Help coping with Solipsism
Hi there, I'm new to these forums. I've been struggling with the topic and I thought a place like this dedicated to philosophy would be a good spot to seek help rather than other places where I've been called an idiot for bringing this up.
Solipsism has been a wound on my mind, mostly because it's unproveable and unrefutable. Some people say it's true, some believe it, some say it's the default position and that the solipsist doesn't need evidence but the realist does. I'm not sure who to believe to be honest and I'm rather weak on this matter.
I was also alerted to the possibility that "experience" might not involved the experience of any "thing" according to this:
I don't know how to attack this in a manner that will be satisfactory to my mind (assuming there is a mind), but I was hoping angles I never considered would be revealed by others. I am aware of the irony of posting about solipsism to "others". I've heard arguments that attack it's assumptions that you exist and that you have a mind, some use the Private language argument.
I'm just looking for help. The prospect of being cosmically alone is really depressing.
Solipsism has been a wound on my mind, mostly because it's unproveable and unrefutable. Some people say it's true, some believe it, some say it's the default position and that the solipsist doesn't need evidence but the realist does. I'm not sure who to believe to be honest and I'm rather weak on this matter.
I was also alerted to the possibility that "experience" might not involved the experience of any "thing" according to this:
I suppose sensation is being as opposed to not being. Without sensation, there is nothing, which is inconceivable to the conscious mind. Stop moving completely for a moment, stop thinking, do not attempt to rationalize anything and just be still. Your state of being at that time will be the only thing in existence from your perspective, to assume that anything else is existing will require faith. I guess I can't give you a concrete answer because you are still presupposing that you are experiencing a "thing." Why does this have to be so? When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency. You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight.
I don't know how to attack this in a manner that will be satisfactory to my mind (assuming there is a mind), but I was hoping angles I never considered would be revealed by others. I am aware of the irony of posting about solipsism to "others". I've heard arguments that attack it's assumptions that you exist and that you have a mind, some use the Private language argument.
I'm just looking for help. The prospect of being cosmically alone is really depressing.
Comments (63)
I think this sounds vaguely Buddhist? There are lots of labels for things, including the label "thing" and the label "label". The sense of self is just that - a sense, no different from any other experience.
Quoting Darkneos
When people talk about philosophical stuff, each person comes in with a collection of assumptions, which provides a context that without which nothing would get off the ground. There is no such thing as a default position in philosophy - that's just another name for a prejudice, aka this position is the default position because I personally cannot fathom how it could not otherwise be true given certain assumptions which I coincidentally believe to be irrefutable.
Nobody is cosmically alone. It is an impossibility. You cannot exist without the information surrounding you. The information surrounding you includes your friends, family, community, etc. Whilst you comprehend this information in your mind, it is real information from real sources - your peers, and a real physical world. Consciousness can not exist in the absence of integrated information, In my opinion, so external information is vital for consciousness. This means connection to externalities, without which everything would be ineffable. So don't worry, you are not cosmically alone, and can not possibly be.
Still, solipsism is an idea (or a delusion, obsession, or some other form of erroneous thinking) that many have played around with.
Best practice: Think about it for a while, then move on to something more useful.
I also browsed a few forums that had philosophy sections and two of them stuck out (I know that the site name might seem like it's sketchy but rest assured I don't partake in the stuff, I just found some people arguing about it there and I couldn't come up with a good rebuttal to their points):
https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4846074/fpart/2/vc/1#4846074
(This one is the one that sort of shook my sanity on the subject)
https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/14562023/fpart/2/vc/1#14562023
This is the one that maintained solipsism as the default and that realism is the one that needs to meet the burden of proof. I read through both but the first one gave me the most issues. I wasn't entirely convinced that solipsism is the default. People sometimes use the dream argument for solipsism but my point to that is that you only know that world was "fake" because you woke from it. It says nothing about the world you woke up in.
Quoting Pop
I'm pretty sure that the reply I heard to this stance on the matter is that such a stance is not "known" it is a leap of faith to assume others and an external world. I would love for it to be an impossibility because I can ditch this ghost. But the information around me is just that, information. It doesn't make them real or existent. As my quote from the thread I read says, we presuppose that this information comes from a source or that we are experiencing some "thing". I don't mean to sound like a "butt" but I'm just saying what I've heard others say in response to such claims. I want to be over this, yes. But I don't want to cheap shot it, though I'm not sure what that entails.
