Solipsism

From Free net encyclopedia

  1. redirect Template:Not verified

Solipsism (from the Latin ipse = "self" and solus = "alone") is an extreme form of skepticism, saying that nothing exists beyond oneself and one's immediate experiences. More generally, it is the epistemological belief that one's self is the only thing that can be known with certainty and verified (sometimes called egoism). Solipsism is also commonly understood to encompass the metaphysical belief that only one's self 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. Solipsism is first recorded with the presocratic sophist Gorgias (c. 483-375 BC) who is quoted by 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

Solipsism is generally identified with statements 2 and 3 from Gorgias.

But, in introducing methodological doubt (via Cogito ergo sum) into philosophy, Descartes created the backdrop against which modern interpretations of solipsism subsequently developed and were made to seem, if not plausible, at least irrefutable.

Solipsism is logically coherent, but not falsifiable, so it is not testable by current modes of the scientific method.

Contents

[edit]

Solipsism and 'The Last Man Alive'

Is the last man alive (e.g., after a nuclear holocaust) a solipsist? Not necessarily, because for the solipsist, it is not merely the case that he believes that his thoughts, experiences, and emotions are, as a matter of contingent fact, the only thoughts, experiences, and emotions that can be. Rather, the solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could be thoughts, experiences, and emotions other than his own— that events may occur or objects or people exist independently of the solipsist's own imagination. In short, the metaphysical solipsist understands the word 'pain', for example, to mean 'my pain'— he cannot accordingly conceive how this word is to be applied in any sense other than this exclusively egocentric, non-empathetic one.

Assuming the validity of solipsism, one must infer that it makes as much or as little sense, on these premises, to attribute any psychological predicate to another human being as it does to attribute it to a table or a rock. Thus on these premises, it makes no sense to attribute consciousness to another human being at all, whether or not they're the last man on Earth or not. A non-solipsistic 'last man alive' would not believe that tenet if he suddenly stumbled across another human being (or simply recalled one from memory).[1]

[edit]

Solipsism in Epistemology

The foundations of solipsism lie at the heart of the view that the individual understands all psychological concepts (thinking, willing, perceiving, etc.) by analogy with his own mental states, i.e. by abstraction from inner experience. And this view, or some variant of it, has been held by a great many, if not indeed the majority of, philosophers, since Descartes elevated the egocentric search for incontrovertible certainty to the status of the primary goal of critical epistemology. In this sense, then, it is at least contestable that epistemelogical solipsism is implicit in many philosophies of knowledge and mind since Descartes, and that any philosophy which adopts the Cartesian egocentric approach as its basic frame of reference is inherently solipsistic.

The problem of solipsism also merits close examination because it is based upon three widely held philosophical presuppositions, which are themselves fundamental and wide-ranging in importance. These are: (1) That my most certain knowledge is the contents of my own mind— my thoughts, experiences, affects, etc.; (2) That there is no conceptual or logically necessary link between the mental and the physical— between, say, the occurrence of certain conscious experiences or mental states and the 'possession' and behavioral dispositions of a 'body' of a particular kind (see the thought experiment which follows); and (3) That the experiences of a given person are necessarily private to that person. These presuppositions are unmistakably Cartesian in origin, and are very widely accepted by philosophers and non-philosophers alike.[2]

[edit]

Brain in a vat

A thought-experiment related to solipsism, although in principle distinct (for one thing, it posits a real mad scientist, brain, and vat), is the brain in a vat. The person performing the thought-experiment considers the possibility that they are trapped within some utterly unknowable reality, much like that illustrated in the movie The Matrix. A mad scientist could be sending the same impulses to one's brain in a vat that one's brain (understood to be that of a person in the "real world") might receive, thereby creating "the world" as one knows it from the mad scientist's program. Yet, for one's brain in the vat, that "world" would obviously not be "real." This raises the possibility that everything one thinks or knows is illusion. Or, at the least, that one cannot know with any certainty whether one's brain is in the "real world" or in a vat receiving impulses that would create an equivalent consciousness— or even if there is a real world, mad scientist, brain, or vat (all experience could be simply a never-ending dream).

[edit]

Solipsism in relation to other philosophies

[edit]

Materialism and Idealism

One of the most fundamental debates in philosophy for the last two millennia has been concerning the "true" nature of the world— whether it is some ethereal plane of ideas, or a cold reality of atoms and energy. Materialism[3] posits some reality that can be touched and felt, with our thoughts and dreams nothing more than the interaction of firing neurons. The only thing that dreams and hallucinations prove are that some neurons can 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. It's 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) [6] [7] [8] On this scale, solipsism tends toward extreme idealism. Thoughts and concepts are all that exist, and furthermore, only 'my' thoughts and conciousness exist. The so-called "reality" is nothing more than an idea that the solipsist has (perhaps unconciously) 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's Identity of indiscernibles. This states that two things are identical if, and only if, they simultaneously share exactly the same qualities (i.e., are indistinguishable). 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).[9] [10] 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[11][12] Descartes and dualism go on 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 their own unconscious is the author of all seemingly "external" events from "reality."

