Carlos M.I. Azucena
1
solipsism. n. (Lat. solus, alone + Lat. ipse, self + ism) Philos. 1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified. 2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality. ---Solipsism is easy to explain but very hard to grasp. Solipsism is a philosophy that shows us the lack of proof for existance. Meaning that in reality you could be living in a world that does not exist outside of your own mind (a dream for example). Solipsism
From www.shtikl.com Solipsism is often described as the belief that nothing can be proven to exist outside of one's own mind. The word "solipsism" "solipsism" is derived from the Latin phrase "solus ipse", which means "myself alone." In the most extreme views of this philosophy, this would mean that since an external world cannot be proven to truly exist, it does not exist at all, and the entire universe and all its contents have been created by the subconscious of the individual. Of course, on the complete oppo op posit site e en end d of th the e sp spec ectr trum, um, the there re ar are e man many y arg argume uments nts tha thatt so solip lipsis sism m is completely false; not only does the external world exist, but everything exists exac ex actl tly y as it is pe perc rcei eive ved, d, an and d it is pe perc rcei eive ved d in ex exac actl tly y th the e sa same me wa way y by everyone. everyon e. And still betwee between n the two there is a very wide range of middle ground; perhaps everything (or at least most things) that are seen do exist, but maybe not quite exactly as they are seen.
Based off of these views, it is easy to tell that solipsism revolves almost entirely around aro und the validity validity of se sense nse pe perc rcep eptio tion. n. Th This is ca can n be tr trac aced ed ba back ck to Re Rene ne Desca De scarte rtes' s' fa famou mous s ex excla clamat mation ion of of,, "I thi think nk,, th there erefor fore e I am! am!"" Thi This s st state atemen mentt explained some of the most basic thoughts and principles of solipsism: One can be sure of his/her own existence because he/she is thinking and capable of doubting it to begin with, and those thoughts and doubts have to have a source.
Carlos M.I. Azucena
2
However, how can one be sure that anything else exists? Sense perception cannot be proven to be completely reliable; for instance, in a dream, all of the senses are active to perceive things that are not really there. When considering this fact, how can one be entirely sure that everything perceived during the waking life is real? Much of the grounds for the solipsist belief are derived from a concept called "skepticism." Skepticism states that since no one can ever fully determine whether "reality" is real or an illusion, one can never truly know the "fundamental truth" about anything. All solipsism really does is take this thought process a step farther to say that since no one can really be one hundred percent sure that "reality" (or, rather, what the mind perceives as "reality" ) is not an illusion, perhaps it is safe to say that it doesn't exist at all. But to say the entire universe is created entirely within the mind wouldn't even begin to cover the entire definition of solipsism; this would only define one view of the philosophy, known as "absolute solipsism," There are several other types of solipsism; one of these is "rational solipsism," which basically states that the only reality that matters is that which exists within the mind. This isn't to say that anything else beyond one's own personal reality is nonexistent. Rather, it says that even though there may be more, less, or just different things in the world than what the individual can see, touch, hear, etc., since it can't be perceived, it cannot affect the individual. In a sense, everyone can be considered to be a solipsist in this light. Still another form of solipsism states simply that one cannot completely attach meaning to thoughts, emotions, and experiences other than his/her own; consciousness would then mean only the solipsist's own consciousness, as that is the only valid experiences the solipsist knows. All of these widely varying and vastly differing views and theories are what make solipsism such an intriguing and debatable topic. The most commonly found definition of solipsism (though that doesn't necessarily mean it's the most accurate) is that of "absolute solipsism." To an absolute solipsist, the self--or, more specifically, the mind--is the only thing that truly exists. The things around him/her--the trees, the sky, the earth, even other people and his/her own body--would be said to have been created by his/her subconscious mind. In this particular branch of solipsism, it would be said that the solipsist self is the only valid being in existence. This is also known as "ontological solipsism." Some arguments to back up this theory could include the fact that there are some concepts in everyday life that could be explained if it was true. For instance, "deja vu" would be completely understandable. If nothing else in the universe exists, then the person would have previously created these experiences in their mind (for if the objects have to be created, wouldn't the events revolving around those objects have to be created as well?) and it would only be natural to occasionally feel as though he/she had been through the experiences before. Socalled "psychics" could also be explained in a similar matter.
