This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. WikiProject Philosophy or the Philosophy Portal may be able to help recruit one. (November 2008)

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (January 2008)

Certainty series

Agnosticism Belief Certainty Determinism Doubt Epistemology Justification Estimation Fallibilism Fatalism Nihilism Probability Solipsism Uncertainty

v • d • e

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that one's own mind is all that exists. Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis.

Contents 1 Explanation 2 History 2.1 Gorgias (of Leontini) 2.2 Descartes 3 Varieties 3.1 Metaphysical solipsism 3.2 Epistemological solipsism 3.3 Methodological solipsism 4 Psychology, and psychiatry 4.1 Philosophical solipsism as pathological 4.2 Solipsism syndrome 4.3 Infant solipsism 4.4 Consequences 4.5 Plausibility 4.6 Neuroscience 4.7 Last surviving soul 5 Relation to other ideas 5.1 Idealism and materialism 5.2 Cartesian dualism 5.3 Philosophy of Schopenhauer 5.4 Radical empiricism 5.5 Rationalism 5.6 Philosophical zombie 5.7 Falsifiability 5.8 Minimalism 5.9 Pantheism 5.10 Eastern philosophies 5.10.1 Hinduism 5.10.1.1 Advaita Vedanta 5.10.1.2 Yoga 5.10.2 Buddhism 6 Responses 6.1 People die 6.2 Applicability of the past 6.3 Life is imperfect 6.4 Other people's skills 6.5 Solipsism undercuts morality 6.6 The solipsist needs a language 6.7 Solipsism amounts to realism 6.8 Philosophical poverty 6.9 Applicability 7 Notes 8 See also 8.1 Dramatis personae 8.2 Related topics 9 References 10 Reference works 11 External links

[edit] Explanation

Denial of materialistic existence, in itself, does not constitute solipsism. Possibly the most controversial feature of the solipsistic worldview is the denial of the existence of other minds. Since qualia, or personal experiences, are private and ineffable, another being's experience can be known only by analogy.

Philosophers try to build knowledge on more than an inference or analogy. The failure of Descartes' epistemological enterprise brought to popularity the idea that all certain knowledge may end at "I am thinking; therefore I am" (cogito ergo sum).^[1]

The theory of solipsism also merits close examination because it relates to three widely held philosophical presuppositions, which are themselves fundamental and wide-ranging in importance. These are that:

1. My most certain knowledge is the content of my own mind—my thoughts, experiences, affects, etc.;
2. There is no conceptual or logically necessary link between mental and physical—between, say, the occurrence of certain conscious experience or mental states and the 'possession' and behavioral dispositions of a 'body' of a particular kind (see the brain in a vat); and
3. The experience of a given person is necessarily private to that person.

Solipsism is not a single concept but instead refers to several worldviews whose common element is some form of denial of the existence of a universe independent from the mind of the agent.

[edit] History

[edit] Gorgias (of Leontini)

Solipsism is first recorded with the Greek presocratic sophist, Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC) who is quoted by the Roman skeptic Sextus Empiricus as having stated:

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 about it can't be communicated to others.

This can be expressed as:

It's always known that I exist for “my mind is the only thing I know exists”. Someone could be dreaming up a thought of me having a thought, but only I know my thoughts. And for my thoughts, I don't know of any other thoughts from anyone else and if they even control their own.

Much of the point of the Sophists was to show that "objective" knowledge was a literal impossibility. (See also comments credited to Protagoras of Abdera). The influence of the Sophists has been severely downplayed; however, modern linguistic philosophy clearly seems to have its roots in the teachings of the Sophists.

[edit] Descartes

The foundations of solipsism are in turn the foundations of the view that the individual's understanding of any and all psychological concepts (thinking, willing, perceiving, etc.) is accomplished by making analogy with his or her own mental states; i.e., by abstraction from inner experience. And this view, or some variant of it, has been influential in philosophy since Descartes elevated the search for incontrovertible certainty to the status of the primary goal of epistemology, whilst also elevating epistemology to "first philosophy".

[edit] Varieties

[edit] Metaphysical solipsism

Metaphysical solipsism is the variety of idealism which maintains that the individual self of the solipsistic philosopher is the whole of reality and that the external world and other persons are representations of that self having no independent existence.

[edit] Epistemological solipsism

Epistemological solipsism is the variety of idealism according to which only the directly accessible mental contents of the solipsistic philosopher can be known.

[edit] Methodological solipsism

Methodological solipsism is the epistemological thesis that the individual self and its states are the sole possible or proper starting point for philosophical construction (Wood, 295). The methodological solipsist does not intend to conclude that one of the stronger forms of solipsism is true, but rather believes that all other truths must be founded on indisputable facts about his own consciousness. A skeptical turn along these lines is cartesian skepticism.