How were you born? who brought you up? who did you play with? But the best proof is when two people get together and they become greater then their sum. Such as going to the football and becoming part of the crowd. That others exist and you are part of the crowd is palpable. So go to the football and feel it for yourself, and put this silly nonsense to rest.
Even in solipsism, the information comes from a source, and you ARE experiencing something alright, but you fear that what you experience is NOT REAL, that's is like a video game. Note that one experiences something when one is immersed in a video game.
I had the same nagging thought as a teen. I believe it can lead people to madness (schizophrenia). The way I got out of it, was:
1) by reasoning along Descartes: the idea implies that some god created a virtual world and chose you (and only you) to experience this simulation. A god doing such a thing would be a liar and also pretty stupid. After all, if a god can build a simulation of such a high quality, what is stopping him from building the real thing? He's lazy? He doesn't have enough money? Ergo the idea makes no sense from the creator's perspective.
2) by realizing that the infinite richness of this world, in terms of sensory input (colors, smells, sounds), its strong internal coherence and the fact that I can't predict or control much of it, all this make this world very real. There is no essential difference between a real illusion and a real reality, if the illusion is so perfect. It makes no difference whether it is 'real' or 'virtual': it's the world I live in, it's beautiful and merciless at the same time, and there's no exit other than death.
So assuming that God is not a lazy asshole, and understanding that there is no meaningful difference between a reality and its perfect simulation, I opted to put the question at rest and enjoy the ride.
:up:
Definition:
Solipsism: the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
To my reckoning, solipsism smacks of idealism which I understand to mean that all is mind. For a physicalist who thinks we're brains proving others exist is a piece of cake - a simple CT scan or an MRI of the brain should do the trick. Right? :chin:
It helped Descartes and it helped me, so it can work.
But now I know you are a third person. My response to him is based on my sense that if someone is suffering and worrying that solipsism might be the case, this is a sign of something else. If one is engaged in life and close to other people, I don't think one ends up worrying about solipsism. One certainly might find it an interesting philosophical conundrum. I am not saying it should not be discussed. But I think that if it is to the point of being a source of pain, it is really a symptom of other things that should be addressed first. If those are addressed then the interest in the issue may go away OR if it doesn't it will not be an interest coupled with so much fear.
I suppose in the background I also do not think one can prove that solipsism is not the case. So a person suffering running through arguments against solipsism, to my mind, is heading not towards ameliorating that suffering but rather avoiding dealing with more core issues.
Us?
No, but you can prove it's moot, that it makes no essential difference.
Another way to solve the equation is to realize that indeed we do live in a simulation of sorts, but not the kind where one is all alone in an absurd universe: we ALL (you, darkneos and me) live in our mental landscapes, constructed from sensory inputs translated into qualia. The color red, or the music of your favorite band doesn't actually exist 'out there', it's a view of the mind. What seems to exist are air presure waves and quanta of light and stuff. And yet we can all enjoy music and share meaningfully about it; we can all enjoy a sunset and call the attention of others to its splending colors. So this simulation that our brain does based on sensory data is a pretty good one, as far as simulations go. It's both effective, beautiful, and most probably universal (by which I mean your qualia for red is by and large the same as my qualia for red).
So we do live in a simulation of reality, but a good, trustable one.
And in the final analysis, this simulation (or another) is necessary, because as Kant said, between the world 'as it is' and the human mind, there must be a form of translation, of representation, an intermediary. Minds cannot be 'intimate' with the rest of the world. There's by necessity a chasm between thebtwo, and therefore, a need for a bridge. As it turns out, our natural bridge is made of qualia. One can reject that particular bridge to reality 'out there', and decide to build another instead. But one will always need a bridge, and the bridge we have naturally is pretty good. So walk on it, embrace it, adopt it, love your simulation. It's the best you can get.
Or you can just say "Sure it's faith but that's fine by me"
Or "If you're a solipsist why are you wasting time explaining to a piece of nothing that the piece of nothing should think that it's the only thing with experience"
I like 1 and 3. The quote you put in seems very buddhist by the way. Maybe they're in some way similar. Could be another thread.
Also a tip from my history of philosophical angst: Doing philosophy is the worst way to get rid of philosophical angst. The best way is to go do something else. Then think about it again way later maybe.
What do you make of my comment on physicalism and how if one subscribes to it, there's no issue proving the existence of so-called others?
