Solipsism (/ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/ (listen); from Latin solus, meaning 'alone', and ipse, meaning 'self')[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. — Wikipedia
How is solipsism, specifically the part where you deny the existence of other minds, tenable when cogito ergo sum can be used to confirm the existence of all thinking beings? — TheMadFool
Cogito ergo sum does establish that "Thought" exists now: There is thought now, is how I like to generalize that aphorism. However the "I" seems like an add-on. Maybe the "I" is illusory, erroneous, or doubtful (to use the Cartesian language). So possible Cogito Ergo Sum applies to some kind of "universal mind" of which egos are illusory sub-units. This would be a consistent solipsism. I don't really think this is true, myself, but it is at least arguable. — Pantagruel
Solipsism (/ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/ (listen); from Latin solus, meaning 'alone', and ipse, meaning 'self')[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.
— Wikipedia
How is solipsism, specifically the part where you deny the existence of other minds, tenable when cogito ergo sum can be used to confirm the existence of all thinking beings?
If I can say the mind of an other is uncertain then that other may say the same thing of my mind, and so on, making every mind of uncertain existence and yet anyone, everyone can say, truthfully, "cogito ergo — TheMadFool
How is solipsism, specifically the part where you deny the existence of other minds, tenable when cogito ergo sum can be used to confirm the existence of all thinking beings? — TheMadFool
I extrapolated the possibility that the I is illusory from the general modification of CES.
It is a standard objection or caveat to "Cogito Ergo Sum" which you can investigate by looking at the Wikipedia entry. Personally, I formulated the modification independently.
"The objection, as presented by Georg Lichtenberg, is that rather than supposing an entity that is thinking, Descartes should have said: "thinking is occurring." That is, whatever the force of the cogito, Descartes draws too much from it; the existence of a thinking thing, the reference of the "I," is more than the cogito can justify. "
So if Cogito Ergo Sum does not implicate an "I" it has no direct ramifications for Solipsism, and could be conformant along the lines I suggest. — Pantagruel
Why are you saying that solipsism denies the existence of other minds? — Frank Apisa
Denial of material existence, in itself, does not constitute solipsism.
A feature of the metaphysical solipsistic worldview is the denial of the existence of other minds — Wikipedia
Solipsism is body-art. A simple illusion. A personal and impersonal standpoint, the logic of the universe is bent somehow; the colors are put on hold for second" Oh may I be the only one who exists". From our perception of the vast constellation, we can imagine what it is like to be alone. In your own universe, is solipsism normal?
Is alone the wrong thing and is together the right thing?
Is it stupid to think you're the only one? Then great danger may be before you... — Qwex
The cogito only claims to establish the existence of the mind of the one doing the thinking. It has nothing at all to say about the existence of other minds having thoughts that the "I" thinking the cogito is not the thinker of. So if you're in a place of doubting the existence of everything, the cogito only saves you from doubt in your own existence. Other minds, if they exists, cannot doubt their own existence, but they could doubt yours, and each others', and so you can doubt theirs too. — Pfhorrest
What's the difference between the I and the thinker? — TheMadFool
It's the simultaneous doubt about and certain knowledge of the existence of our minds that's the problem. Using the cogito ergo sum argument everyone's existence is certain but solipsism would have the existence of everyone in doubt. We can actually use the cogito ergo sum argument against solipsism by saying that because everyone doubts the existence of others, a doubter, obviously a thinker/I exists in everyone.
It's the simultaneous doubt about and certain knowledge of the existence of our minds that's the problem. — TheMadFool
Well, yes, that is the question. — Pantagruel
The problem begins when one identifies with this “thinker” and nothing else. Doing so one has no choice to believe in solipsism as a logical conclusion because the body is a sort of buffer or shroud that exists between him and the rest of reality. So, despite all evidence to the contrary, he believes himself to be not unlike a little man in his own head observing the Cartesian theater. We need not prove these little men, these “thinkers” and “doubters”, and leave solipsists to their own devices. — NOS4A2
2. Cogito ergo sum: I'm certain I exist AND I am an other mind to someone at least. — TheMadFool
This is the problem. The Cogito doesn't establish that there are other someones for whom I am an other mind. I'm only certain that I exist. If there are other minds like me, they're probably certain that they exist, but (with only the Cogito to go on) I am doubtful about that there are any such other minds to begin with.
If there are a bunch of different minds, all of them solipsists, then they are all in contradiction with each other. But if I start off doubting everything, including that there are such other minds, and I find certainty that I exist via the Cogito, then my picture of the world is still consistent with itself: it's of a world in which I am certain I exist and doubtful that anybody else does. I might be wrong, but not because I'm inconsistent with myself. — Pfhorrest
You have nothing to say on that point?! — TheMadFool
But it can't be. It can only confirm, it if can, that one mind. I think therefore I am relates to 'I'.How is solipsism, specifically the part where you deny the existence of other minds, tenable when cogito ergo sum can be used to confirm the existence of all thinking beings? — TheMadFool
That other mind can be uncertain about me, if it exists, but I can't. We are priviledged in relation to our own consciousness. We understand how they might doubt our existence as we can more easily doubt theirs than our own.If I can say the mind of an other is uncertain then that other may say the same thing of my mind, and so on, making every mind of uncertain existence and yet anyone, everyone can say, truthfully, "cogito ergo sum". — TheMadFool
When Descartes doubt that everything but his mind exists, he is also doubting that you exist to be doubting that he exists: he does not experience your doubting, only his own. You of course think the same about him as he does about you. Assuming you both actually read exist, and follow from doubt to the rejection of each other’s existence, then you are both wrong. But not because your own beliefs are in contradiction with themselves: you each consistently conclude that you are the only mind, and that nobody else exists to be doubting their own existence, only you are doing that. — Pfhorrest
making every mind of uncertain existence — TheMadFool
everyone can say, truthfully, "cogito ergo sum". — TheMadFool
3. As an other mind my existence is doubtful but by cogito ergo sum, I'm certain of my existence. — TheMadFool
Why are you saying that solipsism denies the existence of other minds?
— Frank Apisa
It says so in the wikipedia entry on solipsism:
Denial of material existence, in itself, does not constitute solipsism.
A feature of the metaphysical solipsistic worldview is the denial of the existence of other minds
— Wikipedia — TheMadFool
Does anyone ever say "TheMadFool" is the only one who exists?
You base theory on "How do I Know?" - "it could be" - "the logic would be different" - "I don't know it yet."
No-one is here with the scientific answer for their solipsism.
Is this all in your mind - is the logic bent? The logic has not presented itself as bent.
What shadowy essence keeps you here? — Qwex
Actually, every mind is sure to exist, insofar as every mind thinks its own certainty. — Mww
How do you know they are being truthful? How do you know they are thinking? That's the point of solipsism. If you already give that there are other minds that can truthfully say cogito ergo sum then, of course, it won't be compatible with solipsism — khaled
Being GOD would be the ultimate terror. — Frank Apisa
That other mind can be uncertain about me, if it exists, but I can't. We are priviledged in relation to our own consciousness. We understand how they might doubt our existence as we can more easily doubt theirs than our own. — Coben
I'll throw out a third options. Other minds are both other minds and also part of the same mind. A bit like a subpersonality in one of us.Consider now the options that are available to us: either other minds exist or other minds don't exist. — TheMadFool
I am sure he assumed other minds existed most of the time, just not while trying to find a foundation for knowledge in that exercise he's famous for.Perhaps, unlike radical skeptics like Descartes — TheMadFool
Some solipsists are saying there are not other minds, period. Not merely that the evidence is compatible with this but it is also the case. Not saying that's a strong position or not, just mentioning there is a third here.Now, if the solipsist claims that it's doubtful that other minds exist, he must mean either that our senses and minds are unreliable or that the evidence for the existence of other minds is compatible with their non-existence. — TheMadFool
Sort of...could be facets of the one beings dream. IOW we don't need organisms that have all the qualities of life we do but no consciousness, but phantoms. These solipsists would then, I think, not be physicalists or even dualists, but idealists or something similar.The second possibility is slightly different for it claims that all the behavior that we exhibit which we consider to be indications of thinking is also compatible with the non-thinking beings, beings that only appear to be thinking but are actually not thinking at all: P-zombies? — TheMadFool
I think you guys seem to accepting a false premise here. That is, I would say that the whole premise that you have any sense of certainty of knowledge or existence within one’s own mind cannot happen without knowledge of one’s embodiment within some external context. The “I” cannot exist unless it ‘knows’ what it is separate from. Humans form a mob of one mind because they are programed to turn their “I” into copies of the group “we”, where the “I” is lost, usually temporarily sometimes permanently. When a human becomes part of such a mob and shares common mind and actions then he/she ‘knows’ his mind is not alone or the only sentient “I” around, maybe much like as if they became that fifth state of (cognitive) matter, a (cognitive) Bose-Einstein condensate with the other minds.solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; — Wikipedia
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.