Give me your best argument against Solipsism

Descartes

there are no good arguments either in favor or against it

cogito ergo sum

Dear me,

Thank me, I'm glad that I devised and cogitated this.

Vicariously mine,
Me

The objects of dreams come from outside

Anyone who argues the case for solipsism in writing assumes an audience.

QED

No, see

Are you kidding? Solipsism is even more unfalsifiable than the existence of God.

Attached: 1550803589310.jpg (540x540, 55K)

smoke weed every day

Hey dumbass

These so-called counter examples are written specifically to communicate error in someone else's claim to someone else.

Did you notice that?

> (OP)
>Are you kidding? Solipsism is even more unfalsifiable than the existence of God.
Ok. Then do it

empirically speaking, there is only one experience, and it's mine
qed

Convince me that I shouldn't treat the specters of my mind as other (real) people

That really isn't about something's origin in your consciousness than it is your being aware of it.

I did which is why my consciousness generated this reply. Check mate.

I assume the audience is myself existing to please my ego and I wish to sate that because I like having my ego stroked. If I fail to reach an audience then I knew that what I created was not up to my own subconscious standards.

You're not the center of the universe.

take a moment to believe that solipsism is some truth. Would it make sense to have your insignificant life? Why would your consciousness give you this life opposed to something vastly more exciting, and if you argue that its to give a degree of reality to your reality, then you are operating on the idea that consciousness is limited to its influences and biology for how else would this world exist if it was simply derived from our consciousness? Why would we not have free will, and barely free choice?

The only way solipsism is vaguely real is if you are a simulated consciousness from a previous life and you have simulated this whole world based on that first consciousness.

Anyway, it cannot be truly proven by anyone so everything just becomes a semantically irrelevant argument destined to kamikaze itself into a dying star

>I'm not the center
>so there is a center of universe
What if there is no center or everyone is their own center?

Without me, there would be no perceptible universe.

The more sophisticated argument would go something like this:

You, the reader, cannot anticipate the words written here. Therefore your knowledge of what exists is incomplete. We don't actually have to put it in these terms. The fact that you are surprised by things, suffer as a cause of things, and exist contingently as a result of things beyond your immediate influence (such as the pregnancy which led to your birth) all point to an other which is outside of your will and beyond your knowledge.

Now you may say that this other is in fact you, but this is merely renaming what is typically understood as "not you." In other words, the idea of "I, me, my self" relies on certain related concepts, such as what I knows, what I thinks, what I wills, what I experienced. If the "I" can somehow be made separate from the knowledge, thought, will, experience etc. which it is meant to denote, then it no longer refers to I.

This means that someone who claims "all the things outside of me are actually additional parts of me" will immediately run into the problem of a partitioned self which is at the very least two selves, one which experiences limitation, and one which deceives. What can the meaning of self even be in such a context where two radically distinct selves are possible?

BAM

Noice.

>he cannot write or argue to himself
>he cannot imagine the dynamics and conflicts of multiple characters
Truly anti-literature, or should I say sub-literature

i love jerking off to solipsists

*stabs you in the fucking chest*

Attached: apureaping.jpg (957x635, 118K)

I can't but it's impractical and reductive, so let's pretend it's incorrect.

Great argument, good job

Attached: 1540799047197.jpg (450x600, 57K)

top kek

i hope you get an A+ user

there is no meaningful divide between mind, the senses, and the environment

I am not a bigdick billionaire with wings, that's how.

Solipsism requires tremendous gymnastics to justify unironically; i'm too midwit, might pull something.

Solopsism is the only logical conclusion one can make about existence. You can only be sure of your own consciousness, nothing else.

Is it possible to conceive of consciousness without the external world

Yes.

Maybe surprised was a poor word choice. Your mind can only use things it has already seen to make a dream (I suppose it could combine them in a strange way, which coupled with the realism of dreams could “surprise” you), but you could never dream up an actual Paris and have the same experience of encountering unexpected things as you would walking around the real one.

I’m butchering a rare, good argument by Sartre; his psychology in Transcendence of the Ego is probably his best vanilla philosophy.

Give an example. What is consciousness without the external world as its innate object and frame.

Blind people can dream of colours. External world isn't required for conceiving of things.

Not an example. Blind people have sense experiences, actively engage with the external world, have the external world as the object / substance of their consciousness

They can see color. They just can't use their eyes to see.

A brain doesn't require external world to think. A brain in a vat would still think.

even the only consciousness could be superficial ala "brain in a vat".

What does a brain in a vat think about other than objects encountered in the external world.
Read Heidegger

Define "Solipsism"

I must say, I have to congratulate myself well done for thinking this up. I've conceptualizationed a very good case against Solipsism here. Thank me very much! For real, me, I appreciate it.

