Can a solipsist doubt?
Given that solipsism implies epistemological certainty of ones world, because there is nothing more to know than that what a solipsist knows about the world (implying that the world and reality are the same for a solipsist), then can a solipsist logically doubt?
Comments (55)
I might have said that a solipsist can only become a solipsist by doubting that anything they perceive did not originate with themselves. I also might have said that they can only become a solipsist by assuming that everything they perceive does originate within themselves.
One man's assumed positive is another man's doubted negative.
But, a solipsist's world is one full of absolute certainty, so how can doubt arise in such a world?
But, surely that's illogical.
Solipsists cannot logically reason that they are in a solipsistic universe using the following argument:
P1: I would have certainty in a solipsistic universe
P2: I am in a solipsistic universe
C1/P3: Therefore I have certainty
C2: Therefore I am in a solipsistic universe
If we doubt that we live in a solipsistic universe , then we're not sure if we have certainty (heh). The circularity here is informally called "begging the question", as the conclusion is fully contained in one of the premises. The premise/assumption that we live in a solipsistic universe cannot be magically self-reinforcing. If we doubt it, the conclusion is no longer valid.
Therefore a true/authentic solipsist cannot doubt?
But, maybe they accidentally bonk their head on itself one day and get confused, and begin doubting in error :)
What if instead of bonking their heads they, the solipsist, encountered Descartes evil demon, which would prod the person to doubt. Would it be such an "evil demon" anymore?
So, again, the solipsist cannot logically doubt. I rest my case.
In light of this, if one can doubt, then they are most certainly not a solipsist, and hence the evil demon aint that evil, by extension.
The question contains some presupposition that is difficult to both escape and still provide an answer.
'Can'
If anyone solipsist or otherwise can do anything this presupposes freedom.
'a solipsist'
Suggests more than one solipsist which is incompatible with pure solipsism.
'doubt'
Is an activity and contains the supposition of control and hence freedom.
The solipsist is unfree to entertain the ism.
M
" the solipsist cannot logically doubt."
I'll need to see your definition of solipsism. By my definition, a solipsist is someone who believes his mind, and only his mind, exists. I've never seen this belief stated in terms of being something of which the solipsist is absolutely certain about. A lack of absolute certainty implies some level of doubt.
(from something I typed up elsewhere (can maybe reproduce here if anyone cares))
I suppose a solipsist cannot doubt that their experiences exist (like everyone else), but they could doubt whatever ideas about what they are.
Well, if a solipsist doubts that they are the only self, then that's no longer solipsism, yes?
No. As I said, belief does not entail absolute certainty.
So, you're saying that the belief that I am a solipsism, is open for doubt? Again, that's not solipsism.
I must be certain that everything I believe is true for me to be a solipsist.
What do you mean by that? I read the thread; but, in my opinion differences between that and what get muddy when confronted with solipsism due to the very nature of the mind of the solipsist.
A hyper skeptic parsimonious solipsist weirdo may doubt anything beyond mere appearances (cf "esse est percipi").
Say, when taking a walk on the street they may doubt there's anything more to the buildings and pedestrians than what they experience.
So, no other minds, no other self-awarenesses, no other experiences (that we generally ascribe to each other), for example, just the solipsist's own experiences. ? implosion
? what the experiences are could be doubted
But, whatever all those experiences are, their mere existence cannot be doubted.
Analogous to: something exists, since otherwise this statement wouldn't.
Not exactly informative, but, hey, ... :)
? that experiences exist, whatever they may be
Are you 1) claiming belief entails certainty; 2) (re)defining solipsism as the certainty that only the solipsist's mind exists; or 3) suggesting certainty is entailed by something in the common definition of "solipsist"?
I'm still not getting the discrepancy between what and that statements for a solipsist. In my mind, they are both the same for a solipsist...
All three, although #2 isn't me redefining solipsism, I think.
Under your premise that belief entails certainty, your conclusion that a solpsist cannot doubt is trivial. But I'm curious: do you actually regard all of your beliefs as absolute certainties?
If I were a solipsist, yes.
I don't understand why you make the distinction "if I were a solipsist." Do you define "belief" differently for solipsists? Previously you said you said you agreed that "belief entails certainty," so this suggests that you are absolutely certain about all your beliefs, irrespective of whether you are a solipsist.
No, a solipsist lives in a hermetically sealed epistemological certain world. Therefore their beliefs are not prone to doubt. I put it all into words in the OP.
I admit to having overlooked that you stipulated, "Given that solipsism implies epistemological certainty of ones world".
This stipulation indeed entails an absence of doubt - trivially, since certainty = an absence of doubt. I just question that this is a standard view of solipsism. One could, in theory, believe his mind is all that exists - based on a standard view of belief - which admits of varying degrees of certainty. Such a person could therefore have some degree of doubt, and it seems to me this fits a definition of solipsism, even if not the definition you choose to use.