I think if there is only my mind, it would make a difference to me. And I think it makes a difference to him.But I'll read your proof when you get to it for him. Quoting Olivier5Though you are just asserting this here.
Yes. But I think it may be the reason why the idea that the world we are immersed in is an illusion is so pregnant: because it is one, to a degree.
Not a worry! There is one grain of truth we can get out of solipsism, and its that the only way we know the world is through our own perception. But that's really it. It doesn't mean we cannot relate to others, or that nothing exists that is not within our perception.
One way to think on this is your ability to create a perception that "reality" doesn't want you to have. Try jumping in the air and resisting gravity. Can't do it can you? It turns out you are perceiving things you have no control over. At best what solipsism can claim is "you" are the thing that you have control over. While things that you have no control over aren't "you".
So other people? We don't really have control over them do we? If we don't have control over them, they aren't "you". And what should we call others? Maybe..."things"? We realize that we perceive these things, and can react to it to an extent. But they can do things to us that we have no control over, so we realize logically that they do not only exist within us, but outside of us as well.
You ask me to act on faith but that sounds very uncomfortable to me. When I think faith I think of religion and the like and that faith is sort of a weakness of the mind for those who can't accept reality. I wish I had the strength of mind to believe you guys but, I've just read several replies that make me question the notion of other people. Some on Quora say it's true because all we have is experience. To believe in others is faith. I'm not sure how to reply to the few who say it's true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
"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."
You say it's no difference between a perfect illusion or a real deal, but the way I see it if this is just all in my head then nothing matters and I am truly alone. There is no family, friends, other people. There is no reason to treat anyone well or invest in this reality at that point because it all vanishes on my death. Were it real then it would be different because I would be impacting the lives of people and making a difference or change. But if it's not, well then I feel like nihilism would follow shortly after. It's why I can't take seriously that it doesn't matter, it does. I mean by that logic it would matter how I treat characters in a video game when that isn't true because they aren't real.
Also the link I provided explains how it's a straw man to say a solipsist can bend reality, solipsism does not assert that you can defy the laws of physics.
I've tried thinking about something else but this worms it's way into everything in my life because it shattered the certainty I had in an external reality. I'm not even sure how I'm still holding it together like this.
There are several variations of solipsism within the wikipedia article you linked. Which one is giving you difficulty?
As for your links, it would be much more helpful if you would give the general premises you're having trouble with. No one is going to look through other forum posts to see the issue that is giving you trouble.
Quoting Darkneos
Ha ha! Of course solipsism isn't the default. Otherwise we would all be sitting around going, "What if reality isn't only just in my mind? What if...things outside of my mind exist as well!?"
Relax. You know other things besides yourself exist. What you're having right now is your assumptions challenged. Yes you know these things exist...but why? And that is philosophy. Questioning the obvious in front of us to see if we can analyze it rationally.
One approach is proof by contradiction. Basically, try to contradict the idea that there is something outside of your mind. Then look for contradictions. I gave you an example earlier of not being able to control particular things. Go further than this. If there is only you, what are you made up of? Why can you be injured? Why do you need to eat, drink, and breath? Holding your breath is probably the easiest one to test. See what happens.
If everything was only your perception, what is doing the perceiving? If we are perceiving something, what is that thing if it is us? Is it really perception at that point? Then why is it limited? Etc. Anytime you come to absurdity or a contradiction, then you know you've run into an issue. And trust me, if its only you that exists, you'll run into all kinds of absurdities and contradictions.
Dabbling in solipsism is a perilous prospect; it attempts to beguile you, and should it prove to be successful, you find yourself inescapably immersed in a vacuum with neither a confirmation of existential reality, nor a mechanism of attaining one. Part of the conundrum is that solipsism is, as you iterated, not subject to falsification. It's akin to knowing how to solve a problem, but not having the tools to do so. You're entirely justified in claiming that nihilism a natural corollary to the idea, but I believe a resolution, in practicality, still exists.
Kant's transcendental idealism is a precursor to this resolution. The mere subject of experience, which was stressed on both by Kant and other Existentialists, is what dictates the matter of experience - in that the perception of physical structures is a result of our senses, but not the structures themselves. We can't restructure the world to suit our experience, if an external 'world' isn't existent.