[edit] Psychology, and psychiatry

[edit] Philosophical solipsism as pathological

Solipsism is often introduced (for example "Philosophy made simple", by Popkin and Stroll) as a bankrupt philosophy, or at best bizarre and unlikely. Alternatively, the philosophy is introduced in the context of relating it to pathological psychological conditions. However, solipsists believe that the philosophy of solipsism is neither bankrupt, bizarre, strange, nor pathological. Solipsism, by its nature as a philosophy, can neither be proved nor disproved.

[edit] Solipsism syndrome

Solipsism syndrome is a dissociative mental state.^{[citation needed]} It is only incidentally related to philosophical solipsism. Solipsists assert that the lack of ability to prove the existence of other minds does not, in itself, cause the psychiatric condition of detachment from reality. The feeling of detachment from reality is unaffected by the answer to the question of whether the common-sense universe exists or not.^{[citation needed][clarification needed]}

[edit] Infant solipsism

Developmental psychologists commonly believe that infants are solipsist,^[2] and that eventually children infer that others have experiences much like theirs and reject solipsism (see Infant metaphysics).

[edit] Consequences

To discuss consequences clearly, an alternative is required: solipsism as opposed to what? Solipsism is opposed to all forms of realism and many forms of idealism (insofar as they claim that there is something outside the idealist's mind, which is itself another mind, or mental in nature). Realism in a minimal sense, that there is an external universe is most likely not observationally distinct from solipsism. The objections to solipsism therefore have a theoretical rather than an empirical thrust.

One consequence that is inherent to solipsism is an atomic individualist view of the world and nature. If only I matter, then other people, animals, environments only matter insofar as they affect me. This may be an antisocial philosophy.^{[citation needed]} Language and other social media are taken for granted as self-conceived and inherent. Maintenance of these social tools is not required, the individual need only exist, not interact with the world. Sincere solipsists are unlikely to be persuaded by such considerations; believing society to be non-existent, there is no question of being "antisocial" for them.

The British philosopher Alan Watts wrote extensively about this subject.

[edit] Plausibility

This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this section if you can. (January 2008)

Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (January 2008)

Solipsism is the position that only perception exists. The question of plausibility depends, of course, on the philosophical groundwork one chooses to use as a starting point. Both Western philosophical systems and Eastern philosophies could be seen to skirt solopsistic ideas for time to time. (see the section Eastern Philosophies, below).

A general (Western) discussion stemming from, for example, an objectivist philosophical groundwork, can be viewed as considering whether an idea stands up to common sense or arguments of reasonableness, and is free from obvious internal logical contradictions. Solipsism is suspect on at least two grounds, in this case.

1. Can one's perception, within one's mind exist without an external something to exist in, such as a biological brain?
2. Does one consider all of perceptual reality as part of one's faculty of being, such as high math, music composition and other creative work that one cannot consciously reproduce?
3. An objection could be termed a corollary to the two above. It asks a question about the functioning of one's personal perceptions. The solipsist cannot deny the fact that he thinks, thus going through reasoning processes about his perceptions. His consciousness is not just perceptions; it's also thinking about them. How is this possible without some mental machinery which can perform such thinking? But if such mental machinery exists independent and apart from his perceptions, this also contradicts the "perceptions only" premise. Otherwise a solipsist can define his consciousness to contain perception and thinking processes together.

Note, however, that there is a potential refutation to the thesis that 'perception' requires 'thinking.' If the solipsist were merely being created instantaneously from moment to moment with all memory intact and updated, he would only think he is 'thinking'—i.e., have a perception of thinking. In fact, no operation or activity has truly taken place from percept to percept (think of how the 'still' frames of a moving picture film strip blend into the appearance of motion)—only the passage of time. But such a refutation is very vulnerable to the objection based on language (e.g. the private language argument). A solipsist who declares that he is not really thinking cannot hold that he is really speaking.

A subjective argument for the implausibility of solipsism is that it goes against the commonly observed tendency for sane adult humans in the western world to interpret the world as external and existing independent of themselves. This attitude, not always held by children, is listed by developmental psychologists as one of the signs of the maturing mind. The principle is deeply held, and well integrated with human languages and other thought processes. However, that humans think this way, even if they must think this way, does not prove something true.

[edit] Neuroscience

This section may be confusing or unclear to readers. Please help clarify the article; suggestions may be found on the talk page. (January 2008)

This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this section if you can. (January 2008)

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2008)

Empirical studies of the human brain suggest that the human mind is subject to many strongly held miscomprehensions of what is held by consensus to be the external and objective world. This line of thought could be extended to the claim that even if the existence of an external world is assumed, the private mental world of each agent is logically that of the solipsist. A thought experiment emphasizes this point. Imagine you are in a fight to the death: If your opponent loses, will the sun rise tomorrow? Almost all people would say^{[weasel words]} yes, but if you lose, will the sun rise tomorrow? The thought experiment suggests that it is not true for any agent that all minds are on an equal footing. The principle that they are is an abstraction that ignores a very important detail in the private mental life of the agent. This idea is expressed in more detail in What Is it Like to Be a Bat?, by Thomas Nagel (in, for example, The Mind's I by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett).

