How to refute Solipsism?

[dachmidt]

Hi all,

since I made myself familiar with the Idea of analytic idealism, I somehow struggle to refute the extremes of Solipsism.

I know that BK often states, that he does not believe in Solapsism, but I've never heard him arguing why. Although He mentioned an article about it, which I unfortunatly cannot find.

So what are your takes on how to refute Solipsism?
Is it refutable at all?

[dachmidt]

I finally found something in BKs book "Why Materialism is Baloney":

"Materialism requires the following four statements about reality to be true :

1. Your conscious perceptions exist;
2. The conscious perceptions of other living entities, different from your own, also exist;
3. There are things that exist independently of, and outside, conscious perception;
4. Things that exist independently of, and outside, conscious perception generate conscious perception.

...

Let us look more carefully at a point that was already briefly mentioned before: the erroneous notion
that idealism somehow entails what is called ‘solipsism’ in philosophy.

Solipsism is the notion that all that exists are my own conscious experiences. In other
words, reality is purely my private dream. There are no other conscious entities, like other
conscious people. They are merely figments of my own imagination. If I were a solipsist, I
wouldn’t believe that you, dear reader, have inner life at all. I would believe simply that your
external appearance and behavior, as far as I can perceive them, are imagined by my own
mind.

Now, notice that solipsism entails the acknowledgement of statement 1 of the previous
section and the rejection of statements 2, 3, and 4. Therefore, it is not idealism. Idealism
grants reality to statement 2. ‘Why?’ I hear you ask. After all, if we are already following this
road of radical skepticism anyway, why grant reality to statement 2? Because believing in
statement 2 is the simplest explanation for observations. As discussed earlier, I can explain
much of my own external behavior to myself by the fact that I am conscious, and so can
you. It is your conscious feelings that explain your facial expressions, your impulsive reac-
tions, your dislike of certain people and your love for others, etc. And you undoubtedly ob-
serve very similar external behaviors in others: their facial expressions, impulsive reactions,
likes and dislikes, etc. To explain these behaviors of others while assuming that others are
not conscious – that is, by assuming solipsism – would require an entirely different expla-
nation for largely the same phenomena that you observe in yourself. In other words, very
similar observations would require very different explanations. Clearly, this isn’t the sim-
plest alternative. It is simpler and more elegant to infer that others are also conscious and
manifest their external behavior for the exact same reasons that you manifest yours, partic-
ularly given the fact that others have physical bodies entirely analogous to yours.

You could argue that other people’s behavior is so analogous to your own because you
project your conscious life onto them, in the same way that the characters of your nightly
dreams all have human-like reactions while being merely projections of your mind. This
way, other people would still be characters of your private solipsist dream, behaving like
you do simply because your ‘subconscious’ mind is projecting your own patterns of behav-
ior onto them. This sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? There is, however, a hole in this argu-
ment. Indeed, more than likely you have observed many types of behavior in other people
that you could not yet explain based on your own experiences, because at the time you
made those observations you had not yet had the experiences that would explain such
behaviors. For instance, as a young child, I could already observe the peculiar behavior of
adults in love without ever having had that feeling myself. I just couldn’t figure out why peo-
ple would act like fools in those situations. Later in life, as I experienced romantic love my-
self, I could immediately match that new personal experience to prior observations of the
‘foolish’ behavior of others and explain them retroactively by granting consciousness to
those other people. As a young child, I couldn’t have projected onto others an experience I had
not yet had. Therefore, once again, it is simplest and most reasonable to accept statement 2
of the previous section. Idealism is very reasonable and skeptic, but it differs from solip-
sism in that the latter seems to be unreasonably skeptic."

--------------------
I get BKs Idea here and of course it sounds reasonable - in opposite to all consequences of Solapsism - but my question remains:

What are your strongest objections against Solapsism?
It probably might help me.