Carlos M.I. Azucena
3
This theory can also e taken into quite extreme cases; there are those who would argue that because the solipsist self created the universe and all its contents, the solipsist self is God. With beliefs like this thrown into the mix, absolute solipsism may seem far-fetched or completely outrageous. Nonetheless, in spite of the seeming implausibility of the concept, it is still irrefutable. There have, however, been many attempts to completely falsify solipsism. One argument includes the simple fact that it would be impossible to convince another person that absolute solipsism is true. Think of Descartes' "I think, therefore I am." If Person A was to convince Person B that absolute solipsism is, in fact, true, Person A would have to convince Person B that Person A exists and Person B does not; however, Person B is thinking, conscious, and capable of doubt,and thus knows that this cannot possibly be true. So instead, Person A must convince Person B that Person B is the one who exists and Person A does not; the fault in this lies in that not only would Person B know that Person A cannot possibly believe this or himself, but even if Person B did believe this, Person A is still conscious and thinking and will obviously know otherwise. This leads into the most common argument, which is that if solipsism is true, then there can only be one solipsist in the world correct in his/her belief. What would happen should two solipsists meet? The problem with the logic in both of these arguments is that they take a look at solipsism from a strange angle. If absolute solipsism were true, the person examining these scenarios would have to start from the assumption that he/she exists and neither Person A nor Person B does. Even looking at it from the point of view of Person A, there is no sure proof that Person B exists. Similarly, if two solipsists meet (assuming that absolute solipsism is true, of course), at least one of them isn't really there to begin with, so why would this other figment of the solipsist mind play any important role in disproving the theory? There is, however, one argument against absolute solipsism that, as of yet, cannot be so easily disregarded. Like any theory, belief, or even religion, it raises many unanswerable questions. Where did the solipsist self come from? Why did the solipsist self create the universe? Not to mention the intriguing concept that this would mean all knowledge--Shakespeare's plays and sonnets, high-level mathematics,philosophical studies--would have to have been created by the individual before it can be learned. Is it really possible for one mind to create such complex concepts? It is due to these types of questions, among other factors, that many people would immediately disregard solipsism entirely, choosing instead to believe that the entire universe exists exactly as it is perceived. While this end of the theory can't necessarily be proven with much more certainty than any other aspect of the philosophy, it certainly seems more plausible to most people--not to mention it is much more widely accepted. (There certainly seem to be many more arguments against solipsism than in favor of it.) Scientific research is based off of the premises that sense perception is one hundred percent reliable. This
Carlos M.I. Azucena
4
research is what is used to obtain knowledge, cure diseases, advance in technology, and attempt to improve the overall quality of life. However, at the same time, how can one be sure the research that has been done exists, or even the people that are doing said research? If absolute solipsism were true, the knowledge scientists try to obtain is completely false, because the observations the knowledge is based off of is false; the diseases don't need to be "cured" because they're not really there to be an issue; advances in technology and improvements of the quality of life are pointless, because life and reality are only figments of the mind. But perhaps this is the best place for rational solipsism to become a factor. Whether all these things truly exist or not, they affect the way life is led. If something happens--whether in "Reality" or a fictional universe created by the mind--that causes physical or emotional pain, it is a factor worthy of consideration, whether the pain or its cause do or do not exist. The diseases scientists try to cure, whether they truly exist or not, will have an effect on the way people live their lives. Likewise, if something happened that, no matter what, will never be perceived, it cannot affect the individual and thus it doesn't matter whether or not it exists. Because of this, one could argue that it doesn't really matter whether the perceived reality is truly reality; it must be accepted for the effects it has on life. Of course, between the extremes of almost any theory, there lies some sort of "middle ground." In this case, that middle ground would be that the universe does, in fact, exist, but not necessarily as it is perceived. This can be interpreted in many ways--after all, who's to say how much of what is perceived is Reality and how much of it is illusion? This middle ground should exist, at least as a theory, because absolute solipsism is irrefutable but nonetheless highly implausible, and at the same time it is difficult and possibly ignorant to just simply say that what is real is what one sees, nothing more and nothing less. While this third way of looking at solipsism proves to be yet another theory that can't be proven one way or another, it, like absolute solipsism, holds its purposes of explanation. People who see a different world entirely, or who see things that are completely different from what "normal" people see, are usually deemed "crazy," but could this off-branch of solipsism serve as an explanation as to why they see things so radically differently? Another idea that can be considered in this "middle ground" is poly-solipsism. This is the theory that everyone creates a different reality in his/her own mind, but all realities are true. What one person sees and hears could be entirely different from hat the person next to him/her sees and hears; however, because every individual's own separate reality intertwines with all of the others in such a way that people can still get along and understand each other, all of these realities are, in a sense, true. Poly-solipsism basically forms most of the basis for the middle ground between the extremes of the solipsism belief, and at the same time ties in well with rational solipsism. Due to the extremes of the belief and the distorting of the views on reality, solipsism can be a very confusing topic, but well worth looking into. In its extreme, solipsism is probably not true; it seems to raise more questions than answers, and seems almost completely implausible. Much more realistic is the
Carlos M.I. Azucena
5
commonly accepted reality, especially since it is the basis for almost everything "known" to mankind. The middle ground and the ideas of rational solipsism and poly-solipsism may or may not be plausible, but they are definitely the most intriguing of the many possibilities. "We all believe the truth we perceive, but we only perceive the truth we believe."
