Solipsism

martoman

Hey all how's it going? I'm new to this board; in fact I am relatively new to philosophy too. I have just graduated with a B.Sc in business and I decided that there must be subjects of more interest. Fortunately I found this in philosophy. I have begun reading it over the last 3 weeks and have been fascinated with what I’ve read so far.

I have completely read two books, these are: Philosophy in 30 Days by Dominique Janicaud, and; Philosophy: The Basics by Nigel Warburton. I have also acquired Philosophy: The Classics by Nigel Warburton but haven't begun reading it yet.

These books appear to be general introductions with a wide range of topics discussed. I have found that “Philosophy: The Basics” is a very good introduction with lucidity used within the text.

I have discovered a number of theories discussed here that I have previously contemplated about at different times throughout my life. One area I found interesting was the theory of Solipsism which was one of the ones I often taught about before. How realistic is Solipsism? Is it Plausible? What are the arguments against it?

Laplandman

Q. What did one solipsist say to the other?

Always enjoyed that joke. Solipsism has its attractions. Emmm, arguments...

Son Goku

Oliver, W.D. 'A Sober Look at Solipsism' is a pretty good book for the arguements against it.

Any writing by John Woods, a philosopher at British Columbia would also be a good read.
I'll respond to the actual OP when I think I know enough about the subject, I'm still reading up on a good deal of philosophy.

LovelyHurling

I think I am a solipsist... in that I understand that the world - my world - revolves around me. everything that happens in my world occurs for me, or because of me. At the same time, I understand that another solipsist, in as far as he exists within my world - considers himself to exist in a world of his own unique realm (only because I allow him to believe this, in that he does not exist outside of my realm) Either that makes me a solipsist or just crazy.

In short, I dont think other people can really exist. Because my world began when I was born and shall end when I am dead. Then, for me you will all cease to exist. its hard to describe your interpretation of this theory without coming over as conceited:eek: , however it is a fascinating idea...


Anybody read The Solipsist by Sylvia Plath?

Brenner

If yer starting out you'll definitely come across lots of stuff that needs clarifying strongly recommend a Dictionary of Philosophy, in fact they're a great read in themselves and don't just come across as a reference book. Oxford is the obvious...

Good luck

redkefka

martoman wrote:

How realistic is Solipsism? Is it Plausible? What are the arguments against it?

I dont have a huge knowledge of philosophy yet, and when I first heard solopsistic arguments, it seemed very plausible. But there are arguments against it.

How do we know that anyone exists? How do I not know that my perception of the world isn't all an illusion. I could be decieved and nobody else really exists, right? Well, if that's the case, who is decieving me? There's got to be at least one other entity in existence.

Unless I'm decieving myself, right? For that matter how do I know that I exist? So I ask myself... "Do I exist?". Of course I do. I said the words "Do I exist?", and couldn't unless I exist. And language is the key argument against solopsism. Language is a shared agreement between at least 2 beings or existing entities. There is no such thing as a private language. Therefore, someone else must exist apart from me

InFront

redkefka wrote:

Language is a shared agreement between at least 2 beings or existing entities. There is no such thing as a private language. Therefore, someone else must exist apart from me

But a language is something the solopsist creates by virtue of his birth just like his breathing and his heartbeat, it's something that comes from him. There was no language here before him (Him? me?) just as there was no heartbeat or breathing here before Him and neither will there be any after Him. Jeez yeah solipsism really is a selfish philosophy isnt it, but that wouldnt matter to a solopsist!!

Catsmokinpot

its a very ignorant, selfish and childish philosophy isnt it? id say alot of psychopaths are solipsist'

hotspur

There's something wonderful about anyone who subscribes to solipsism answering a post in a thread about it
"Yes you're right I don't exist, um I mean you don't exist, well one of us certainly doesn't...oi Descartes which of us doesn't exist?, hang on..."

biko

The subjective world inside must feed from something - the objective world outside. George Berkeley managed to "prove" God this way, at least I think so, - I am very tired now.

Playboy

biko wrote:

The subjective world inside must feed from something - the objective world outside. George Berkeley managed to "prove" God this way, at least I think so, - I am very tired now.

yes god is matter and all that ... i dont think he proved it though. It is a nice theory and his stuff is a great read.

McGinty

Decartes somewhat came with the solipistic view, that only he existed in mind that is, and yet at the same time he caught himself up in an awful bind, the fact is, in terms of the common sense view, and a lot has to said for it, if you dig beneath the surface, if you decide that only you exist in your mind, then how come you interact with others, and in the case of having children how come you reproduce, is that illusion or is that real, it certainly feels real. There is a case for the solipisictic view, our mind works that, no one else can see into our mind or understand in the way we do, however through our sense we can see, hear, feel and interact with other human beings, again descartes questions the validitiy of our senses, yet to aquire knowledge we need our senses, and if you question this, then answer this, can you acquire one piece of knowledge without the senses, if you can then there is a case for solipisism.