Solipsism [Archive]

MarxSchmarx

7th July 2008, 22:24

Rosa Lichtenstein

7th July 2008, 23:29

Who wants to know?

Hit The North

7th July 2008, 23:39

Who wants to know? All the bonus points go to Rosa, I think :)

Rosa Lichtenstein

8th July 2008, 00:11

BTB, not really, I have merely refuted anyone who thinks to disagree with the three stated theses, if, that is, the language they express is acceptable.

But, I'll take the points, anyway, thanks!:)

But, as I hope I showed in the 'Certainty' thread, this language is either meaningless, or uninteresting.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/certain-t70369/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-you-prove-t79757/index.html

MarxSchmarx

9th July 2008, 23:19

But, as I hope I showed in the 'Certainty' thread, this language is either meaningless, or uninteresting.

Dare I ask your "meaning of meaning"??:D

And I think you are right, but if questions along these lines are "uninteresting", why do so many people keep coming back to it?

I think even if it is bad poetry it attracts a lot of attention, so I'm kind of throwing this out to see what comrades think/feel on the matter. Thus I'm inclined to keep my trap shut on the matter to encourage people to post their opinions, well-thought out or not.

Rosa Lichtenstein

9th July 2008, 23:39

MarxSchmarx:

Dare I ask your "meaning of meaning"??

I have in fact covered this many times before here.

The problem is that the word "meaning" itself has many different senses; it could mean one or more of the following:

(1) Significance or importance: as in "His Teddy Bear means a lot to him."

(2) Evaluative import: as in "May Day means different things to different classes."

(3) Point or purpose: as in "Life has no meaning."

(4) Linguistic meaning: as in "'Vixen' means female fox."

(5) Aim or intention: as in "They mean to win this strike."

(6) Implication: as in "Winning that strike means management won't try another wage cut again in a hurry."

(7) Indicate, point to, or presage: as in "Those clouds mean rain."

(8) Reference: as in "I mean him over there."

(9) Artistic import: as in "The meaning of this novel is to examine political integrity."

(10) Conversational focus: as in "I mean, why do we have to accept a measly 1% rise in the first place?"

(11) An expression of sincerity or determination: as in "I mean it, I really do want to go on the demonstration!"

(12) The content of a message, or the import of a sign: as in "It means that the strike starts on Monday", or "It means you have to queue here."

(13) Interpretation: as in "You will need to read the author's novels if you want to give a new meaning to her latest play."

(14) The import of a work of art: as in "Part of the meaning of that play was to change our view of drama."

This is not to suggest that these are the only meanings of "meaning", nor that several of these examples do not overlap.

why do so many people keep coming back to it?

Because they are idiots with little else to do.

Decolonize The Left

9th July 2008, 23:51

Solipsism is defined as the epistemological view that "I am certain that only my mind exists." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

I hereby ask comrades to refute either:
1. that my mind exists, or
2. that I am certain that my mind exists, or
3. that the only thing I am certain of is that my mind exists.

Bonus points for refuting all three.

============================
Maybe this has been brought out before, but I want to see what the current membership thinks...

Regarding the first claim, can I be certain you are a human being? Perhaps you are a robot programmed to ask questions such as these, in which case you do not have a mind...;)
As for the second, we would have to discuss the meaning of "certainty" and whether or not we are speaking objectively (in which case one could easily raise a subjectivist/skepticism argument), or subjectively (in which case it cannot be refuted either).
And as for the third, we must refer again to our earlier clarification of "certain" before we can engage this claim properly.

- August

Rosa Lichtenstein

9th July 2008, 23:55

August, we covered much of this in the threads I linked to above.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/certain-t70369/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-you-prove-t79757/index.html

black magick hustla

10th July 2008, 00:32

Solpisism is what I call "stoners' philosophy". It might be fun to fiddle with when you are spaced out but at the end of the day is as irrelevant as hypothesizig if there is a planet out there made out of marshmellows were beautiful living orbs of chocolate dwell.