IMO, it's because to be a solipsist, one has to abandon hardwired beliefs. Belief in a proposition is not simply a bit being turned on, it entails a psychological state. We are hardwired to perceive the world as we do. Beliefs don't drop away because we can't rationally justify them based on priors, they only drop away if we become convinced they are false.
Duu it. Haha.
Sounds like nirvana. :100:
yeah but it smells like teen spirit
"Come as you are." - Brocartes
It is? I imagine this certainty applies to about the same degree that your impression of living in objective reality does. A solipsist believes some very queer (to me) things, but does certainty figure in solipsism any more than it does in any other belief-perspective, I wonder? :chin:
That's right. The solipsist figures out he is the only one, by starting to doubt everything in his reality.
Then he starts to play with doubt to see what happens, to understand his power.
Doubt his one of his many tools. With doubt he can change reality.
You might be wrong. Language is created by the solipsist itself. He first started to communicate with the envirnonment with a cry, a shout... his reality communicated back. So words start to exist. Later he uses the words not only to communicate but also to command. His words are commands manifested by reality in wich he lives. Hope this helps. The solipsist.
1) One you think the solipsist is sitting whole days on a solipsist forum?
2) You think a solipsist is interested in philosophy?
3) There are more fun things to do as a solipsist, believe me! If you were god, would you be wasting your time here? Or playing with creation?
4) and now that i, the solipsist, am here. How can i help you? or let me ask you a more interesting question, How can you help me????
many kind regards, cya later,
The solipsist.
You can doubt you're a solipsist. "I can't prove that others exist, but what if they do anyway?" Seems like a perfectly reasonable thought. Gotta go it's feeding time at the vat!
Solipsism is a symptom of a gross misunderstanding of thought and belief hard at work. Solipsism is the name of a philosophical position/argument which outright denies the existence of anything other than the mind of the one forwarding the argument/position...
One finger cannot point at itself. All philosophical positions/arguments are existentially dependent upon common language use. There are no private languages. Language is existentially dependent upon shared meaning. Shared meaning requires a plurality.
Solipsism is false. Rubbish.
You're talking to yourself.
I have a question for you. As you know, the idea that the world may be a simulation running in a great computer "one level up" as they say. I personally don't believe any of this but many smart people do these days.
Do you consider simulation theory a form of solipsism? Or in this case would solipsism say I'm the ONLY program running; as opposed to the belief that I'm a program and you're a program and we share the same general environment or computational context?
Not that the comparison is particularly interesting to me, because it's not at all, but since you asked...
Both are philosophical positions. All philosophical positions have some things in common with one another. However, I would think that any simulation would also require a plurality. The simulation, and what was being simulated...
So...
Yes thank you, you are right. There's me and my simulator. So it's not solipsism.
you are right, it's a state of consciousness, a point in evolution.
i'm just sharing how i experience this point, and how my world is me pushed out.
Am i talking to my self? All the time!!!
So are you, you are just still living in the box, if you will expand your mind out of the box you will see.
But thanks for showing me where you are in evolution.
Ok, and have you power over the weather? over politics? over war, over terrorisme? over climate?
you don't. You are asking for change and nothing changes, until i take the decision ;-)
That's not a treat btw.
People protesting are doing no change , they are just changing their body.
My mind is the programming, my body is the simulator.
You program yourself? You might be a character in a Philip K. Dick novel.
Yes, I see that now.
Oh tell me, i never heard of him. What would you suggest to me?
I think hard work sucks which is why if i could avoid it with the exception of extremely occasionally trying to refresh my memory of it. Hard work and slight or severe anger towards your boss ends solipsism instantly in my opinion. I believe that objective truth exists but that it is very hard to obtain. Many People on this forum have probably had the feeling "its lonely at the top". That sort of feeling is where solipism starts in my opinion. The good news is there are others who think like other People. When you find other People who think like you, you can avoid hardwork if resources, food, land and services are abundant in your life and at the same time you can still maintain the practice of trying to find the objective truth.
I believe food, land, resources and services are everything. I do believe in a free market however money is more easily manipulated than food, land, resources and services. I would argue absolutely everything ties into economics which is why i included this paragraph.
Oh gosh. Hard to even know where to start. Everything! Movies based on his work include Blade Runner, Minority Report, Total Recall, A Scanner Darkly, and others. He was a pulp SciFi writer in the 1950s. His themes were about questioning one's very reality.
My favorite of his novels is A Scanner Darkly. But the rest of them are all good too. A good short story to start with is The Electric Ant. It's about a guy who has an accident one day and discovers that he's a bot. Then he begins to tinker with his own programming ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Electric_Ant