Solipsism Solipsism is a metaphysical belief that only oneself exists, and that "existence" just means being a part of one's own mental states – all objects, people, etc, that one experiences, are merely parts of one's own mind. One is like a God, creating the reality in which one exists. Solipsism is logically coherent, but not falsifiable, so it cannot be established by current modes of the scientific method. Solipsism is a common theme in eastern philosophy. Various interpretations of Buddhism, especially Zen, teach that the entire universe exists only in one's mind. The classic objection to solipsism is that people die. However, you have not died, and therefore you have not disproved it. A further objection is that life causes pain. Why would we create pain for ourselves? One response to this is that there may be some reason which we have decided to forget, such as the law of Karma, or a desire not to be bored. A deeper objection, raised by David Deutsch, among others, is that, since you have no control over the "universe" you are creating for yourself, there must be some unconscious part of your mind creating it. If you make your unconscious mind the object of scientific study (e.g. by conducting experiments) you will find that it behaves with the same complexity as the universe offered by realism; therefore, the distinction between realism and solipsism collapses - what realism calls "the universe", solipsism calls "your unconscious mind", but these are just different names for the same thing: both are massively complex processes external to your conscious mind, and the cause of all your experiences.
Carlos M.I. Azucena
6
Solipsism is a theory of metaphysics. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that asks the question "what is real?" or "what is reality made of?" Generally speaking, there are two major schools of thought in metaphysics: materialism and idealism. Materialism says that everything is made of, well, stuff - matter and energy - stuff that goes on existing whether anyone happens to be looking at it or not. I suppose this is the "common sense" view that most ordinary people have, and a large number of prestigious intellectuals hold this view. Idealism, on the other hand, says that everything is made of ideas . In other words, there really is no stuff that just sits there being stuff whether anyone is looking at it or not. Rather, everything is essentially an idea in someone's mind. This may sound a bit nutty to "common sense", but there are actually some pretty good reasons for entertaining the idealistic view. Solipsism is a kind of idealism. A solipsist, like other idealists, says that everything is made of ideas, or "mind stuff". But not every idealist is a solipsist, so further distinctions must be made here. There are two main divisions of idealism: objective idealism and subjective idealism . An objective idealist says that the ideas that we all sense as being "things in the world" originate from outside of ourselves, and this explains why we all see more or less the same world. George Berkeley is an example of an objective idealsit. He said that all things are thoughts in the mind of God, and that God shares these thoughts with us. That explains why we can both look and see the same tree, even if it is only an idea-tree. A subjective idealist , on the other hand, has a much different (and stranger) view of things. The subjective idealist is a solipsist. He says that the thoughts that generate the world we see come from inside the perceiving subject . In other words, everything you see is something that you personally thought up. If you are a solipsist, you are almost forced to say that I am a figment of your creative imagination, and that it is really you who is the author of these words you are reading (unconsciously making them us as you go along, perhaps).
Carlos M.I. Azucena
7
There are two interesting things about solipsism. First, there are no professional philosophers who seriously teach that solipsism is true. It would be absurd, would it not, for a philosophy professor to stand up and lecture to a group of students who are nothing but his own mental projections? The second interesting thing about solipsism is that it cannot be disproved! If you think you have a way to disprove it, I am all ears, and you will become a celebrity in the philosophical community.
Solipsism is the idea that a person's mind is the only thing that actually exists. It is a philosophical argument that maintains reality is based on the perceptions of one's mind, and therefore nothing really exists except for that perceptual reality of one's mind. Solipsism was first introduced by the Greek philosopher Gorgias and perpetuated to a great degree by Descartes, who emphasized the importance of finding the origins of knowledge and understanding through epistemology. This led to epistemological solipsism, in which only the knowledge and understanding of the individual philosopher can be known.