Decolonize The Left

10th July 2008, 00:40

August, we covered much of this in the threads I linked to above.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/certain-t70369/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-you-prove-t79757/index.html

I did my best to make it through the thread on certainty in the limited time I have at the moment (about 7 pages through I think). I will now attempt to apply the logic which I drew from that thread to the current question.

Solipsism is defined as the epistemological view that "I am certain that only my mind exists." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

I hereby ask comrades to refute either:
1. that my mind exists, or
2. that I am certain that my mind exists, or
3. that the only thing I am certain of is that my mind exists.

Bonus points for refuting all three.

============================
Maybe this has been brought out before, but I want to see what the current membership thinks...

1. I shall not attempt to refute that your mind exists, as your posting here on this forum in a coherent manner is enough 'proof' enough in itself - perhaps even absurdly redundant.

2. If the first point is accepted, the second follows as a logical result. 'Your mind existing' and the 'certainty' of such a case as elaborated by yourself are the same.

3. This can be refuted due to the fact that your mind cannot be isolated from its surrounding/circumstance. If you concede that your mind does exist, which you have already done, and that you are certain about it, which you have already done, then you must follow from this that the context in which your mind exists is also certain.
Perhaps you have taken this for granted, read: previously assumed its certainty, by posting here and asking this question...

- August

Rosa Lichtenstein

10th July 2008, 01:23

August, from the above it is claer that you missed the point of those other threads.

Decolonize The Left

10th July 2008, 05:58

August, from the above it is claer that you missed the point of those other threads.

Fair enough, would you care to elaborate a bit more? From what I read I gathered that your claim was to sediment basic principles such as mathematic proofs and linguistic definitions as certainty. Is this not true? You had stated that philosophical theorizing is pointless, as skepticism undermines the very language being used to engage is said theorizing - therefore the philosophical arguments about certainty collapse under their own weight. Unlike the theories, language itself is certain within its linguistic borders. Words mean what they mean (i.e. you can look 'certainty' up in the dictionary). Mathematic proofs are also certain, i.e. 1+1=2 is always the case. I apologize if I misunderstood your arguments, but there was a lot going on there - have I read correctly?

- August

Rosa Lichtenstein

10th July 2008, 06:45

AW:

Fair enough, would you care to elaborate a bit more? From what I read I gathered that your claim was to sediment basic principles such as mathematic proofs and linguistic definitions as certainty. Is this not true? You had stated that philosophical theorizing is pointless, as skepticism undermines the very language being used to engage is said theorizing - therefore the philosophical arguments about certainty collapse under their own weight. Unlike the theories, language itself is certain within its linguistic borders. Words mean what they mean (i.e. you can look 'certainty' up in the dictionary). Mathematic proofs are also certain, i.e. 1+1=2 is always the case. I apologize if I misunderstood your arguments, but there was a lot going on there - have I read correctly?

No, I did not argue that 'language itself is certain....' I did argue that if we look at how we use this word when not doing 'philosophy', that will tell us what we mean by this word (which is not necessarily one particular thing).

MarxSchmarx

10th July 2008, 19:42

August I think a lot turns on your understanding and interpretation of "certainty". However, under all understandings of the term, there are levels of gradation of certainty.

Even if we were to use an "ordinary language" understanding of that term, there are some things we are more certain of than others - for example, I am more certain about the price of a can of soda from the vending machine at work tomorrow than I am about the price of gas tomorrow. It therefore follows that if we use the "sense of certainty" we have about our own internal thoughts and reflections as a gold standard (as in, "I am certain I have this thought") it is hard to beat this level of certainty. Thus I think the question is not so much "what is certainty" but "are we as certain about X as we are about Y", and in particular, are we just as certain about things that are "external" to us?

1. I shall not attempt to refute that your mind exists, as your posting here on this forum in a coherent manner is enough 'proof' enough in itself - perhaps even absurdly redundant.