There's another argument to be made. A reality that can't be concretely demonstrated is not equivalent to a reality that is false. Most people spend their entire lives presupposing a priori judgments because they have been passively instructed to do so. The external world not being an illusory facade is another such judgment.
Nonetheless however, should one cease to find faith in either resolution, solipsism gifts you with a number of meaningful comforts. If the existence of your mind is all that can be known, then contemplate this: the entirety of the universe, its most dazzling recesses, the very nature and history of man and all its discoveries - in short, the complete and exhilarating narrative that has complemented your consciousness thus far, is a consequence of your own imagination.
How reassuring an eventuality is that?
Ultimately however, the very nature of solipsism necessitates that you either accept either an axiom of ignorance, or concession to it. There lies no middle ground.
Hi- I sincerely don't think solipsism is a cause for existential despair...
1. Solipsism's story goes: my representations/perceptions exist, but what they refer to does not.
2. This story presupposes a self that 'has' representations/perceptions
3. This self is no more immediately certain than anything else, it is one entity that is only intelligible as an entity in relation to other entities (there can be no concept of self without other, no concept of mind without external 'content' etc.)
4. Therefore solipsism is incoherent as it demands a standard of reality for representations/perceptions of things 'external' to the mind that cannot be applied to its own premise (that there is a 'mind' or 'self').
Contrary to your assertion, I don't think anyone believes solipsism is true. It's a hypothetical viewpoint, and it teaches us something.
Why is no one a solipsist? Because we have a innate way of perceiving the world, and it includes recognition that there is a world external to ourselves, and there are other beings. This constitutes a belief that solipsism is false.
Consider what it takes to change a belief. Usually, it's because we encounter contrary evidence. Occasionally, it's because we decide the basis for our belief is suspect (the latter is what leads some theists to atheism). But there's no evidence for solipsism, and the basis is innate - which is consistent with evolution.
Clinging to a belief doesn't prove the belief is true, but the mere possibility that it's false is not a good reason to drop it. Face it: you really do perceive an external world. If you'd never heard of solipsism, you'd never have entertained it.
Since solipsism can't be disproved, you should accept that it is logically possible, but this ought not to concern you. Let it be a lesson that we have beliefs that can neither prove nor disprove, and be OK with it.
More philosophically, Sartre's stare is the best solution to your quandary. Go for a walk through a crowd, naked, and see if you can still convince yourself that only you exist while being stared at by a hundred eyes.
Maybe what you need is not a philosopher, but a psychiatrist or doctor. If you are literally, rather than figuratively depressed, you may have some physical or chemical glitch in the brain. If so, that can be treated with a prescription. Solipsism syndrome may be a form of pathological doubt. And the inherent uncertainty of philosophy could make it worse. :nerd:
Solipsism Depression : Solipsism syndrome is not currently recognized as a psychiatric disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, though it shares similarities with depersonalization disorder, which is recognized. Solipsism syndrome is distinct from solipsism, which is not a psychological state but rather a philosophical position, namely that nothing exists or can be known to exist outside of one's own mind;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism_syndrome
PS__If you ask a person to pinch you, and you feel the pain, that's a pretty good indication that you are not alone. Unless, of course, you are in the habit of hurting yourself. Which again suggests that you need some non-philosophical counseling, and/or a prescription.
Your interlocutor’s argument is a homunculus argument because it raises the question as to exactly what is sensing “perception” or “experience” (or whatever medium we wish to posit), and how it is able to sense at all. This leads to an infinite regression because it lacks any grounding in a self. It's selves all the way down. So when you ask who or what is experiencing this "perception" you might find he is unable to provide a decent answer. Besides, one cannot perceive perception any more than he can observe observation, employ employment, or legalize legalization. Nominalizing verbs often confuses things whenever the verb collides with its noun version.
I think it is the other way about: the solipsist requires leaps of faith. He must believe, against all evidence to the contrary, that he is not in direct contact with the rest of the world, like a fish in a fishbowl. He must then conjecture how he indirectly receives information through what I assume is some curating interface, possibly prone to error and deception, maybe run by an evil demon, but no less able to project “experience” onto what is surely a veil. Most likely he does not think about how solipsism could be possible at all.
Maybe try extending your notion of self to the very surface of your skin, no more no less. I think solipsism is impossible to believe on such a basis. Only then is one able to conclude that he is in direct contact with the rest of the world, and that it can be known.
