Solipsism

T

Tethar

~
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
469
Gil
0
Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that "I am the only mind which exists," or "My mental states are the only mental states." However, the sole survivor of a nuclear holocaust might truly come to believe in either of these propositions without thereby being a solipsist. Solipsism is therefore more properly regarded as the doctrine that, in principle, "existence" means for me my existence and that of my mental states. Existence is everything that I experience -- physical objects, other people, events and processes -- anything that would commonly be regarded as a constituent of the space and time in which I coexist with others and is necessarily construed by me as part of the content of my consciousness. For the solipsist, it is not merely the case that he believes that his thoughts, experiences, and emotions are, as a matter of contingent fact, the only thoughts, experiences, and emotions. Rather, the solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could be thoughts, experiences, and emotions other than his own. In short, the true solipsist understands the word "pain," for example, to mean "my pain." He cannot accordingly conceive how this word is to be applied in any sense other than this exclusively egocentric one.
Click to expand...


This view is at best unknown to most. It is strange to think of it as a philosophical view when most philosophers dismiss it because of how illogical it seems.
I am not a solipsist my self I accept that the thoughts of others do indeed exists. I know that I am not alone, however I do find this view fascinating hence this thread.
I see this view as perhaps the most extreme form of being selfish in existance, I ofen wonder how could someone walk down a road and not except the existance of the thoughts of all those walking by them.

No great philosopher has espoused solipsism. As a theory, if indeed it can be termed such, it is clearly very far removed from common sense. In view of this, it might reasonably be asked why the problem of solipsism should receive any philosophical attention. There are two answers to this question. First, while no great philosopher has explicitly espoused solipsism, this can be attributed to the inconsistency of much philosophical reasoning. Many philosophers have failed to accept the logical consequences of their own most fundamental commitments and preconceptions. The foundations of solipsism lie at the heart of the view that the individual gets his own psychological concepts (thinking, willing, perceiving, and so forth.) from "his own cases," that is by abstraction from "inner experience." This view, or some variant of it, has been held by a great many, if not the majority of philosophers since Descartes made the egocentric search for truth to the primary goal of the critical study of the nature and limits of knowledge. In this sense, solipsism is implicit in many philosophies of knowledge and mind since Descartes and any theory of knowledge that adopts the Cartesian egocentric approach as its basic frame of reference is inherently solipsistic.
Click to expand...

So what do you a think of this vew? That only you actually exist and what is everyone else merly a construct of your own mind perhaps?

All quotes from the "Internet encyclopedia of Philosophy."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/
 
No wonder no philosopher embraced this kind of view. I don't even wonder that this view isn't popular or known at most. I mean, what are they thinking? If only one exists then what are the others called? Puppets?

I conclude that this view here is very out of "reason"

...ILLOGICAL at best...
 
This could only work if it were a dream, not like the one from the Matrix; that is, that everything you see and perceive is all a product of your mind as in a dream. Unfortunately, dreams often don't make sense. The natural world is less of a dream.
 
Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am.

Rene Descartes was quite an interesting individual with many interesting theories.

It is possible to use Descartes theory to say that if I think therfore I exist then if other people they exist aswell. So you have to prove other people catually think.
 
This is actually not so illogical at all. We could easily be in a dream-like state where only "I" think and exist. No one can prove that others think or exist. Only the self is sure of its existence (and sometimes not even that). I can speak to someone, touch them, smell them, etc. but there's no real proof that they are anything but an extremely well-fabricated fantasy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top