[Eugene I]

Your arguments are correct, but in addition to philosophical arguments there are other perspectives that make solipsism an inferior worldview such as spiritual, psychological, ethical/moral. Imagine yourself to be a complete and consistent solipsist in everyday life. Can you be a happy person? Can you find a meaning in your life? How could you ever experience love, friendship, empathy, connectedness with other beings and the universe? Why would you even talk to other people? Solipsism is a spiritual and psychological suicide.

[Jim Cross]

1. Your conscious perceptions exist;
2. The conscious perceptions of other living entities, different from your own, also exist;
3. There are things that exist independently of, and outside, conscious perception;
4. Things that exist independently of, and outside, conscious perception generate conscious perception.

I find this somewhat problematic. The problem is that the first two statements are referring to my or your perception. Whereas the last two drop the possessive or individual subjective view.

If we added the possessive back into 3 and 4, it would read:

3. There are things that exist independently of, and outside, your conscious perception;
4. Things that exist independently of, and outside, your conscious perception generate conscious perception.

Both of which, I think, BK would acknowledge as being true.

#3 necessarily is true since it is entailed in #2 which already states there is something outside yours or my conscious perception.

#4 would, in fact, be the mind at large and must be the case because #2 already acknowledges that other living entities have conscious perceptions and their conscious perceptions must have an origin in something other than my conscious perception (if we are not going to fall back into solipsism).

That would mean the difference between materialism and idealism is almost trivial. It is just based on a subtle shift between the objective and subjective in how the statement are made.

[Eugene I]

I find this somewhat problematic. The problem is that the first two statements are referring to my or yours perception. Whereas the last two drop the possessive or individual subjective view.

If we added the possessive back into 3 and 4, it would read:

3. There are things that exist independently of, and outside, your conscious perception;
4. Things that exist independently of, and outside, your conscious perception generate conscious perception.

Both of which, I think, BK would acknowledge as being true.

#3 necessarily is true since it is entailed in #2 which already states there is something outside yours or my conscious perception.

#4 would, in fact, be the mind at large and must be the case because #2 already acknowledges that other living entities have conscious perceptions and their conscious perceptions must have an origin in something other than my conscious perception (if we are not going to fall back into solipsism).

That would mean the difference between materialism and idealism is almost trivial. It is just based on a subtle shift between the objective and subjective in how the statement are made.

It is true that linguistically the difference is very subtle (just using or dropping the word "your" in #3). However, the difference in the meaning is substantial, and that what actually matters.

[Jim Cross]

I find this somewhat problematic. The problem is that the first two statements are referring to my or yours perception. Whereas the last two drop the possessive or individual subjective view.

If we added the possessive back into 3 and 4, it would read:

3. There are things that exist independently of, and outside, your conscious perception;
4. Things that exist independently of, and outside, your conscious perception generate conscious perception.

Both of which, I think, BK would acknowledge as being true.

#3 necessarily is true since it is entailed in #2 which already states there is something outside yours or my conscious perception.

#4 would, in fact, be the mind at large and must be the case because #2 already acknowledges that other living entities have conscious perceptions and their conscious perceptions must have an origin in something other than my conscious perception (if we are not going to fall back into solipsism).

That would mean the difference between materialism and idealism is almost trivial. It is just based on a subtle shift between the objective and subjective in how the statement are made.

It is true that linguistically the difference is very subtle (just using or dropping the word "your" in #3). However, the difference in the meaning is substantial, and that what actually matters.

I think it is more of a trick in wording and logic.

I think the appeal of idealism comes from the obvious fact of our own subjective conscious perceptions so the trick involves taking that fact and combining it objective statements that omits the reference to our own experience.

[dachmidt]

I totally agree that Solipsism is spiritual and psychological suicide. That is why I am looking for arguments against it.

But only the fact that it is a philosophy that is not suitable for life, doesn't make it untrue.

Following the idea of C.G. Jungs idea of archetypes, according to which the psyche unravels itself, Solipsism - or the fear of lonliness in general - might be an emergent feeling of separation.