The general thought behind solipsism is that everything one sees, does, or feels is simply an extension of one's subconscious. It is a belief that everything in reality takes place within one's own mind, and therefore there are no actual outside forces acting upon the self. This philosophy calls into question the very essence of existence, and it also contends that existence and experience reside only in the mind and therefore existence may not be real at all. This relates most closely to metaphysical solipsism, a philosophical argument in which a person is the only thing existence and everything else is just a projection of that person's mental state. Methodological solipsism is the idea that all philosophical arguments must be built from the individual's knowledge and understanding of reality. It contends that the self is the only proper starting point for building such arguments. However, there are several counter-arguments to such a philosophy, which include the certainty of death, the fact that life can be unpleasant and it would seem antithetical for one to create a reality that is painful and imperfect, and a person's inability to imitate another person's skills. Related only tenuously to the philosophy of solipsism is solipsism syndrome, which is a dissociative psychiatric condition that causes the subject to believe all reality is internal and everything outside of them
Carlos M.I. Azucena
8
does not exist or exists simply as an ethereal or dreamlike state. People experiencing this syndrome often feel a detachment from reality, apathy, indifference, and intense loneliness, which can be dangerous and lead to other serious or life-threatening mental conditions. Astronauts living in space for long periods of time have experienced this syndrome, and it is believed that infants experience this type of worldview until they are old enough to grow out of it. --
"My mind is the only thing that I know exists." Initially presented as the philosophical explanation of human knowledge of the external world, solipsism revolves around the ontological belief and skeptical hypothesis that states existence consists of the mental capacity and experience of one's own mind. According to the philosophy of solipsism, the existence of things outside of an individual's own mental state cannot be proven. The Greek presocratic philosopher, Gorgias was the first to record solipsistic theory, stating that 1) nothing exists; 2) even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and 3) even if something could be known about it, knowledge can't be communicated with others. The foundations that Gorgias set in 400 BC has evolved, mostly in part of Descartes. In the 17th century, French philosopher Rene Descartes who extensively studied epistemology or the theory of knowledge and the limitations of human knowledge began to delve into the theories of solipsism in order to find a credible solution of the "problem of other minds". The problem of other minds is traditionally accepted to be an epistemological challenge raised by skeptics that the mentality of another person cannot be proven by simply observing their behavior. Though the solipsism beliefs deny the existence of other minds and Descartes does not, his philosophical breakthrough in the 1600s helped the further development of solipsism. --
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, Descartes resolved that an individual's understanding of the world depends on their own mind state and inner experience. In this development, Descartes brought the idea, "I think therefore I am" to become a popular inference of solipsist philosophy. The contemporary theory of solipsism revolves around three broad philosophical presumptions, which according to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , is 1) my most certain knowledge is that of my own mind, thoughts, and experience; 2) there is no concept or logical link between mental states and physical behavioral
Carlos M.I. Azucena
9
and materialistic dispositions 3) the experience, thoughts, and mind state of a given person is private to that person. These three principals where observed by John Locke, who according to IEP concluded that if an individual does possess the knowledge of the minds of others that knowledge is an indirect inference or analogy to one's own perception. An example of an analogy comparing oneself with the outer world: "I am a living human being, as are these others. I see about me living human beings and the argument from analogy is supposed to allow me to infer that these are persons like myself." (IEP)
The analogy clearly contradicts the beliefs of solipsism and it is because of this and the fact that perception is the driving factor of solipsistic ideals that this theory's credibility is constantly questioned. Many philosophers argue that solipsism defies logic and common sense. Even if everything outside of an individual is a dream, dreams are still entities that require explanation. Conscious Entities claims that is virtually impossible to disprove solipsism because it is based on individual perception, which makes it internally consistent. There are few to none, well-known person that truly adheres to the beliefs of solipsism. However, developmental psychologists widely agree that infants and children are solipsism or suffer from solipsism syndrome, which is the conducive state of mind that nothing exist except oneself, because young children care only about themselves and perceive the world in relation to themselves until they learn to empathize. The philosophical theory of solipsism relies on egocentric views and the lack of experiencing empathy. Not only is it egocentric and antisocial philosophy, but it also defies reality and common sense, by viewing the world in relativity to one's own thoughts and experience. However, it is hypothesized that in the event of nuclear holocaust or some other devastation, a human being would naturally begin thinking in a solipsistic manner, that nothing and no one exist besides their mind.
