verification

there are very few things that are empirically verifiable and or logically necessary

but it is not true that NOTHING is empirically verifiable and or logically necessary