A solispist will argue that it is evidence, not proof.

2. If the first point is accepted, the second follows as a logical result. 'Your mind existing' and the 'certainty' of such a case as elaborated by yourself are the same.

I don't think it does. For example, we surmise species of beetles exist which aren't described by science. In one sense, we can surmise that "we don't know" these beetles exist yet.

3. This can be refuted due to the fact that your mind cannot be isolated from its surrounding/circumstance. If you concede that your mind does exist, which you have already done, and that you are certain about it, which you have already done, then you must follow from this that the context in which your mind exists is also certain.
Perhaps you have taken this for granted, read: previously assumed its certainty, by posting here and asking this question...

Why does there have to be a "context" in which the mind to exist?

Rosa Lichtenstein

10th July 2008, 19:53

MarxSchmarx

10th July 2008, 20:13

MarxSchmarx -- how can you determine what a solipsist understands by 'proof'? [And who exactly would he/she be telling if you asked them?]

Worse, what could a solipsist possibly mean by 'proof', except, perhaps, 'it seems to me...'

But, if a solipsist means the same as you by 'proof', then he/she cannot be a solipsist.

Your first two sentences I agree with. But on the last one you lose me.

Let's assume for sake of argument that a solipsist agrees a mathematical proof constitutes a certainty. I happen to do as well. So called "analytic truths" are consistent with solispsism b/c they are after all "relations of (my) ideas", the underlying axioms were personally accepted (whatever their source - possibly internal?) and the solipsist is not adverse to such "proofs". This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable understanding of what constitutes "proof" (at least for analytic truths), even though I am not a solipsist.

Rosa Lichtenstein

10th July 2008, 20:25

If a solipsist agrees with anyone else about anything, then they will have admitted implicity that at least one other human being exists (or they would have to conclude that they were merely agreeing with themselves!).

Let's assume for sake of argument that a solipsist agrees a mathematical proof constitutes a certainty. I happen to do as well. So called "analytic truths" are consistent with solispsism b/c they are after all "relations of (my) ideas", the underlying axioms were personally accepted (whatever their source - possibly internal?) and the solipsist is not adverse to such "proofs". This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable understanding of what constitutes "proof" (at least for analytic truths), even though I am not a solipsist.

Only because such a person will have adopted an idiosyncratic notion of 'proof', and then we are back with the things I said in my earlier post

MarxSchmarx

12th July 2008, 17:31

If a solipsist agrees with anyone else about anything, then they will have admitted implicity that at least one other human being exists (or they would have to conclude that they were merely agreeing with themselves!).

Therefore they are wasting time, but how do the solipsists contradict themselves in so doing?

Let's assume for sake of argument that a solipsist agrees a mathematical proof constitutes a certainty. I happen to do as well. So called "analytic truths" are consistent with solispsism b/c they are after all "relations of (my) ideas", the underlying axioms were personally accepted (whatever their source - possibly internal?) and the solipsist is not adverse to such "proofs". This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable understanding of what constitutes "proof" (at least for analytic truths), even though I am not a solipsist.

Only because such a person will have adopted an idiosyncratic notion of 'proof', and then we are back with the things I said in my earlier post

What is so idiosyncratic about understanding "proof" in the analytic sense, as in "proof of the pythagorean theorem" or somesuch?

Rosa Lichtenstein

12th July 2008, 19:01

MarxSchmarx:

Therefore they are wasting time, but how do the solipsists contradict themselves in so doing?

It's what some logicians call a 'pragmatic contradiction'.

What is so idiosyncratic about understanding "proof" in the analytic sense, as in "proof of the pythagorean theorem" or somesuch?

The question is, do solipsists accept such exterior standards, or any at all?

MarxSchmarx

13th July 2008, 21:54

If a solipsist agrees with anyone else about anything, then they will have admitted implicity that at least one other human being exists (or they would have to conclude that they were merely agreeing with themselves!). Quote:
Therefore they are wasting time, but how do the solipsists contradict themselves in so doing?
It's what some logicians call a 'pragmatic contradiction'.

