![]() The solipsist might retort that this is no refutation: solipsism remains a possibility. ![]() What value, what usefulness or explanatory power does the phrase ‘mind-generated’ actually add here? Is it not just a euphemism for what we’d otherwise describe as the external world? Surely the mechanistic explanations for such phenomena simply collapse to standard explanations: the ‘mind-generated’ beam of light reflects off the ‘mind-generated’ tomato to hit the ‘mind-generated’ retina. Starry Night, painted by your mind, right at this moment - or by Vincent Van Gogh in 1889? Is the solipsist really committed to the idea that every ant, every leaf, every grain of sand, every electrical storm, every word in every book and on every page of the internet (including this one!) is conjured up by some inaccessible part of their mind of which they have no conscious awareness? Many philosophers revert to simply arguing against solipsism’s likelihood, rather than providing logical refutations.įor instance, a common response to the solipsist is to demand exactly how a single mind could conjure up the endless variety of experience. What are some counterarguments to solipsism?īeyond Descartes, a huge number of philosophers have attempted to refute solipsism over the years, but a universally-accepted logical refutation has proven rather elusive. ![]() So, though perhaps ridiculous at face value, solipsism actually provides a surprisingly difficult logical puzzle - one which many philosophers throughout history have wrestled with, perhaps most famously René Descartes with his “I think, therefore I am” statement, which places sustained focus on the problems solipsism raises, as we outline in our short cogito ergo sum explainer piece. From this it follows that nothing beyond my self exists for what is experience is its states. I cannot transcend experience, and experience must be my experience. Bradley characterizes the solipsistic view similarly, writing: In his 1893 work Appearance and Reality, the British idealist F.H. Therefore, there are no logical grounds for asserting the existence of anything else. The only thing I can be sure of with certainty is that my mind exists. The solipsist simply takes the implications of them to their extreme logical conclusion: Many people would agree with these propositions. I am unable to access the mind of any other being, and so can only infer the existence of other minds indirectly. The contents of my own mind are entirely private, and inaccessible to anyone but me.ģ. The only things I have direct access to are the contents of my own mind - sensory experiences, thoughts, memories, and so on.Ģ. ![]() That the endless variety of existence has its source in a single mind is a bizarre characterization of reality not worthy of consideration, we might think.īut the solipsist does not appeal to common sense the solipsist appeals to logic. How could a single mind possibly conjure up such a rich and endlessly unfolding tapestry of circumstances involving sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch, other people, international events, scientific discoveries, artistic creations, cosmic exploration - cheese?! Taken at face value, this might seem a ridiculous position. Everything is an aspect of their own mind. Solipsists believe in an extreme form of skepticism about the external world: namely, that anything ‘external’ doesn’t exist. If you maintained such views, you’d be what philosophers call a ‘solipsist’. Have you ever had the feeling that you’re the only person that exists? That other people, life, and the universe are mere figments of your imagination? And that there is no way ‘outside’ your own head to prove otherwise?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |