Can you prove solipsism true?

[Darkneos]

You can't prove it true any more than you can prove it false.

This goes for pretty much all philosophical positions. Internal consistency gets you coherence. It doesn't get you correspondence.

Yeah that’s something else I was told when I asked people over the years. Nothing is truly certain and thats not the type of truth you should be concerned about.

Also someone told me philosophy isn’t really about proof so much as likelihood and plausibility, and some other things. To paraphrase them “sure solipsism is possible but give the evidence around us is it likely”? To that I would say no. Given my interactions with the world I don’t have a reason to believe solipsism is true, though that’s not a guarantee (though nothing is).

Nevermind found it:

Now, that said, a lot of the time philosophy isn't about proving or disproving things. Rather, it's about the intuitive force and appeal of certain positions, the costs that come with them, and the evidence around them. Maybe solipsism can't be proven, but given our experiences is solipsism likely? Does it fit naturally within our metaphysical positions? What does it generate to?

And I agree with that.

And unless there is anything meaningfully different about a solipsism world and a regular one then they are effectively the same. So even if solipsism were to be true it wouldn’t matter.

That's not a problem with solipsism in particular. It's a problem with all philosophy in general.

It's a quarrel about the use of adjectives and the criteria in question. e.g you are asking whether there are any meaningful differences between X and Y.

And the standard responses is: Of course there is a very long list of differences between X and Y, but which difference do you consider "meaningful"? What is your criterion for meaningfulness?

Followed up with: Is the difference between truth and falsehood meaningful or meaningless?

The answer to all such questions is a matter of values, not facts.

Sorry perhaps the word meaningful was incorrect. What I meant was no difference. If there isn’t any difference between a solipsism world and a normal one then they are the same. Or as someone I knew said it “there is no difference between a metaphysically “real” universe and a perfect simulation”. That kinda helped me move through it a bit.

But I see your point about meaningfulness, or what I usually refer to as “so what” when it comes to someone making a point. After this long argument my response often comes to “ok, so what” which is my way of saying how does this matter?

Because while some might argue against utility as the measure of truth or worth of a philosophy, IMO if it has no applications to my life or any real benefit then what is the point? Now this might spark a debate about utility being a measure of truth but I have to wonder then why you’re pursuing truth to begin with. If it has no “utility” to it then it just sounds like debating which anime character is prettier.

[Skepdick]

Sorry perhaps the word meaningful was incorrect. What I meant was no difference. If there isn’t any difference between a solipsism world and a normal one then they are the same. Or as someone I knew said it “there is no difference between a metaphysically “real” universe and a perfect simulation”. That kinda helped me move through it a bit.

But I see your point about meaningfulness, or what I usually refer to as “so what” when it comes to someone making a point. After this long argument my response often comes to “ok, so what” which is my way of saying how does this matter?

Because while some might argue against utility as the measure of truth or worth of a philosophy, IMO if it has no applications to my life or any real benefit then what is the point? Now this might spark a debate about utility being a measure of truth but I have to wonder then why you’re pursuing truth to begin with. If it has no “utility” to it then it just sounds like debating which anime character is prettier.

All of the above applies - the "so what?" is the usual nihilistic attack against any and all arguments.

Which was my point about philosophical disagreement being predominantly about conflict of values, not conflcit of facts.

Even if there is a difference between X and Y. Even if that difference is beneficial to somebody, somewhere. So what?

Said differently: I see your point, but why are you making it?

[Darkneos]

Sorry perhaps the word meaningful was incorrect. What I meant was no difference. If there isn’t any difference between a solipsism world and a normal one then they are the same. Or as someone I knew said it “there is no difference between a metaphysically “real” universe and a perfect simulation”. That kinda helped me move through it a bit.

But I see your point about meaningfulness, or what I usually refer to as “so what” when it comes to someone making a point. After this long argument my response often comes to “ok, so what” which is my way of saying how does this matter?

Because while some might argue against utility as the measure of truth or worth of a philosophy, IMO if it has no applications to my life or any real benefit then what is the point? Now this might spark a debate about utility being a measure of truth but I have to wonder then why you’re pursuing truth to begin with. If it has no “utility” to it then it just sounds like debating which anime character is prettier.

All of the above applies - the "so what?" is the usual nihilistic attack against any and all arguments.

Which was my point about philosophical disagreement being predominantly about conflict of values, not conflcit of facts.

Even if there is a difference between X and Y. Even if that difference is beneficial to somebody, somewhere. So what?

Said differently: I see your point, but why are you making it?

I don’t see it as nihilism. “So what” is a valid criticism about the supposed consequences of a position.

In the debates I have seen over stuff like pornography or homosexuality the conservative side usually labels it as degenerate or against nature (or some other appeal to emotion), to which the natural criticism is “so what”? Why is that bad? What’s wrong with it? And the usual response is some form of “it just is”, nothing about harm or negatives, “it just is”. So by asking it you’re sort of forcing them to justify their position to you which can reveal some telling information about it. In that case it would be a conflict of facts and values, except in this cases it’s the facts about the supposed harm.

A beneficial difference is part of that “so what”. It’s showing a beneficial impact. But to something like arguing the fundamental nature of reality is peanut butter I would say “so what” because how does that impact anything else?

As for the point, I feel like I was going somewhere with it but I think I lost the thread

[Atla]

http://bc.upjp2.edu.pl/Content/5621/35_ ... odnym3.pdf

I was wondering if this is the case after looking at the paper above. It seems to just say that if someone is a solipsist then you can’t argue them out of it because their view is consistent and not illogical but I’m not entirely sure. I think that later on he does prove it true and that’s what bugs me.

Everywhere I have asked I get the same answer that it’s impossible because you can’t get outside your perception of the world so you’re unable to confirm it right or wrong. But I’m wondering if there is some secret reasoning that someone could do.

I would rather it be truly impossible so I can leave it behind because it’s had a massively negative impact on my life and relationships with others.

If it's any consolation, you could also be a hologram, a brain-in-a-vat, a computer program, you could always be dreaming, could always be hallucinating, you could always be deceived by God/the Devil/an evil demon. You could even be just a figment of DAM's imagination. Maybe you wre born 2 seconds ago with implanted memories. Impossible to prove or disprove anything with absolute certainty.

[Skepdick]

Sorry perhaps the word meaningful was incorrect. What I meant was no difference. If there isn’t any difference between a solipsism world and a normal one then they are the same. Or as someone I knew said it “there is no difference between a metaphysically “real” universe and a perfect simulation”. That kinda helped me move through it a bit.

But I see your point about meaningfulness, or what I usually refer to as “so what” when it comes to someone making a point. After this long argument my response often comes to “ok, so what” which is my way of saying how does this matter?

Because while some might argue against utility as the measure of truth or worth of a philosophy, IMO if it has no applications to my life or any real benefit then what is the point? Now this might spark a debate about utility being a measure of truth but I have to wonder then why you’re pursuing truth to begin with. If it has no “utility” to it then it just sounds like debating which anime character is prettier.

All of the above applies - the "so what?" is the usual nihilistic attack against any and all arguments.

Which was my point about philosophical disagreement being predominantly about conflict of values, not conflcit of facts.

Even if there is a difference between X and Y. Even if that difference is beneficial to somebody, somewhere. So what?

Said differently: I see your point, but why are you making it?

I don’t see it as nihilism. “So what” is a valid criticism about the supposed consequences of a position.

Appealing to the consequences of a position is vanilla moral consequentialism. To which a nihilist simply responds with "So what?"

In the debates I have seen over stuff like pornography or homosexuality the conservative side usually labels it as degenerate or against nature (or some other appeal to emotion), to which the natural criticism is “so what”? Why is that bad? What’s wrong with it? And the usual response is some form of “it just is”, nothing about harm or negatives, “it just is”. So by asking it you’re sort of forcing them to justify their position to you which can reveal some telling information about it. In that case it would be a conflict of facts and values, except in this cases it’s the facts about the supposed harm.

Everything that is just is. Asserting that something is "harmful" is a value judgment. Subject to a nihilistic "So what?"

Moralist: Hitler harmed 6 million jews. It was effectively genocide.
Nihilist: So what?

A beneficial difference is part of that “so what”. It’s showing a beneficial impact. But to something like arguing the fundamental nature of reality is peanut butter I would say “so what” because how does that impact anything else?

Science and medicine cures many diseases, prolongs and improves the quuality of human life.

Nihilist: So what?

As for the point, I feel like I was going somewhere with it but I think I lost the thread

The point is that philosophy is pointless.

In a battle of value-systems the person who has nothing to lose (the nihilist) is at an advantage.

[Darkneos]

http://bc.upjp2.edu.pl/Content/5621/35_ ... odnym3.pdf

I was wondering if this is the case after looking at the paper above. It seems to just say that if someone is a solipsist then you can’t argue them out of it because their view is consistent and not illogical but I’m not entirely sure. I think that later on he does prove it true and that’s what bugs me.

Everywhere I have asked I get the same answer that it’s impossible because you can’t get outside your perception of the world so you’re unable to confirm it right or wrong. But I’m wondering if there is some secret reasoning that someone could do.

I would rather it be truly impossible so I can leave it behind because it’s had a massively negative impact on my life and relationships with others.

If it's any consolation, you could also be a hologram, a brain-in-a-vat, a computer program, you could always be dreaming, could always be hallucinating, you could always be deceived by God/the Devil/an evil demon. You could even be just a figment of DAM's imagination. Maybe you wre born 2 seconds ago with implanted memories. Impossible to prove or disprove anything with absolute certainty.

I could be a lot of things, it’s true. And there isn’t a way to know so it’s not something to worry about

[Darkneos]

All of the above applies - the "so what?" is the usual nihilistic attack against any and all arguments.

Which was my point about philosophical disagreement being predominantly about conflict of values, not conflcit of facts.

Even if there is a difference between X and Y. Even if that difference is beneficial to somebody, somewhere. So what?

Said differently: I see your point, but why are you making it?

I don’t see it as nihilism. “So what” is a valid criticism about the supposed consequences of a position.

Appealing to the consequences of a position is vanilla moral consequentialism. To which a nihilist simply responds with "So what?"

In the debates I have seen over stuff like pornography or homosexuality the conservative side usually labels it as degenerate or against nature (or some other appeal to emotion), to which the natural criticism is “so what”? Why is that bad? What’s wrong with it? And the usual response is some form of “it just is”, nothing about harm or negatives, “it just is”. So by asking it you’re sort of forcing them to justify their position to you which can reveal some telling information about it. In that case it would be a conflict of facts and values, except in this cases it’s the facts about the supposed harm.

Everything that is just is. Asserting that something is "harmful" is a value judgment. Subject to a nihilistic "So what?"

Moralist: Hitler harmed 6 million jews. It was effectively genocide.
Nihilist: So what?

A beneficial difference is part of that “so what”. It’s showing a beneficial impact. But to something like arguing the fundamental nature of reality is peanut butter I would say “so what” because how does that impact anything else?

Science and medicine cures many diseases, prolongs and improves the quuality of human life.

Nihilist: So what?

As for the point, I feel like I was going somewhere with it but I think I lost the thread

The point is that philosophy is pointless.

In a battle of value-systems the person who has nothing to lose (the nihilist) is at an advantage.

I wouldn’t say that. Philosophy isn’t pointless. It did lead to some good things in my life.

But the nihilist isn’t at an advantage in a battle of value systems. Because even they still value nihilism. The response to their “so what” is “so what”. So in other words the nihilist has lost before they even started.

So they still have something to lose. They can say nothing matters, but that wouldn’t include “nothing matters”. Try saying that to people and you’ll find most folks know and don’t give a shit. In short “it doesn’t matter that nothing matters”.

There isn’t a true nihilist for either, it’s simply an impossible position to hold.

Though I have to ask where you’re going this.

[Skepdick]

I wouldn’t say that. Philosophy isn’t pointless. It did lead to some good things in my life.

But the nihilist isn’t at an advantage in a battle of value systems. Because even they still value nihilism. The response to their “so what” is “so what”. So in other words the nihilist has lost before they even started.

But you are merely interpreting their position as a loss. In using their own strategy against them you are demonstrating that you agree with nihilism.

If your response to a "So what" is "so what" a nihilist's response is "exactly".

So they still have something to lose. They can say nothing matters, but that wouldn’t include “nothing matters”. Try saying that to people and you’ll find most folks know and don’t give a shit. In short “it doesn’t matter that nothing matters”.

There isn’t a true nihilist for either, it’s simply an impossible position to hold.

Though I have to ask where you’re going this.

It's not at all impossible - in so far as a vantage point for attacking any other value system - it's undefeatable.

[Darkneos]

I wouldn’t say that. Philosophy isn’t pointless. It did lead to some good things in my life.

But the nihilist isn’t at an advantage in a battle of value systems. Because even they still value nihilism. The response to their “so what” is “so what”. So in other words the nihilist has lost before they even started.

But you are merely interpreting their position as a loss. In using their own strategy against them you are demonstrating that you agree with nihilism.

If your response to a "So what" is "so what" a nihilist's response is "exactly".

So they still have something to lose. They can say nothing matters, but that wouldn’t include “nothing matters”. Try saying that to people and you’ll find most folks know and don’t give a shit. In short “it doesn’t matter that nothing matters”.

There isn’t a true nihilist for either, it’s simply an impossible position to hold.

Though I have to ask where you’re going this.

It's not at all impossible - in so far as a vantage point for attacking any other value system - it's undefeatable.

So what if I interpret their position as a loss? I’m not saying I agree just showing them the conclusions of their position. “Exactly” doesn’t really answer anything to my “so what”. If anything it just negates your initial “so what” because it indicates there wasn’t anything behind it. You end up defeating yourself.

An it is impossible to be a nihilism since you have to value it. You are also not really attacking another position by saying “so what” if you don’t hold any actual positions. Your criticism is just empty. In short you were defeated before the game even started.

It’s why nihilism isn’t undefeatable, it defeats itself.
So I’ll say, where are you going with this?

[Maia]

Do any actual Solipsists really believe it?

If they're actual solipsists.
And some psychopaths and narcissists act like it's the case.

Sounds more like a mental illness. If they really believed it, that is.

[Iwannaplato]

Do any actual Solipsists really believe it?

If they're actual solipsists.
And some psychopaths and narcissists act like it's the case.

Sounds more like a mental illness. If they really believed it, that is.

I think so, something like a mental mess. And probably cut off from other people. I don't think you just read some philosophy or think your way to this position and the suffer it. I would think you'd have to be mainly alone or not close to people. I suppose someone might enjoy it.

[Maia]

If they're actual solipsists.
And some psychopaths and narcissists act like it's the case.

Sounds more like a mental illness. If they really believed it, that is.

I think so, something like a mental mess. And probably cut off from other people. I don't think you just read some philosophy or think your way to this position and the suffer it. I would think you'd have to be mainly alone or not close to people. I suppose someone might enjoy it.

For someone to take comfort from the idea that everyone else is just a figment of their imagination says more about them, i think, than the nature of reality.

[Age]

Yeah that’s something else I was told when I asked people over the years. Nothing is truly certain and thats not the type of truth you should be concerned about.

Also someone told me philosophy isn’t really about proof so much as likelihood and plausibility, and some other things. To paraphrase them “sure solipsism is possible but give the evidence around us is it likely”? To that I would say no. Given my interactions with the world I don’t have a reason to believe solipsism is true, though that’s not a guarantee (though nothing is).

Nevermind found it:



And I agree with that.

And unless there is anything meaningfully different about a solipsism world and a regular one then they are effectively the same. So even if solipsism were to be true it wouldn’t matter.

That's not a problem with solipsism in particular. It's a problem with all philosophy in general.

It's a quarrel about the use of adjectives and the criteria in question. e.g you are asking whether there are any meaningful differences between X and Y.

And the standard responses is: Of course there is a very long list of differences between X and Y, but which difference do you consider "meaningful"? What is your criterion for meaningfulness?

Followed up with: Is the difference between truth and falsehood meaningful or meaningless?

The answer to all such questions is a matter of values, not facts.

Sorry perhaps the word meaningful was incorrect. What I meant was no difference. If there isn’t any difference between a solipsism world and a normal one then they are the same. Or as someone I knew said it “there is no difference between a metaphysically “real” universe and a perfect simulation”. That kinda helped me move through it a bit.

Either way, if they exist, then they HAVE TO exist WITHIN the ACTUAL Universe.

But I see your point about meaningfulness, or what I usually refer to as “so what” when it comes to someone making a point. After this long argument my response often comes to “ok, so what” which is my way of saying how does this matter?

If some 'thing' is 'meaningful' to me, like a question or an answer, then 'it' is in relation to what would make 'Life', Itself, 'better' for EVERY one.

So, if you were to say, 'Okay, so what?' or, 'How does this matter', then I would say 'this' would lead to creating a 'better world' for EVERY one.

To which you might ask something referring to what is 'better' in relation to, exactly? Which then further discussion would take place.

Because while some might argue against utility as the measure of truth or worth of a philosophy, IMO if it has no applications to my life or any real benefit then what is the point?

GREAT question.

Now this might spark a debate about utility being a measure of truth but I have to wonder then why you’re pursuing truth to begin with. If it has no “utility” to it then it just sounds like debating which anime character is prettier.

Yes, there are SOME 'things', which are REALLY WORTHY of discussing, 'philosophically', some might say. For example, like what IS Truly 'full-of-meaning', or, in other words, what is Truly 'meaningful' to 'us' AND "others", compared to what is NOT Truly 'meaningful'.

As you so correctly alluded to here, there are some 'things' that Truly are WORTH pursuing, and other 'things', which are NOT.

[Darkneos]

That's not a problem with solipsism in particular. It's a problem with all philosophy in general.

It's a quarrel about the use of adjectives and the criteria in question. e.g you are asking whether there are any meaningful differences between X and Y.

And the standard responses is: Of course there is a very long list of differences between X and Y, but which difference do you consider "meaningful"? What is your criterion for meaningfulness?

Followed up with: Is the difference between truth and falsehood meaningful or meaningless?

The answer to all such questions is a matter of values, not facts.

Sorry perhaps the word meaningful was incorrect. What I meant was no difference. If there isn’t any difference between a solipsism world and a normal one then they are the same. Or as someone I knew said it “there is no difference between a metaphysically “real” universe and a perfect simulation”. That kinda helped me move through it a bit.

Either way, if they exist, then they HAVE TO exist WITHIN the ACTUAL Universe.

But I see your point about meaningfulness, or what I usually refer to as “so what” when it comes to someone making a point. After this long argument my response often comes to “ok, so what” which is my way of saying how does this matter?

If some 'thing' is 'meaningful' to me, like a question or an answer, then 'it' is in relation to what would make 'Life', Itself, 'better' for EVERY one.

So, if you were to say, 'Okay, so what?' or, 'How does this matter', then I would say 'this' would lead to creating a 'better world' for EVERY one.

To which you might ask something referring to what is 'better' in relation to, exactly? Which then further discussion would take place.

Because while some might argue against utility as the measure of truth or worth of a philosophy, IMO if it has no applications to my life or any real benefit then what is the point?

GREAT question.

Now this might spark a debate about utility being a measure of truth but I have to wonder then why you’re pursuing truth to begin with. If it has no “utility” to it then it just sounds like debating which anime character is prettier.

Yes, there are SOME 'things', which are REALLY WORTHY of discussing, 'philosophically', some might say. For example, like what IS Truly 'full-of-meaning', or, in other words, what is Truly 'meaningful' to 'us' AND "others", compared to what is NOT Truly 'meaningful'.

As you so correctly alluded to here, there are some 'things' that Truly are WORTH pursuing, and other 'things', which are NOT.

I guess it’s up to the person to decide what matters.

I just chuckled a bit at the supposed nihilist “so what”ing me. I say that because I used to be like that and it’s shocking how it doesn’t make you unbeatable or an advantage. People just don’t give a shit, so it’s why I said the nihilist lost before it even starts. Turns out not having values ain’t a trump card.

[Age]

Sorry perhaps the word meaningful was incorrect. What I meant was no difference. If there isn’t any difference between a solipsism world and a normal one then they are the same. Or as someone I knew said it “there is no difference between a metaphysically “real” universe and a perfect simulation”. That kinda helped me move through it a bit.

But I see your point about meaningfulness, or what I usually refer to as “so what” when it comes to someone making a point. After this long argument my response often comes to “ok, so what” which is my way of saying how does this matter?

Because while some might argue against utility as the measure of truth or worth of a philosophy, IMO if it has no applications to my life or any real benefit then what is the point? Now this might spark a debate about utility being a measure of truth but I have to wonder then why you’re pursuing truth to begin with. If it has no “utility” to it then it just sounds like debating which anime character is prettier.

All of the above applies - the "so what?" is the usual nihilistic attack against any and all arguments.

Which was my point about philosophical disagreement being predominantly about conflict of values, not conflcit of facts.

But, to me, 'conflict' has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with 'philosophy' NOR 'philosophical discussions'.

See, just like 'you', continually, DISAGREE/CONFLICT with "others", based solely upon your OWN 'values', 'judgments', perceptions, et cetera, you DISAGREE and CONFLICT with what 'you' call "philosophers" based solely upon, again, your OWN values, judgments, perceptions, and definitions that you have for the 'philosophy' word.

The Fact IS EACH and EVER one of 'you', people, could just be USING a DIFFERENT definition for that ONE word, or ANY other ONE word if the Truth be known, which will then affect what happens NEXT.

There IS, and CAN BE, NO ACTUAL conflict/disagreement over Truth, NOR over Facts. However, and OBVIOUSLY, 'you', people, DISAGREE, A LOT I will add.

Even if there is a difference between X and Y. Even if that difference is beneficial to somebody, somewhere. So what?

What IS 'so what' IS OBVIOUSLY 'the one', which the 'difference' is 'beneficial TO' WILL HAVE some MORE INTEREST than 'you' will.

Said differently: I see your point, but why are you making it?

Probably for the EXACT SAME reason WHY 'you' are making 'your point' here "skepdick".

Do you KNOW WHY you are making 'your point' here?