In another thread in this forum I read, that we as dissociated alters, might be a solution of M@L's feeling of lonliness, as for M@L Solipsism is true!! This could lead to the result, that our fear of lonliness ist somehow inherited as archetype by M@L itself.

However this immediately raises the question if M@L is even capable to experience something like lonliness? Is lonliness, as I stated earlier, not more an emergent of our separation of finite altars from M@L??

Those are Just some thoughts of my own.
I'am new to the idea of idealism and my christian background didn't give me any education at all in such philosophycal realms, so please forgive me if I mix up concepts here.

[AshvinP]

I totally agree that Solipsism is spiritual and psychological suicide. That is why I am looking for arguments against it.

But only the fact that it is a philosophy that is not suitable for life, doesn't make it untrue.

Following the idea of C.G. Jungs idea of archetypes, according to which the psyche unravels itself, Solipsism - or the fear of lonliness in general - might be an emergent feeling of separation.

In another thread in this forum I read, that we as dissociated alters, might be a solution of M@L's feeling of lonliness, as for M@L Solipsism is true!! This could lead to the result, that our fear of lonliness ist somehow inherited as archetype by M@L itself.

However this immediately raises the question if M@L is even capable to experience something like lonliness? Is lonliness, as I stated earlier, not more an emergent of our separation of finite altars from M@L??

Those are Just some thoughts of my own.
I'am new to the idea of idealism and my christian background didn't give me any education at all in such philosophycal realms, so please forgive me if I mix up concepts here.

All of this philosophizing about "solipsism" stems from an arbitrary assumption that "I", as an abstract 'entity', am the sum total of what I have experienced and known up to any given moment in time. Once the human soul is defined in that rigid (and inaccurate) way, it is easy see why that sum total can never be the only 'thing' which exists. When we begin to realize that "I" am not a static entity, but rather the essential process which unites all experience-knowledge of "past" and "future" in the present, then it doesn't matter what we call it, because all possible perspectives of "I" are encompassed within its essence. What is important is how we come to know the essential "I" within All-being (the "Self" of Jung), and that process of knowing obviously requires attentive, graceful, and thoughtful interaction with other perspectives of the One.

[Eugene I]

I totally agree that Solipsism is spiritual and psychological suicide. That is why I am looking for arguments against it.

But only the fact that it is a philosophy that is not suitable for life, doesn't make it untrue.

Correct, but in the area of ontology no arguments can make any ontology true of false. Ontologies (solipsism, materialism, idealism, neutral monism etc) by their epistemological nature are in principle unverifiable and unfalsifiable. We can only use arguments for or against them, but never find complete proofs or dis-proofs. From scientific or philosophical perspective, they are unprovable hypotheses. From psychological and spiritual perspective they are worldview beliefs.

My personal take is: from the practical perspective most of us need a certain worldview or some interpretative paradigm/framework to function in the world. In theory you may choose to stay entirely agnostic to interpretational frameworks, but it would be hard to be a consistent agnostic in the everyday life and I haven't seen many people doing that. Well, it looks like Jim Cross is trying to be agnostic, we will see how it actually works for him But if we don't accept complete agnosticism, and in the absence of complete proofs/dis-proofs, we can only choose interpretative paradigms based on arguments, both philosophical/logical and practical. The "truer" worldview for us in not only the one that has stronger philosophical arguments, but also that works better for us in our practical personal and social life, makes us more happy, productive, gives meanings and purposes to our lives and activities, catalyzes psychological and spiritual development and health on both individual and societal levels.

[dachmidt]

I definetely get your point, Eugene, thank you!

@AshvinP can you further elaborate on what exactly you mean by "Once the human soul is defined in that rigid (and inaccurate) way, it is easy see why that sum total can never be the only 'thing' which exists."

How would you define the "I" in your own words?
And why does it need those multiple perspectives (by our alters)?