You can if you are absent minded enough.

Responsibility.

Attached: kultamies sucks.png (680x256, 71K)

solipsism is reddit tier

Goldman Sachs is absolutely basdedded

Seems like a philosophical dead end.

Alchemy would help with that. You'd end up creating new things.

youtube.com/watch?v=fGmRR460Wgk

the dualism in the self goes back millennia so the potential from a derivation of a dual self where one is "good" and the other "bad" would explain religion, society, and current morality

Esoterics is distinct from philosophy, no?

Here's a couple of my favourites:

The meaning of our words is fixed by the role they play in a language. In this language, whatever it is, it is appropriate to say 'there are other people', and inappropriate to say 'there are no other people'. Thus, in this language, whatever it is that is expressed by solipsism is not appropriate to assert. In the same way that if a child told you they were the only person, you wouldn't attempt to falsify the statement, you'd correct their use of the language. (This is adapted from a paper on Moore by Norman Malcom called 'Moore and Ordinary Language' in The Linguistic Turn edited by Rorty. Reading this will help make sense of this point far better than I can.)

Simply "What would it mean for solipsism to be true?", in the same vein as a response to general epistemological scepticism. Sort of leads on from the former in that 'knowing' is a word with a use. Saying "everything could be different and you'd never know", doesn't really express much more than a generalisation of the possibility for error. We know there are other people, because of course we do. Whatever it is to know, we know that much.

Introduction of anti-realist arguments, or verification/falsification criteria is a more contentious way of illustrating a similar point. Also, a more fun way. Dummett and Putnam have some great stuff to say in this general area.

Granted these arguments may sound a little like a cop-out. I would maybe qualify by saying if you can get the 'solipsist' to admit that linguistically speaking they can't express what they mean, then you've taken the fun out of believing it. I.e, if you get them to concede you can't say solipsism is 'true', then much of the impetus for maintaining it goes with it. I can get you to say it isn't true, I can't get you to believe it is false. There isn't much sense left in maintaining it at that point, if you feel me.

Well, yes, but you shouldn't underestimate the possibilities. Even from a philosophical point of view you could see it as breaching the shroud of existence through itself - a true leap of faith to have more philosophy or something else in the world.
If right now you would be living in a world of growth, did you place a boundary on it?

Fulfilled lives require empathy. Solipsism has none.

ye i know, i fucked her

Oh, I wasn't trying to discredit esoterics, I'm just saying that solipsisim is a philosophical dead end and sure you can take over with sorcery, but I quite like philosophy as well, so I think it's a p. good refutation as solipsisim as a philosophical principle

I can only assure that if solipsism was true, it wouldn't be true for you (but for me).

Attached: 1549448001350.jpg (1024x748, 58K)

There's an old joke that Alan Watts used to say about solipsism, saying it was laughable, but he knew people who took it seriously. His one wish wwas to go to a an International Conference for Solipsism and see the atendes argue over who was the real one.

It seems to me that an enormous amount of western philosophy and Indian philosophy deals with questions related to the self-other or subject-object (or atman-brahman) distinction.

I was thinking about this when I wrote that post, because the Upanisads have that well known declaration "you are that/tat tvam asi." This is literally the exact opposite of what I said earlier.

I was also thinking of a passage from Mark Twain,

"Then, all tranquilly and soberly, he made the strange answer, “There is no other.”

A subtle influence blew upon my spirit from his, bringing with it a vague, dim, but blessed and hopeful feeling that the incredible words might be true—even must be true.

“Have you never suspected this, Theodor?”

“No. How could I? But if it can only be true—”

“It is true.”

A gust of thankfulness rose in my breast, but a doubt checked it before it could issue in words, and I said, “But—but—we have seen that future life—seen it in its actuality, and so—”

“It was a vision—it had no existence.”

I could hardly breathe for the great hope that was struggling in me. “A vision?—a vi—”

“Life itself is only a vision, a dream.”

It was electrical. By God! I had had that very thought a thousand times in my musings!

“Nothing exists; all is a dream. God—man—the world—the sun, the moon, the wilderness of stars—a dream, all a dream; they have no existence. Nothing exists save empty space—and you!”

“I!”

“And you are not you—you have no body, no blood, no bones, you are but a thought. I myself have no existence; I am but a dream—your dream, creature of your imagination. In a moment you will have realized this, then you will banish me from your visions and I shall dissolve into the nothingness out of which you made me...."

So I agree there is more to this matter, but I myself am quite convinced that the world exists and more or less for the reasons previously outlined.

I never was sure just what the Upanisads were getting at. It seemed more a mystical dissolution of the self than an assertion of self as God or self as All.