This argument exposes a misunderstanding which constantly recurs with regard to solipsism. If it borrows a conclusion drawn from the scientific investigation of the external world, only to pull the rug from under the scientific enterprise by declaring that there is no external world, then since the solipsist is at least uncertain that brains exist, how can he draw conclusions about his mind from them? Solipsists claim^[who?] that the method is proof by contradiction. If the external world does not exist, it does not exist. On the other hand if it is assumed to exist, and studied with neuroscience, it is found that the causal chains involved in perception are indirect. Solipsists^[who?] paraphrase "the external world is only known indirectly" as "the external world cannot be known at all", and thereby conclude that the external world is either nonexistent or unknowable. However, "the external world cannot be known at all" is not a corollary or implication of "the external world is only known indirectly", and no scientist would make that assumption.^{[citation needed]} Almost everybody^{[weasel words]} considers science as posited on the investigation of the external world.

[edit] Last surviving soul

Would the last person left alive be a solipsist? Not necessarily, because for the solipsist, it is not merely the case that they believe that their thoughts, experiences, and emotions are, as a matter of contingent fact, the only ones that can exist. Rather, the solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could be thoughts, experiences, and emotions other than their own—that events may occur or objects or people exist independently of the solipsist's own experiences. In short, the metaphysical solipsist understands the word "pain" [i.e., someone else's], for example, to mean "one's own pain"—but this word cannot accordingly be construed to apply in any sense other than this exclusively egocentric, non-empathetic one.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Relation to other ideas

[edit] Idealism and materialism

One of the most fundamental debates in philosophy concerns the "true" nature of the world—whether it is some ethereal plane of ideas, or a reality of atoms and energy. Materialism^[3] posits a separate 'world out there' that can be touched and felt, with the separate individual's physical and mental experiences reducible to the collisions of atoms and the interactions of firing neurons. The only thing that dreams and hallucinations prove are that some neurons can misfire and malfunction, but there is no fundamental reality behind an idea except as a brain-state. Idealists,^[4] on the other hand, believe that the mind and its thoughts are the only true things that exist. This doctrine is often called Platonism^[5] after its most famous proponent. The material world is ephemeral, but a perfect triangle or "love" is eternal. Religious thinking tends to be some form of idealism, as God usually becomes the highest ideal (such as Neoplatonism).^[3][6][7] On this scale, solipsism can be classed as idealism, specifically subjective idealism. Thoughts and concepts are all that exist, and furthermore, only 'my' thoughts and consciousness exist. The so-called "reality" is nothing more than an idea that the solipsist has (perhaps unconsciously) created.

[edit] Cartesian dualism

There is another option, of course: the belief that both ideals and "reality" exist. Dualists commonly argue that the distinction between the mind (or 'ideas') and matter can be proven by employing Leibniz' principle of the identity of indiscernibles. This states that two things are identical if, and only if, they share exactly the same qualities, that is, are indistinguishable from each other. Dualists then attempt to identify attributes of mind that are lacked by matter (such as privacy or intentionality) or vice versa (such as having a certain temperature or electrical charge).^[8][9] One notable application of the identity of indiscernibles was by René Descartes in his Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes concluded that he could not doubt the existence of himself (the famous cogito ergo sum argument), but that he could doubt the (separate) existence of his body. From this he inferred that the person Descartes must not be identical to the Descartes body, since one possessed a characteristic that the other did not: namely, it could be known to exist. Solipsism agrees with Descartes in this aspect, and goes further: only things that can be known to exist for sure should be considered to exist. The Descartes body could only exist as an idea in the mind of the person Descartes^[10][11] Descartes and dualism aim to prove the actual existence of reality as opposed to a phantom existence (as well as the existence of God in Descartes' case), using the realm of ideas merely as a starting point, but solipsism usually finds those further arguments unconvincing. The solipsist instead proposes that his/her own unconscious is the author of all seemingly "external" events from "reality".

[edit] Philosophy of Schopenhauer

The World as Will and Representation is the central work of Arthur Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer saw the human will as our one window to the world behind the representation, the Kantian thing-in-itself. He believed, therefore, that we could gain knowledge about the thing-in-itself, something Kant said was impossible, since the rest of the relationship between representation and thing-in-itself could be understood by analogy to the relationship between human will and human body.

[edit] Radical empiricism

The idealist philosopher George Berkeley argued that so-called physical objects do not exist independently of the so-called mind that perceives them. An item truly exists only so long as it is observed; otherwise, it is not only meaningless, but simply nonexistent. The observer and the observed are one. Berkeley does attempt to show things can and do exist apart from the human mind and our perception, but only because there is an all-encompassing Mind in which all "ideas" are perceived – in other words, God, who observes all. The solipsist appreciates the fact that nothing exists outside of perception, but would further point out that Berkeley falls prey to the egocentric predicament – he can only make his own observations, and can't be truly sure that this God or other people exist to observe "reality". The solipsist would say it is better to disregard the unreliable possible observations of alleged other people and rely upon the immediate certainty of one's own perceptions.^[12][13]

[edit] Rationalism

Rationalism is the philosophical position that truth is best discovered by the use of reasoning and logic rather than by the use of the senses (see Plato's theory of Forms). Solipsism, which holds a similar distrust for sense-data, is thus related to rationalism, and in fact may be seen as a form of extreme rationalism.

[edit] Philosophical zombie

The theory of solipsism crosses over with the theory of the philosophical zombie in that all other seemingly conscious beings actually lack true consciousness, instead they only display traits of consciousness to the observer, who is the only conscious being there is.

[edit] Falsifiability

Falsifiability in the sense of Popper or Lakatos is not a simple principle. If an agent discovers a contradiction in their own terms within their own thoughts then there is an error, but exactly which component of the mind is at fault is not clear: if (A and B) is false, then is it A or B that is false? In practice we have in our minds many beliefs, some are held more strongly than others. When an error is found the less strongly held beliefs are considered for modification or deletion first; only if no reasonable change in these is found to fix the error do we look deeper.

A weak form of epistemological solipsism states that the agent has no proof of anything beyond the senses. This can be raw observation, at the level of "I see red", "I am not aware of a proof". A stronger form states "No proof exists"; this is falsifiable in as far as anything is. In order to falsify it, a proof must be provided.

Falsificationism indicates that if the mind of the agent produces a self-contradiction on its own terms, then (by definition) some error is being made. However, the error can only be located in the agent's mind as a whole. To demonstrate that one aspect (or axiom) of that mind is incorrect requires the assumption that another is correct. If the thesis is that "all entities are aspects of the mind of the agent", then to refute this it is typically required to assume the truth of an axiom that contains the effect of "there do exist things outside the mind of the agent".^{[citation needed]}

According to one argument^{[citation needed]}, no experiment (by a given solipsist A) can be designed to disprove solipsism (to the satisfaction of that solipsist A). However, solipsism can still be refuted by showing it to be internally inconsistent.

The method of the typical scientist is materialist: assuming that the external world exists and can be known. But the scientific method, in the sense of a predict-observe-modify loop, does not require the assumption of an external world. In common terms, a person may perform a psychological test on themselves, without any assumption of an external world. The solipsistic scientist performs experiments to determine the relation between observations, without any presumption that these observations come from a source outside the mind of the solipsist. However, this account needs to be extended to include the co-operative and communitarian nature of science.

Models involving an external world may be used, but will always be purely abstract: used for their ability to predict, but being given no special ontological status. There are, in fact, several distinct versions of Quantum Mechanics, each instrumentally equivalent to the other, but with different ontologies. In a solipsistic science there is no strong desire to determine which is ultimately true—in effect, none of them are, but they all have utility and intuitions to offer. However, non-solipsistic science can explain why anything is ever falsified at all, since a non-mental world does not have to bend to the expectations of science.

[edit] Minimalism

Solipsism is a form of logical minimalism. Many people are intuitively unconvinced of the nonexistence of the external world from the basic arguments of solipsism, but a solid proof of its existence is not available at present. The central assertion of solipsism rests on the nonexistence of such a proof, and strong solipsism (as opposed to weak solipsism) asserts that no such proof can be made. In this sense, solipsism is logically related to agnosticism in religion: the distinction between believing you do not know, and believing you could not have known.

However, minimality (or parsimony) is not the only logical virtue. A common misapprehension of Occam's Razor has it that the simpler theory is always the best. In fact, the principle is that the simpler of two theories of equal explanatory power is to be preferred. In other words: additional "entities" can pay their way with enhanced explanatory power. So the realist can claim that, while his world view is more complex, it is more satisfying as an explanation.

[edit] Pantheism

While solipsism is not generally compatible with traditional views of God, it is somewhat related to Pantheism, the belief that everything is God and part of God. The difference is usually a matter of focus. The pantheist would tend to identify their self as being a part of everything in reality, which is actually all God beneath the surface. For instance, many ancient Indian philosophies advocate the notion that all matter (and thus humans) is subtly interconnected with not only one's immediate surroundings, but with everything in the universe. They claim that the perception of absolutely-independent beings and things is an illusion that leads to confusion and dissatisfaction - Samsara. The solipsist, however, would be more likely to put him- or herself in the center, as the only item of reality, with all other beings in reality illusions. It could be said to be another naming dispute; "The Universe" / "God" for the pantheist is "My Unconscious Mind" / "Me" for the solipsist.