Well one of the links I posted questioned why a mind would have to exist anywhere or what rule says that. It also says that solipsism doesn't argue that you can control reality. I would like to say that I can summarize the points but it's a long thread (6 pages) and there is a lot of points made. I don't want to post all of them if I can help it.
Also you say that I know other people exist, but the thing is I don't. I vehemently believe this, but I don't know it (not for sure). It's getting harder each day to be honest and right now I'm just doing this out of habit, but every now any then the full weight of solipsism dawns on me every now and then and it threatens to swallow me.
Sorry for the dense text but this is the post on solipsism as the default:
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
That rings hollow if I am all alone though. It's like if I won the lottery but had no one to celebrate, or being alone on your birthday. I'm sorry, but I just can't take any comfort in solipsism if it was true. But trying to tell myself that it's not true or that I don't believe it feels like I'm just lying to myself for comfort. I've had this before and the experience then was major unreality to the point that my driving was impacted. I somehow forgot about it, but it came back again because I never "got over it" because it has no solution. I don't now how to go on in life second guessing everything and everyone I meet. I mean if solipsism were true and one feels loneliness, why create all this? But then again it doesn't really say you made all this though, it just says that the mind is all that can be known to exist.
I've combed through a lot of arguments and forums on this so I can't relay everything or remember it all.
I would encourage looking at this one: https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4846074/fpart/2/vc/1#4846074
As the OP's replies kind of hurt my objections to it. I mean the minor saving grace is that the whole thread is just a "maybe", OP believes in it but says he treats it like it's real (still wrapping my head around it).
Other lines of reasoning say: "Nothing exists. Even if it did nothing can be known about it. Even if something could be known it can't be communicated. Even if it could be communicated it can't be understood".
Combined with my poor understanding of philosophy and how it all works and what a good argument or not (and the sting of reading how some folks say it's true), I'm sort of in the tempest without a boat.
I too quite possess quite a cursory and disjointed conception of all philosophy, meaning that this is a novelty to me too. I don't feel quite as entrapped by it as you appear to, however.
From what I can gather, your impasse isn't one that can be combatted easily. It's not to be underappreciated; the existential crisis that results from a lack of belief in the concrete world is terrifying. What is a criticism of external reality, soon evolves into a disbelief of all external existence, and finally, a refusal to believe in and of itself.
Irrespective of whether or not you find an answer, I insist that you not succumb to nihilistic proclivities that may arise as a consequence of this. Affirm what you find meaning in, and do so trusting that you will find rationalizations to those affirmations later.
I recommend you to stop doubting and to start swimming.
It's just that the doubt gets me thinking and it worms it's way in. I've always taken this sort of thing for granted in the past, that other people exist, external reality, etc. I never doubted that until it was asked "how do I know"? I don't have an answer. How do I even know I am experiencing a thing?
https://www.quora.com/Is-solipsism-a-satisfying-philosophical-thought
The first answer here says the Incompleteness Theorems says that all truth is ultimately solipsistic and that nothing can be proved without resorting to unproveable premises. Also the Boltzmann brain thought experiment.
I get that everyone is trying to say to me that other people exist, but how do you know? How does anyone know?
Quoting Darkneos
The burden of proof for Solipsism, is to prove that like minded people and a real world do not exist. Good luck with that ! What proof do you have?
Solipsism dose not take into account the relational nature of existence, it makes no comment on this issue whatsoever. Nothing can exist relative to itself. A human being is born. A human being is a living organism, that has evolved in the biosphere, so it has evolved relative to the biosphere. A human organism must exchange gases, heat, take in water, food, excrete entropy, etc, as well as interpret sensory data from the information surrounding them. Note you have evolved various senses to interpret sensory data relating to the information external to you. Sorry to put it this way, but you are a system evolved to interact with an external world, and other people.
Much of the world we interact with is today anthropocentric, so it is easy to forget our biological nature, and to concentrate on information relating to intellect, and so believe the intellect is all that constitutes what we are. You have taken to heart some information written by another human, that says that no other humans exist. Can you see how flawed the logic is?
Solipsism is not the default. Idealism is, I believe. Idealism acknowledges the privacy of the mind , but also acknowledges the relational nature of existence - that other like minded people and a real world exist.
This was a follow up to my original quote about who positing the existence of anything else is faith.
