I can't dream understanding the language of Japanese, — praxis

I'm not so sure. I once dreamt I was fluent in French (I'm not). I was talking it and understanding it in the logic of a dream state. But life often seems pretty dumb too, so subject to whatever reality (noumena?) may be, our life on earth may well resemble an episode of Space:1999. Or even an early episode of Dr Who. Perhaps even Heidegger looks like a rerun of Monty Python when viewed from a perspective of 'enlightenment'. :smile: :gasp:

Ok had to take a short break.

I think we need to define terms, and maybe we can start (and end?) with what is considered absurd. I'm not a social constructivist by nature, but I clearly think the word and concept of absurd is just as questionable and debatable as the word "self" or "reality." As I mentioned (I think) Leibniz made a logical argument to explain away the mind-body problem that ended up with the absurd "Monad" theory.

And Leibniz and his monads (and many other theories I find equally fanciful) is still taught at the University level.

As a logical thinker (trying to be anyway) this seems far more absurd than that there could only be one mind, mine, and everything else could be an illusion. It's absolutely possible, as depressing as it may seem.

Why not?

"Idealism: Other minds exist!
Solipsism: Other minds don't exist!"

Thanks for this - it has helped clarify this for me.

But how can we logically prove there are other minds? I know this is a huge issue, but it's what I get stuck on. I can't get past the cogito, proving there's a thinking thing - singular. And I'll specify that the answer that will satisfy me can't involve any god-mind holding things together, or a cosmic consciousness - unless anyone can provide proof of either.

Solipsism is described as a "dead end." It negates thousands of theories and the purpose of discussing epistemology, since I'd just be talking to myself. But that doesn't mean it's not a sound argument.

I'm obviously not happy with my solipsistic rut...I'm trapped in it! I want out. Help!

But how can we logically prove there are other minds? — GLEN willows

We can't! That's the nub of the issue.

At best we could say that we all have a lot of behavioral elements, those associated with minds (intentionality, speech, motion, etc.), in common with other people. Not a proof, but definitely suggestive, of the existence of other minds. In any case, the illusion, if it is one, is top notch! It has us fooled, oui (re Turing Test)!

How rather disheartening it is that on such an all-important matter, our benchmark is how easily and how thoroughly we're made fools of!

I ... think the word and concept of absurd is just as questionable and debatable as the word "self" or "reality." — GLEN willows

My underlining is intended to point out how implicitly social thinking is.

I agree, the meaning of 'absurd ' is questionable and debatable, just like all the other meanings we've made up or got in the habit of performing. If we debate about or question them, we are presumably forced to do so using such terms.

As a logical thinker (trying to be anyway) this seems far more absurd than that there could only be one mind, mine, and everything else could be an illusion. It's absolutely possible, as depressing as it may seem.

Why not? — GLEN willows

Is a round square possible ? Some stories are just incoherent, and I think the old yarn about being trapped in the Cartesian theater is a like a round square, but less obviously.

"Maybe all these people I'm talking about solipsism with are really just me, just my imagination playing tricks with me...so maybe I'm just crazy...but what can crazy mean if I'm the only one here ? If it's all just me, being right or wrong doesn't make any sense..."

Solipsism is described as a "dead end." It negates thousands of theories and the purpose of discussing epistemology, since I'd just be talking to myself. But that doesn't mean it's not a sound argument. — GLEN willows

I agree. Just because a conclusion is unpleasant doesn't make it false, but an incoherent thesis (claims of a rectangular circle) can safely be set aside.

I'm sorry to hear this idea of solipsism is tormenting or distressing you. I recommend reading Ryle's The Concept of Mind.

"accepted answer"
That's amusing. Accepted implies that there is an authority who has the capacity and power (dynamis) to accept and to make accepted. In philosophy that should be an automatic non sequitur.

"but an incoherent thesis (claims of a rectangular circle) can safely be set aside."

Why is it incoherent? Other than you saying it is? It's entirely possible, whereas a square rectangle is not. Or was it a rectangular square?

I'm asking because it's a genuine road block that's slowing my philosophy studies down. Can you not imagine any situation wherein a person is living a life within his mind, seeing only a pre-set program, and is not aware of it. Forget the brain in a vat or Evil Genius, think of the next two or three thousand years? No? I think there's a lack of imagination here.

This exactly how I felt my first and second time going through philosophy studies. I'm trying to define "absurd" because both special relativity and quantum mechanics were called absurd...in fact why not go back to that absurd "round earth" theory Galileo was trying to foist on us???