[edit] Eastern philosophies

The assertions of eastern philosophy have been perceived by some as similar to solipsism. Taoism^{[citation needed]} and several interpretations of Buddhism, especially Zen, teach that the distinction between self and universe is arbitrary, merely a habit of perception and an artifact of language. This view identifies the unity of self and universe as the ultimate reality. Further, Zen holds that each individual has 'Buddha Mind': an all-pervading awareness that fills their entire existence, including the 'external' world. To a Buddhist or Taoist, this would not necessarily imply that one's mind is all that exists, as with solipsism, but rather that the external universe is only ever experienced through the mind of the individual.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Hinduism

[edit] Advaita Vedanta

Advaita is one of the six most-known Hindu philosophical systems, and literally means "non-duality." Its first great consolidator was Adi Shankaracharya, who continued the work of some of the Upanishadic teachers, and that of his teacher's teacher Gaudapada. By analyzing the three states of experience—waking, dreaming, and deep sleep—he established the singular reality of Brahman, in which Brahman, the universe and Atman, the self are one and the same.

In the Hindu model, the ultimate all-inclusive reality, Brahman, plays a game of hide and seek with itself. In this game, called Lila, Brahman plays with individual people, birds, rocks, and other features of the world both separately and together, while forgetting that the game is being played. At the end of each session, Brahman is said to wake up, cease the game, applaud itself, and resume the game all over again. The state of wakefulness and enlightenment is knowing one is simply playing a game; one is simply acting as a human being, having an illusion of being locked within a physical body and separated from the whole of the cosmos.

One who sees everything as nothing but the Self, and the Self in everything one sees, such a seer withdraws from nothing.

For the enlightened, all that exists is nothing but the Self, so how could any suffering or delusion continue for those who know this oneness?

— Ishopanishad: sloka 6, 7

The philosophy of Vedanta, "Aham Brahmasmi" (roughly translated as "I am the Absolute Truth"), could be interpreted as solipsism in one of its primitive senses, as the world is but an illusion in the mind of the observer. However, Advaita Vedanta can be understood to be non-solipsistic when it is recognised that it does not actually deny the existence of a world 'external' to the Self or Atman. Rather, it is asserting that the consciousness and awareness of the individual pervades all of that person's experience, to such an extent that absolute notions of 'inside' and 'outside' are arbitrary. The universe is the same as the self, as the universe can only be experienced through the self and the self is submerged within the universe as an integrated part^{[citation needed]}.

[edit] Yoga

Yogic practices are sometimes seen to align closely with the Sankhya philosophy, which is an Eastern dualistic system (somewhat distinct from Western dualism) postulating only the existence of mind, and of matter. However, one sometimes sees it explained that, while matter exists for us in the world of Maya (illusion), it is ultimately a product of mind, and is encompassed thereby.

[edit] Buddhism

The Buddha stated, "Within this fathom long body is the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world and the path leading to the cessation of the world."^{[citation needed]} Whilst not rejecting the occurrence of external phenomena, the Buddha focused on the illusion created within the mind of the perceiver by the process of ascribing permanence to impermanent phenomena, satisfaction to unsatisfying experiences, and a sense of reality to things that were effectively insubstantial.

Mahayana Buddhism also challenged as illusion the idea that one can experience an 'objective' reality independent of individual perceiving minds.

According to the Sutra Prasangika view, external objects do exist, just not inherently: "Just as objects of mind do not exist [inherently], mind also does not exist [inherently]."^[14] In other words, even though a chair may physically exist, individuals can only ever experience it through the medium of each their own mind, with each their own literal point-of-view. Therefore, an independent purely 'objective' reality could never be experienced.

Some later representatives of one Yogacara subschool (Prajnakaragupta, Ratnakirti) were proponents of extreme illusionism and solipsism (as well as of solipsism of this moment). The best example of such extreme ideas was the treatise of Ratnakirti (XI century) "Refutation of the existence of other minds" (Santanantara dusana).

Note: It is important to note that all mentioned Yogacara trends are not purely philosophical but religious–philosophical. All Yogacara discourse takes place within the religious and doctrinal dimension of Buddhism. It is also determined by the fundamental Buddhist problem, that is living being and its liberation from the bondage of Samsara.

[edit] Responses

There are a number of critiques on and responses to solipsism.

[edit] People die

But the solipsist himself or herself is not dead. If somebody else dies, the supposed being who has supposedly "died" is only a phantom of the solipsist's imagination anyway, and the elimination of that phantom proves nothing. A critic would point out that many (self-proclaimed) solipsists have died in the history of the world, and solipsism hasn't disappeared yet. However, the solipsist would respond that he or she has not died, and therefore his or her solipsism is not yet disproved. He or she never believed in the existence of those other solipsists in the first place.

[edit] Applicability of the past

The fact that an individual may find a statement such as "I think, therefore I am" applicable to them, yet not originating in their mind indicates that others have had a comparable degree of insight into their own mental processes, and that these are similar enough to the subject's. Further, existence in complete unity with reality means that learning is impossible—one would have to have awareness of all things. The metaphysical solipsist would respond that, much like other people are products of his own mind, so, too, is "the past" and its attendant information. Thus, "I think, therefore I am" would indeed have originated in their mind.

