Primal

Jobar the problem still remains of finding the perception "maximize all happiness" in the solipsist position, if this perception cannot be found then solipsists cannot say such a rule exists.

Keith Russell

Jobar:

the problem isn't that everyone wants to maximize their own happiness, the problem is that most of us differ as to how to achieve that happiness.

I have a real problem with people who might enjoy my death, or find happiness by stealing my stuff, or imprisoning me for my ideas, or bombing my country because their happiness demands 'death to the infidel'.

Keith.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

If a solipsist isn't happy, isn't it their own fault? I mean, they can't think it's someone else's fault, can they? (Seriously!)

Lastly, what is a 'rational solipsist'? 'Reason' is the method of evaluating sensory input (evidence) from reality external to the mind.

But, for the solipsist, there is nothing external to the mind...

Keith.

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Nickle

Maybe I'm out in left field, but I have always had a problem with solipsism:
Basically, the universe I observe is complicated and vast, follwing strict and intricate rules. I doubt I can prove it exists outside of my head. But would I be the one that forms these intricacies? Do I now have to throw in a creator?

JP2

I think the important thing to remember is that solopsists or Cartesian Rationalists do not attempt to refute or completely deny existence of the external world (or at least it is not a necessary conclusion of their philosophical systems) they instead focus on the notion of subjectivity, and how this notion means that in interpreting that which we experience as an "object" in an external world, it is our very subjectivity, often, that determines how, exactly, these experiences are experienced.

I shall call it the ontological rift, which, quite simply, is the sum of all the ways we can - intentionally or not - misinterpret what we experience of the outside world. It is this subjectivity - and only through this subjectivity - that allows for the creation of art, for instance, as we all look at the same painting, or listen to the same piece of music in different ways. If we could each view the world with objective, absolute certainty, then there should be no room for personal interpretation of art and thus the main faculty of art is denied.

Thus, the subjectivity of proposed by solopsists and virtually all philosophers since Descartes, does not seek to say "you can not know that the external world exists" rather, "you can never know with absolute certainty the essence or modality of the external world and its constituent parts".

Some, no doubt take it too far (particularly the earlier solopsists) but I think, in this day and age, solopsism and strict rationalism simply dictate the notion of untranscendable subjectivity, rather than absolute nihilism in terms of our systems of knowledge and perceptivity.

I don't think it's anything to be scared of. In fact, I think realisation of this subjectivity is necessary for the basis of a workable system of morality - but I suppose I'll leave that for another time.

Devilnaut

Just because something maybe logically consistent does not make it rational. You can't "disprove" solipsism any more than you can disprove the existence of an almighty supernatural being. The key is showing the solipsist that his beliefs are groundless and unnecessary, and therefore probably untrue... IMHO.

Primal

I think a big mistake subjectivists and solipsists make is to equate objectivism with absolutism, i.e. if the universe is objective or can be known objectively, there can be no variation. However I do not think many objectivists ever maintained such a position.

Another leap they make is to say that if person X cannot be absolutely certain of everything, he cannot be absolutely certain of anything.

This creates the false dillema of absolutism or relativism. What's wrong with saying some things can be known with absolute certainty and some thing cannot?

Nickel: Good points, and I'm wondering how a solipsist would respond. If you claim to see an objective world, what can they say? That you are wrong or that you perceptions are leading you astray? Such a statement would go against the very heart of subjectivist standards mainly, that perceptions are reality, in which case perceptions of an objective world are an objective world.

Keith Russell

Primal, well said.

You said: Good points, and I'm wondering how a solipsist would respond. If you claim to see an objective world, what can they say? That you are wrong or that you perceptions are leading you astray? Such a statement would go against the very heart of subjectivist standards mainly, that perceptions are reality, in which case perceptions of an objective world are an objective world.

Keith: This is exactly what I mean by my statement that subjectivism is self-defeating!

Keith.

Kantian

Keith, i would dare say that is a traditional mischaracterization. Subjectivism is not a creation of what is in me, as opposed to “external”, because that is predicated on a notion of objectivity.

In addition, I claim that objectivity is simply the correspondence to what is "external," and is impossible to ascertain.

~Transcendentalist~

Primal

So basically if someone said his observations were objective or observed an objective reality he'd be wrong? Hence self-refuting solipsism.