True. I now see that a solipsist cannot agree with "anyone else" b/c there isn't anyone else.

So you are correct. Yet a solipsist can still say "I agree with this fragment of my imagination", that fragment being what the rest of us call "anyone else". Thus they are of course agreeing with themselves, but this not necessarily mistaken.

What is so idiosyncratic about understanding "proof" in the analytic sense, as in "proof of the pythagorean theorem" or somesuch?The question is, do solipsists accept such exterior standards, or any at all?I still fail to see why these standards are necessarily exterior - for instance, a solispsist might take credit for divining important analytical "proofs" entirely of their own making, claiming that odds against odds they are a Srinivasa Ramanujan multiplied tenfold. They can, for instance, attribute entire textbooks of geometry to their subconscious genius. This is absurd, but consistent with a solispistic line of thinking.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th July 2008, 00:55

MarxSchmarx:

Yet a solipsist can still say "I agree with this fragment of my imagination", that fragment being what the rest of us call "anyone else". Thus they are of course agreeing with themselves, but this not necessarily mistaken.

Look, a solipsist can say what he/she likes. It is up to us whether we accept it or not.

I still fail to see why these standards are necessarily exterior - for instance, a solispsist might take credit for divining important analytical "proofs" entirely of their own making, claiming that odds against odds they are a Srinivasa Ramanujan multiplied tenfold. They can, for instance, attribute entire textbooks of geometry to their subconscious genius. This is absurd, but consistent with a solispistic line of thinking.

They are not standards if they are not public.

As I said, solipsists can imagine what they like. If they want to argue with us, we set the standards. And if they do not, then we can ignore them.

They will have problems with either strategy.

MarxSchmarx

14th July 2008, 19:38

a solipsist can say what he/she likes. It is up to us whether we accept it or not...

As I said, solipsists can imagine what they like. If they want to argue with us, we set the standards. And if they do not, then we can ignore them.

But this state of affairs is not unique to solipsism. A crazy person or a capitalist can say whatever they want, we can chose to set the standards or ignore them or whatever. The question is, why do we entertain some arguments and not others, and in particular, why do we ignore solipsism? Indeed why discuss/argue with anybody at all if you take this to be our response to a persistent solipsist?

ÑóẊîöŉ

14th July 2008, 20:11

Material reality could well be nothing but a figment of my imagination, but since in all of my experience material reality behaves "as if" it were real, what then is the point of solipsism?

In other words, the world seems to be a real place to me and I have seen no evidence for it to be otherwise. Solipsism seems to me to be just a bit of self-indulgent philosophical wankery, with no practical application.

Even the most committed Solipsist behaves as if the world was real.

Hyacinth

14th July 2008, 20:42

What was it Hume said of the sceptics: at the end of a meeting of the most ardent sceptics everyone still leaves by the door and not the window.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th July 2008, 21:30

Noxion, you do not need to make any concessions at all to the solipsist -- which is a point of view held by no serious philosopher that I know of, and of 'interest' only to the amateur, the controversialist, the attention-seeker, the novice or the dabbler.

So, it would be unwise of you to argue that:

"Material reality could well be nothing but a figment of my imagination, but since in all of my experience material reality behaves "as if" it were real, what then is the point of solipsism?"

Posing it in this way, you begin to lose touch with the word "real", for if everything is indeed a figment of your imagination, you can give no content to that word, for whatever seems 'real' you is real. And this is in turn because we use the word "real" for whatever is genuine independently of how it seems. But, you cannot now make that distinction.

The solipsist cannot consistently use language as the rest of us do, so he/she ends up incapable of giving any content to whatever they are trying to say. That is the way to undermine such whacko beliefs (i.e., showing that their discourse is empty), but you will not be able to do so by adopting the language they use.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th July 2008, 21:36

MarxSchmarx:

But this state of affairs is not unique to solipsism. A crazy person or a capitalist can say whatever they want, we can chose to set the standards or ignore them or whatever. The question is, why do we entertain some arguments and not others, and in particular, why do we ignore solipsism? Indeed why discuss/argue with anybody at all if you take this to be our response to a persistent solipsist?