[edit] Life is imperfect

Why would a solipsist create things such as pain and loss for himself or herself? More generally, it might be asked "If the world is completely in my head, how come I don't live the most fantastic life imaginable?" One response would be to simply plead ignorance and note that there may be some reason which was forgotten on purpose. Another response is that categories such as 'pain' are perceptions assumed with all of the other socio-cultural human values that the solipsist has created for himself—a package deal, so to speak. More creatively, perhaps this is all out of a desire to avoid being bored, or perhaps even that the solipsist is in fact living the most perfect life he or she could imagine. This issue is somewhat related to theodicy, the "problem of evil", except that the solipsist himself is the all-powerful God who has somehow allowed imperfection into his world. A solipsist may also counter that since he never made himself he never had a choice in the way his mind operates and appears to have only limited control over how his experiences evolve. He could also conclude that the world of his own mind's creation is the exact total of all his desires, conscious and otherwise and that each moment is always perfect in the sense that it would not be other than as his own mind in total had made.^[13]

The imperfection of life can also be explained through the beliefs of the pseudo-philosophy lachrymology, i.e. that only through pain, both physical and emotional, can one move to a higher state of existence. Thus, it could be theorized that the imperfect present for a solipsist is the direct result of his subconscious compulsion to experience perfection.

The claim that the solipsist's mind is the only thing with certain existence for him (epistemological solipsism) does not inherently address the question of control over the content of that mind. Outside solipsism, a person may know that a phobia is all in the mind but be completely unable to prevent it ruining their life. (Conversely, it is not illogical for a powerful being—a god, for example—to have complete control over the universe, despite it being external to said powerful being.) Solipsism asserts that the mind of the agent is the only thing with assured existence; it need not assert any specific structure to that mind—any more or less than materialism—in and of itself, and requires a specific cosmology. However, any convincing philosophy needs to cohere with what is observed, and metaphysical solipsism needs to credit certain mental contents with the same stubborn indifference to human wishes that material objects display in other philosophies.

In a psychological, rather than philosophical, mode, the delusion that the agent is in complete control of the universe and chooses to have bad things happen is equally compatible with a solipsistic as with a materialistic mindset.

[edit] Other people's skills

If the solipsist created a famous poet in his mind, why doesn't the solipsist have the capacity to imitate their skill? If the solipsist created the poet's poems for them, why can't the solipsist create equally talented poems for themselves?

Answer, if he created the poet, he created the poem. But you can argue that a solipsist does not have the same skills personally as a professional guitarist does. In theory, he should be able to write equally as talented music because he created it, but that is where the problem arises, because the solipsist is not good at guitar.

Also, one answer from imperfect life also fits this problem: the solipsist's mind being the only thing with (proofable) existence does not inherently address the question of control over the universe. Thus, as uncontrollable as life imperfection are others skills, be they real or not.

[edit] Solipsism undercuts morality

If solipsism is true, then practically all standards for moral behavior would seem to be meaningless. According to this argument there is no "creator", no deity, so that basis for morality is gone. Other forms of morality that do not rely on the existence of an infallible deity, such as secular humanism, also become meaningless because there are no such things as other humans. Everything and everyone else is just a figment of imagination, so there's no particular reason not to make these figments disappear by, say, mass annihilation. The problem with this argument is that it falls prey to the Appeal to Consequences Fallacy; if solipsism is true, then it doesn't matter that it has unfortunate implications. This can possibly be countered by people who believe that (a non-solipsist) morality is an inherent part of the universe that can be proven to exist.

A solipsist may also understand that everything being a part of himself would also mean that harming anything would be harming himself with associated negative consequences such as pain (although the solipsist must be harming himself already, since "life is imperfect"). Or an exponent of a weak form of solipsism might say that harming others is imprudent because the solipsist can only be uncertain of their real existence rather than certain of their non-existence. Another expression of this point is in noting the strong feelings that a human can have for a non-existent character in a movie, or for a car or boat which is admitted to be completely non sentient. There is no logical or psychological reason to prevent a solipsist caring for observed people, even if the solipsist is completely convinced of their non-existence.

[edit] The solipsist needs a language

The practical solipsist needs a language to formulate his or her thoughts about solipsism. Language is an essential tool to communicate with other minds. Why does a solipsist universe need a language? Indeed, one might even say, solipsism is necessarily incoherent, a self-refuting idea, for to make an appeal to logical rules or empirical evidence the solipsist would implicitly have to affirm the very thing in which he or she purportedly refuses to believe: the 'reality' of intersubjectively valid criteria, and/or of a public, extra-mental world.^[15] A possible response would be that to keep from becoming bored, perhaps the solipsist imagines "other" minds, which would actually be only elements of his own mind. He or she has chosen to forget control of these minds for the time being, and the elaborate languages required for interaction with these more isolated segments of his mind are merely part of the creation of "reality." As for the rules of logic, they are probably merely an artifact of the peculiar psychology of the solipsist and only appear to exist in the "real" world. (However, to argue this way is to admit that solipsism needs to be buttressed with additional, ad-hoc hypotheses).