For what it's worth, on some level I don't think "Strict logic" would point to solipsism. To me that is more about doubt that anything else, which most people wouldn't unless their senses fail to a drastic degree. I don't think an average logical person would conclude they are the only thing in existence or that they are the only thing they can know to exist (which is one thing I doubt about solipsism). I mean the difference between this world and my dreams is radical, so I don't consider this world "fake" because I would have to know what's real (and that can literally be turtles all the way down). A reasonable person would look at all this and not conclude they made it or it's not real unlike they woke up from it or looked at it from the outside. So in order to prove solipsism true it would have to be false.
Quoting Pop
There's still that pesty "last thursdayism" where everything you knew and all that was sprung into being last thursday. I'm also sure there is an argument for what you are saying about an external reality (again I urge folks to look at the links, it's a quicker read than it looks).
But I do highly doubt solipsism is the truth because of...well everything around me. I find it highly unlikely I made everything so tuned like this, also why would there be a dream where anything can happen and this world. Even if I don't have hard evidence for an external reality, if I were to comply with his STRICT LOGIC the explanation would be an external reality. It would explain how there is a dream where anything happens, and this reality where everything is stable and enduring. As for my mind and self being the only thing to be known to exist, I disagree. That's an assumption, especially since I don't even know what a mind is truth be told.
If I want to Occam's Razor an external reality is the simplest explanation, I don't see how Occam's Razor leads to solipsism like they claim because to me that just complicates things.
Still, it's...odd to doubt the people you've known for so long. It's scary to invest in them in case they aren't real. Scary to know that when I die there is a chance all of this could be lost and nothing I would do would matter. What point is there in helping others if you don't know if they are even real? Such fears are hard to shake. Makes me wish I never heard of it. You have to understand how little it means to hear other people tell you they exist when a counterpoint could argue that they are just programmed that way.
I am not sure if my reply will be of any use, but I am just saying that I used to have a lot of soliptist fantasies, as a child mainly. I used to imagine that I was some creature and that all the other people in my own imagination. Then, I used to think to myself, 'don't be so ridiculous.'
So, when I came across the soliptist argument I realised that I was had not been alone and the fact that others had this thought was an argument against it.
But on occasions the soliptist fantasy does drift into my mind. Mainly when I feel isolated and lacking in helpful connections. I feel a bit of an outsider, looking at the world rather than participating at times. Perhaps you are an outsider. I recommend The Outsider, by Colin Wilson, which is my favourite book. It is not an actual introduction to philosophy, but there are plenty anyway. What Wilson does is gives an interesting way of viewing the human condition, especially helpful if you feel outside of the world, wondering if it is all a dream.
Ok, after reading your reply, I think I understand your real issue.
Your issue isn't Solipsism. Your issue is epistemology.
I want to pose to you a question. How do you know anything? What is the difference between belief and rational conclusions?
You are applying this question right now to "solipsism", but neglecting to apply it to everything else. Unless you first answer the question, "How do I know anything", then the you cannot know that solipsism is correct, or incorrect. At best right now, solipsism is a belief, and the idea that other people exist is also a belief.
But how do you know the food you eat will not kill you? How do you know the apple you eat tomorrow is still good?
No, the default here is that our interpretation of reality all exists in our mind. We are very constrained in reality, and need "something" to connect with. We see because light bounces off of objects, and this is provable. Try moving your mind outside of your head. Can't do it can you? There are serious rules and restrictions that require "something else" for us to interact with.
Fortunately we also have science to help us there. I highly suggest googling neuroscience. You should see all of the advancements scientists are making in understanding the brain. Why is this important? Because you'll realize that you and everyone else have a brain. That reactions from people are repeatable. That people need to eat, or they die. You learn that you were born of another person, like everyone else. It turns out that there are things beyond our sensations. That we can LACK a sensation, but still be affected by things in the outside world.
You can do a very simple experiment. Chat with another person. If they understand you, then you know that they at least think like you in terms of language. You can come across other people who speak in a different language than yourself. You can then learn that language, and find there has been a consistency all along. You could even test this yourself. Record people speaking spainish, learn spainish, then come back later and see that they were speaking something meaningful all along.
Solipsism is mostly the idea that you are the progenitor of the world. That is clearly false. The idea that we interpret the world through our own lens? That's just normal thinking. We all do that. But still, you might be saying, "Yeah, but how do I KNOW?!" And the answer to that is, "How do you know anything?" What separates the link from belief to knowledge? We're back again to epistemology, which is the core of the issue.