Well, I doubt that a capitalist can say whatever he/she wants. You will find it hard to show that they can consistently do this -- or, rather, I'd like to see you try.

And I am not convinced that basing one's approach to philosophy on what a crazy person might or might not say is a fruitful way of approaching what we would or should say.

The other questions you ask are one's that sociologists and/or psychologists (or even psychiatrists) alone are capable of answering (or not -- there may be no answer!). They are of no concern to philosophy.

Finally, I do not debate with solipsists (I have met them only on the internet, anyway (and they merely adopt this to be controversial, and are probably attention-seekers) -- why they use the web beats me; do they really think they are connected with anyone else?); I just take the piss out of such time-wasters.

ÑóẊîöŉ

14th July 2008, 21:47

Posing it in this way, you begin to lose touch with the word "real", for if everything is indeed a figment of your imagination, you can give no content to that word, for whatever seems 'real' you is real. And this is in turn because we use the word "real" for whatever is genuine independently of how it seems. But, you cannot now make that distinction.

Perhaps I phrased myself poorly - what I'm saying is that no matter what one's pet theory about what reality actually is, all available evidence suggests that reality is something independant of mind. Of course the solipsist could argue that the evidence is also part of one's imagination, but I would then say that the solipsist position then becomes unfalsifiable and hence totally useless.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th July 2008, 22:08

Noxion:

Perhaps I phrased myself poorly - what I'm saying is that no matter what one's pet theory about what reality actually is, all available evidence suggests that reality is something independant of mind. Of course the solipsist could argue that the evidence is also part of one's imagination, but I would then say that the solipsist position then becomes unfalsifiable and hence totally useless.

Again, if you'll forgive me for saying so, you are still making far too many unnecessary concessions to solipsistic langauge.

It is not a matter of evidence suggesting this or that, but that the language the solipsist uses collapses under examination. So, solipsists cannot even assert what they think they want to assert.

MarxSchmarx

16th July 2008, 20:27

Well, I doubt that a capitalist can say whatever he/she wants. You will find it hard to show that they can consistently do this -- or, rather, I'd like to see you try.

And I am not convinced that basing one's approach to philosophy on what a crazy person might or might not say is a fruitful way of approaching what we would or should say.

The other questions you ask are one's that sociologists and/or psychologists (or even psychiatrists) alone are capable of answering (or not -- there may be no answer!). They are of no concern to philosophy.

Finally, I do not debate with solipsists (I have met them only on the internet, anyway (and they merely adopt this to be controversial, and are probably attention-seekers) -- why they use the web beats me; do they really think they are connected with anyone else?); I just take the piss out of such time-wasters.

Curiously enough, the first-person approach you outline strikes me as ironically solipsistic, or at least subjective - the merit or demerit of a position is what I accept as worthy of my time, attention or effort and it is me myself who choses what to accept and reject. Clearly you do not commit yourself to this view, but this leaves open room for the concessionary approach that Noxion describes. Indeed:

Noxion, you do not need to make any concessions at all to the solipsist -- which is a point of view held by no serious philosopher that I know of, and of 'interest' only to the amateur, the controversialist, the attention-seeker, the novice or the dabbler.
As a counter-example, I posit Rudolf Carnap's methodological solipsism.

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th July 2008, 22:28

While you might find it easy to speak in the third person, I do not.

And, since I am using a public language to speak in the first person, I do not see how it is solipsistic.

And you are welcome to Noxion's approach. If you want to make concessions to solipsism, don't expect any thanks from them (can there be more than one solipsist?) -- they'd only be thanking themselves.

Finally, posit what you like -- since you do not exist (and neither did Carnap), I do not care.