Greg Egan addressed this issue in his story "Dust" and the subsequent novel based on the story Permutation City by demonstrating that the solipsist can choose to develop his own self-consistent logical system apart from "reality". A more telling question might be, why does the solipsist need to invent so many and such a variety of languages? There is of course E-prime which strives to speak from the personal point of view and seems ideally suited for solipsism.

One famous argument along these lines is the private language argument of Wittgenstein. In brief, this states that since language is for communication, and communication requires two participants, the existence of language in the mind of the thinker means the existence of another mind to communicate with. There is a direct fallacy in this: either, language is for communication between two agents, in which case it is still to be proved that what is in the head of the agent is a language, or what is in the head of the agent is language, in which case it is yet to be proved that language is for communication between two minds. To complicate the situation, the language in the mind of the agent may be for communication between the agent at this time, and the agent at a future time. However, this is no objection to the original argument, which explicitly mentions a kind of "diary" and therefore communication across time.

Again, the answer that the solipsist, even being the only real thing, is not in control of the 'universe' could address this question.

[edit] Solipsism amounts to realism

An objection, raised by David Deutsch,^[16] among others, is that since the solipsist has no control over the "universe" he is creating for himself, there must be some unconscious part of his mind creating it. If the solipsist makes his unconscious mind the object of scientific study (e.g., by conducting experiments), he 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 "one's unconscious mind." But these are just different names for the same thing. Both are massively complex processes other than the solipsist's conscious mind, and the cause of all the solipsist's experiences—possibly merely a labeling distinction. Application of Occam's Razor might then suggest that postulating the existence of 'reality' may be a simpler solution than a massive unconscious mind; alternatively the smaller number of entities required to exist for solipsism suggests solipsism is the better choice. In practice, Occam's Razor suffers from a problem in the definition of simplicity. The solipsist would claim that the apparent independence of real world events just shows how good his unconscious mind is at maintaining the illusion. The realist's world may be every bit as complex as the solipsist's unconscious, but when the solipsist dies, the entire universe will cease to exist. (See also, Le Guin, Ursula K. The Lathe of Heaven)

[edit] Philosophical poverty

Some philosophers hold the viewpoint that solipsism is entirely empty and without content. Like a 'faith' argument, it seems sterile, i.e., allows no further argument, nor can it be falsified.^[17][18] The world remains absolutely the same — so where could a solipsist go from there? Viewed in this way, solipsism seems only to have found a facile way to avoid the more difficult task of a critical analysis of what is 'real' and what isn't, and what 'reality' means. Some might say Solipsism is not impoverished because it helps philosophers operate from a principle of doubt because their difficult task can only determine the probability of what is real and what isn't. The solipsist would hold that further argument is meaningless and there are limits to what can be known about 'reality.'

[edit] Applicability

Another argument against solipsism is that it has no goal and no way to be applied. The question used in such an argument is, can it be applied? Does it lead to a better or a happier life, in the viewpoint of the solipsist, or anyone else? In other words, if the solipsist believes that nothing is real and there are no goals, what can he spend his time doing and why not just die?

[edit] Notes

[edit] See also

[edit] Dramatis personae

• George Berkeley
• René Descartes
• Henri Barbusse's "Hell"

[edit] Related topics

Cartesian skepticism Consensus reality Dream argument Empiricism Falsifiability Heinlein's pantheistic solipsism Idealism

Immaterialism Metaphysical solipsism Methodological solipsism Objective idealism Panpsychism Phenomenalism

Philosophical realism Primary/secondary quality distinction – John Locke's response to solipsism Problem of other minds Henry Rollins's Solipsist Solipsism syndrome Subjective idealism Alfred Binet – The mind and the brain

[edit] References

• Carus, Titus Lucretius (c. 50 BC). De Rerum Natura [On the Nature of Things]. 
• Khashaba, D.R. (28 July 2002). "Subjectivism and Solipsism". Philosophy Pathways (37). http://www.philosophypathways.com/newsletter/issue37.html. 
• Peake, Anthony (2006). Is There Life After Death?. Arcturus–Foulsham (Europe), Chartwell Books (USA).  This book presents an intriguing and scientifically-based updating of solipsism involving the latest findings in quantum physics, neurology and consciousness studies.
• Popper, K.R.; Eccles, J.C. (1977). The Self and Its Brain. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag. 
• Russell, Bertrand (1988) [1912]. The Problems of Philosophy. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. 
• Russell, Bertrand (1995) [1921]. The Analysis of Mind. London, UK: Routledge. 
• von Schubert Soldern, Richard (1982). Über Transcendenz des Objects und Subjects. Leipzig. 
• Thornton, Stephen P. (24 October 2004). "Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds". in Fieser, James; Dowden, Bradley. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/solipsis.htm. 
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1974). Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell. 
• Wood, Ledger (1962). "Solipsism". in Runes. Dictionary of Philosophy. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, and Company. p. 295. 