In my ramble, I just want to clarify the points.
1. The fact that our minds interpret the world does not mean our minds create the world. We need some "thing" to interpret.
2. The fact that we all interpret the world though our minds, but do not understand other things as they are in themselves, is not solipsism. That's merely a given in how we function.
3. The question of what separates our interpretation of the world as "beliefs" vs. "knowledge" is the question of epistemology. "How do we know other people exist?" is really just one of the many questions of "knowledge". Just like, "How do I know I exist", "This apple exists?" etc.
Conclusion: Start studying epistemology and neuroscience. Then you will be able to answer the real question, "How do I know anything?", which will lead you to the rest of your answers.
There was a reply on the Reddit page for solipsism that helped me out a lot:
https://www.reddit.com/r/solipsism/
Though browsing the Reddit for it helps show me how stupid it is from an outside perspective. People tend to interpret it as something spiritual or whatnot, saying we are all one (which is NOT what it says, even the wikipedia page clarifies that on the Eastern religions).
Well the OP in the thread thinks that we are presupposing the existence of a thing to interact with but does not elaborate on that. He also thinks that it is the end result of Occam's Razor, but that is debatable to be honest.
https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/17145957#17145957
Other topics say that solipsism just says that one cannot know if other minds exist or other consciousness but it doesn't deny such things just that you can't know for sure. If this is the claim then I can agree with that. I cannot know for sure. It's all induction. But Occam's Razor seems to point against solipsism not for it, but even then Occam's Razor doesn't make something right.
But to answer the question of how do I know? I don't for sure. I read things, test them and if it works then that's how I know. But for this I can't really test it.
Also, people spooking you out on a magic mushrooms forum reminds me that the wisdom proffered in my linked post probably derives from some very helpful advice that I was lucky enough to once receive, during a difficult session of precisely that species of very silly (though fascinating) indulgence. Which was, to see myself as a walking talking person, rather than from "inside".
If you want to solve the problem of solipsism, you will need to be more disciplined.
A haphazard, ameteurish approach to philosophizing is a recipe for disaster.
Because it makes absolutely no experiential difference, and therefore it doesn’t matter whether it’s true or false — it’s completely meaningless. If solipsism is true then there’s still part of “you” that you don’t have conscious awareness and willful control of, and then the “part” of you (reckoned to be the whole of you by non-solipsists) that you do. That’s functionally the same thing as a difference between “the rest of the world” and “yourself”, so solipsism amounts to just renaming those categories in a needlessly confusing way.
And why can't a solipsist be a realist? after all, the thought that the external world has independent existence is just a thought, and solipsists accept the existence of thoughts.
I just don't know what to say...
Because a solipsist thinks it's no more than just a thought and is not actually the case. While a realist thinks it is the case. This is like saying "Why can't a pro life person be pro choice? After all, the thought that mothers should be able to choose to abort is just a thought, and pro-lifers accept the existence of thoughts"
Therefore, QED.
I think of some concepts parallel to solipsism: epistemic egoism, epistemic narcissism, epistemic authoritarianism.
Narcissists, egoists, and authoritarians can be realists, they can believe that there is a world apart from their person, they just don't care about it, or they see themselves as categorically superior to it. So, for practical intents and purposes, they might as well be solipsists.
We simply need to believe that others exists to function properly.
Maintaining a solipsist view, eventually will ruin your mental health to the point that you start dissociating, or even experience psychosis.
Your body will FORCE you to drop solipsism, otherwise you cannot recover. Simple as that.
The body is king. If you turn against it, your brain will shut your thinking down. :)
Sorry for my bad english.
True. Philosophers are good at living with contradiction though. Idealists do, materialists do.
The perennial philosophy is basically solipsism. It's a well worn set of pathways.
While perennialism's sole aim is removing subjectivity completely.
Is it?
Sadly, there are even more frightening things than solipsism.
I see. But you'd still be conscious, just not chained to a particular identity?
Some might describe it differently, but this is how i experienced it.
I think it's good to have that sense of authority derived from your own experience. Among the handful of indubitable things, your own experience stands at the center.
I'm more loose with explanations and matching my experience up to cultural images, though, especially if the words aren't in my language community.
There was a medieval Christian mystic named Eckhart who advised against putting much weight on strange experiences. He wanted to focus on a particular picture of reality which was Neoplatonic.
Different paths I guess.