[edit]

Radical Empiricism

The Irish idealist philosopher George Berkeley argued that physical objects do not exist independent of the mind. An item truly exists only so long as it is observed; otherwise, it is not only meaningless, but simply nonexistent. 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 Berkley 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." Therefore, the solipsist would say, better to throw away the unreliable possible obversations of others to rely on your own. [13][14]

[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 be identified with 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) are structures of the universe, thus we are all subtly interconnected not only to the world around us, but to all other matter in the universe; that all we can perceive is a kind of vision, Samsara. The solipsist, however, would be more likely to put themselves squarely 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; "God" / "The Universe" for the pantheist is "My Unconcious Mind / Me" for the solipsist.

[edit]

Eastern philosophies

Thoughts somewhat similar to solipsism are present in much of eastern philosophy. Taoism and several interpretations of Buddhism, especially Zen, teach that drawing a distinction between self and universe is nonsensical and arbitrary, and merely an artifact of language rather than an inherent reality.

[edit]

Ancient Indian

"He who sees everything as nothing but the Self, and the Self in everything he 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?"

Isha Upanishad; sloka 6, 7

[edit]

Buddhist

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).

[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]

Objections

The following are some common critiques and responses about solipsism:

People die 
But the solipsist is clearly not dead. I cannot meaningfully 'die' in any case, because should I 'die', the entire universe would cease to exist. Therefore, death is another illusion of my unconscious mind. Since any being who has 'died' is only a phantom of my imagination anyway, the elimination of that phantom by 'death' proves nothing.
Life isn't perfect
All things are perfect until you compare them to something they are not. By whose standard are you judging perfection? If I am the author of all, then all is exactly as I have authored it, consciously or otherwise.
Why would pain and suffering exist?
My nature was never my own doing, so my experience is what my own (unconscious?) mind is capable of inventing, and that includes everything perceived, e.g., pain and suffering.
If the world is completely in your mind, how come you don't live the most fantastic life imaginable?
There may be some reason why I could never know or have decided to forget on purpose, such as the (unconsciously created) law of Karma. Categories such as 'pain' are a perception assumed with all of the other socio-cultural human values I may have created for myself- a package deal, so to speak.[15] More creatively, perhaps this is all out of a desire to avoid being bored, or perhaps even that I am in fact living the most perfect life I can imagine— there is no necessity that I be omniscient to be the sole inventor of reality. This issue is somewhat related to theodicy, the 'problem of evil,' except that the solipsist is the all-powerful 'god' who has allowed imperfection into the world.
Solipsism undercuts Morality
If solipsism is true, then practically all standards for moral behavior disintegrate, according to this argument. There is no God, so that basis for morality is gone, but even secular humanism disintegrates since there is no such thing 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 murder. The subconcious mind could always imagine them back to life, if that's what's really wanted, anyway. The problem with this argument is that it falls prey to the Appeal to Consequences FallacyTemplate:Fact; 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.
Complexity and Sensations
Only of a living human being and what resembles (behaves like) a living human being can one say it has sensations; it sees; is blind; hears; is deaf; is conscious or unconscious. (Wittgenstein, § 281): The intersubjective world in which we live with other human beings, the public language-system which we must master if we are to think at all, these are the primary data, the proto-phenomena, in Wittgenstein's phrase (§ 654). Our psychological and non-psychological concepts alike are derived from a single linguistic source. The solipsist would only marvel at the ability of his unconscious to script such a rich set of experiences. Of course, given that exactly this kind of supreme mental power is implied by solipsism, this critique is somewhat redundant.
The practical solipsist needs a language to formulate his 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, for to make an appeal to logical rules or empirical evidence the solipsist would implicitly have to affirm the very thing in which he purportedly refuses to believe: the 'reality' of intersubjectively valid criteria, and/or of a public, extra-mental world.[16][17] Possible responses are similar to the last objection; that is, to keep from becoming bored, perhaps the solipsist imagines "other" minds, which would actually be only elements of his own mind, and which he has chosen to forget control of for the time being, inventing an elaborate language in order to interact with these more isolated segments of his mind, or even to dialog with his conscious self (i.e., talk to himself). A more telling question might be, why does the solipsist need to invent so many and such a variety of languages? Template:Fact
Realism vs. solipsism 
An objection, raised by David Deutsch, 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 labelling distinction. Occam's Razor would then suggest that the existence of reality might be a simpler solution than a massive unconscious mind. 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 my unconscious, but when I die, the entire universe will cease to exist. (See also, Le Guin, Ursula K. Lathe of Heaven Eos; Reprint edition (April 1, 1997))
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. [18][19] 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. The solipsist would hold that further argument is meaningless and there are limits to what can be known about 'reality.'
[edit]

References

  1. Carus, Titus Lucretius, aka 'Lucretius' (~50 B.C.E) On the Nature of Things [20]
  2. Popper, K. R. & Eccles, J. C. (1977) The self and its brain. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. UCE, GM]
  3. Bertrand, Arthur Russel. The Analysis of Mind. Rutledge, London, New York, 1995
  4. Bertrand, Arthur Russel. Problems of Philosophy. Hackett Classics, Indianapolis, 1990
  5. von Schubert Soldern, Richard Ueber Transcendenz des Objects und Subjects (Leipzig, 1882)
  6. Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell, 1974.
[edit]

See also

[edit]

External links

de:Solipsismus et:Solipsism es:Solipsismo fr:Solipsisme it:Solipsismo he:סוליפסיזם nl:Solipsisme ja:独我論 no:Solipsisme pl:Solipsyzm pt:Solipsismo ru:Солипсизм fi:Solipsismi sv:Solipsism

Retrieved from "http://www.netipedia.com/index.php/Solipsism"