[edit] Reference works

• Runes, Dagobert D., ed (1962). Dictionary of Philosophy. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, and Company. 
• Neilson, W.A.; Knott, T.A.; Carhart, P.W., eds (1950). Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language (Second, Unabridged ed.). Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Company. 
• Mish, Frederick C., ed (1983). Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam–Webster. 

[edit] External links

• Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds
• Solipsism experienced as a dissociative symptom of mental illness

v • d • e Philosophy Western philosophy · Eastern philosophy History Ancient Buddhist · Chinese · Greek · Hellenistic · Hindu · Indian · Jain · Persian Medieval Scholasticism · Thomism · Scotism · Early Islamic · Judeo-Islamic Modern Empiricism · Rationalism Contemporary Analytic · Continental Lists Outline · Topic · School of Philosophies · Glossary · Philosophers · Movements Branches Metaphysics · Epistemology · Logic · Ethics · Aesthetics Philosophy of Action · Art · Biology · Chemistry · Film · Education · Economics · Environment · Geography · Information · Healthcare · History · Human nature · Humor · Language · Law · Literature · Mathematics · Mind · Music · Being · Philosophy · Physics · Politics · Psychology · Religion · Science · Social science · Technology · War Schools Africana · Anarchism · Aristotelianism · Averroism · Avicennism · Classical liberalism · Critical theory · Cynicism · Deconstructionism · Deism · Deontology · Dialectical materialism · Dualism · Egoism · Epicureanism · Epiphenomenalism · Existentialism · Feminism · Functionalism · Hedonism · Hegelianism · Hermeneutics · Humanism · Idealism · Kantianism · Kyoto School · Legal positivism · Logical positivism · Marxism · Materialism · Modernism · Monism · Naturalism · Neoplatonism · New Philosophers · Nihilism · Ordinary language · Particularism · Peripatetic · Phenomenology  · Platonism · Posthumanism · Postmodernism · Post-structuralism · Pragmatism · Presocratic · Process · Psychoanalysis · Speculative Realism – Solipsism · Realism · Relativism · Scholasticism · Skepticism · Stoicism · Structuralism · Thomism · Utilitarianism Portal · Category · WikiProject · changes

v • d • e Metaphysics Related articles Axiology · Cosmology · Epistemology · Ontology · Teleology · Philosophy of mind · Philosophy of psychology · Philosophy of space and time · Theoretical physics · meta / meta- · List of metaphysicians Concepts in metaphysics Action · Abstract object · Being · Causality · Change · Certainty · Choice · Cogito ergo sum · Concept · Embodied cognition · Entity · Essence · Existence · Experience · Form · Idea · Identity · Information · Insight · Intelligence · Intention · Matter · Memetics · Mind · Meaning · Mental representation · Modality · Motion · Necessity · Notion · Object · Pattern · Physical object · Perception · Principle · Properties · Qualia · Quality · Reality · Self · Subject · Substance  · Thought · Time · Trope · Truth · Type · Unity · Universal · Unobservable · Value · more ... Metaphysical theories Anti-realism · Determinism · Cartesian dualism · Essentialism · Existentialism · Free will · Idealism · Libertarianism · Materialism · Meaning of life · Monism · Naturalism · Nihilism · Phenomenalism · Physicalism · Realism · Relativism · MOQ · Subjectivism · Substance theory · Type Portal · Index · Category · Task Force · Stub · Discussion

v • d • e Philosophy of mind Related articles: Metaphysics • Philosophy of artificial intelligence • Philosophy of information • Philosophy of perception • Concepts in mind Abstract object • Artificial intelligence • Chinese room • Cognition • Concept • Concept and object • Consciousness • Idea • Identity • Ingenuity • Intelligence • Intentionality • Introspection • Intuition • Language of thought • Materialism • Mental events • Mental image • Mental processs • Mental property • Mental representation • Mind • Mind-body dichotomy • Pain • Problem of other minds • Propositional attitude • Qualia • Self • Tabula rasa • Understanding • more... Theories of mind Behaviourism • Biological naturalism • Dualism  • Eliminative materialism • Emergent materialism • Epiphenomenalism • Functionalism • Identity theory • Interactionism • Materialism • Mind-body problem • Monism • Naïve realism • Neutral monism • Phenomenalism • Phenomenology (Existential phenomenology)  • Physicalism • Pragmatism • Property dualism • Representational theory of mind • Solipsism • Substance dualism • Type physicalism • Philosophers of mind J. L. Austin • Henri Bergson • Krishna Chandra Bhattacharya • C. D. Broad • Daniel Dennett • Dharmakirti • Donald Davidson • René Descartes • Alvin Goldman • Martin Heidegger • Edmund Husserl • William James • Søren Kierkegaard • Gottfried Leibniz • Maurice Merleau-Ponty • Marvin Minsky • George Edward Moore • Thomas Nagel • Karl Popper • Richard Rorty • Gilbert Ryle • John Searle • Baruch Spinoza • Alan Turing • Vasubandhu • Zhuangzi • more... Portal · Category · Task Force · Discussion