Logically impossible is a different thing - but nothing is logically impossible about it, is there? Any minute now Mark Zuckerberg could appear before me as a hologram. like the "man behind the curtain.", and congratulate me for doing a double-blind test of Meta Virtual World #398. (Actually him choosing me to be the test subject WOULD be absurd)

Silly analogy, but my point is an imagined world is not logical impossible.

I'm not so sure. I once dreamt I was fluent in French (I'm not). I was talking it and understanding it in the logic of a dream state. — Tom Storm

I’m pretty sure that if you were to remember what you said in French within the dream and repeated it to a French speaker in the waking world they would say something like, “Que dis-tu?”

Yes, idealism is prone to collapse, as you mention. The problem is maybe a hidden tautology, a language trap. In order for a statement to be true it must stand in some relation to mind .... stand in relation to language ... be a statement. — Pie

I don’t see how materialism/substance dualism/truth realism avoids this. For a statement to be true there must be a statement. That’s the case for every metaphysics.

Of course you can say that the truth does not depend on there being a true statement, but then the idealist can say the same.

Edit: I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say here.

Idealism holds that for a statement to be true it must stand in some relation to mind — Banno

It says that only minds and mental phenomena exist (or can be known to exist). There existing multiple minds each with associated mental phenomena is consistent with this claim.

It says that only minds and mental phenomena exist (or can be known to exist). There existing multiple minds each with associated mental phenomena is consistent with this claim. — Michael

Now follow that through. How is it that an idealist can conclude that there are other minds?

Work through the argument. See what the conclusions are.

Now follow that through. How is it that an idealist can conclude that there are other minds?

Work through the argument. See what the conclusions are. — Banno

Follow what through? In claiming that only minds and mental phenomena it follows that only minds and mental phenomena exist. It doesn't follow that only one mind exists. If you want to suggest that the latter follows then the burden is on you to explain how.

Follow what through? — Michael

How is it that an idealist can conclude that there are other minds? — Banno

How does idealism avoid solipsism?

We have: "only minds and mental phenomena exist"

Now reach the conclusion that solipsism is false.

This is the heart of 's OP.

Idealism often has to make use of some kind of 'big mind' to prevent solipsism. — Tom Storm

Just so!

The odd thing for idealists is that this "big mind" mysticism is supposedly a better idea than that there is a world that is independent of our thoughts...

Both realism and idealism must posit something bedsides one's mind.

Realism is just more honest about it.

How does idealism avoid solipsism?

We have: "only minds and mental phenomena exist"

Now reach the conclusion that solipsism is false. — Banno

You seem confused. Does the Reimann hypothesis need to reach the conclusion that solipsism is false to avoid solipsism? It just doesn't say anything about solipsism whatsoever.

And I don't know why you're trying to shift the burden of proof. If you want to claim that idealism entails solipsism then it's your job to prove it, not mine to disprove it.

You seem confused. — Michael

Not I.

The OP asks us to consider the relation between idealism and solipsism. So it is worth considering how an idealist reaches the conclusion that other minds exist.

SO I am inviting you, and anyone else hereabouts, to give voice to such an argument.

I could do so myself, but folk will quickly claim that whatever i propose is a homo paleas.

Not I. — Banno

You literally just asked me to show how idealism proves solipsism false to save it from entailing that solipsism is true. Your logic is confused.

And I responded initially to your claims that "Idealism holds that for a statement to be true it must stand in some relation to mind" and "idealism is prone to fall into solipsism". I wasn't responding to OP's question regarding how idealism and solipsism differ, which DingoJones answered in the third reply.

You literally just asked me to show how idealism proves solipsism false to save it from entailing that solipsism is true. Your logic is confused. — Michael

What?

Either idealism entails solipsism, or it doesn't. If idealism does entail solipsism, then idealism is merely one form of solipsism. Hence, in order to show that idealism is not merely a form of solipsism, any mooted idealist must show that other minds exist.

What? — Banno

I just explained why your logic is confused with my example of the Reimann hypothesis. Jane claims that the Reimann hypothesis entails solipsism and John rejects this accusation, so then Jane demands that John show how the Reimann hypothesis avoids solipsism. It's a nonsense demand. Even if the Reimann hypothesis cannot prove that solipsism is false it doesn't then mean that the Reimann hypothesis entails that solipsism is true.

If idealism does entail solipsism, then idealism is merely one form of solipsism. Hence, in order to show that idealism is not merely a form of solipsism, any mooted idealist must show that other minds exist. — Banno

And you're just shifting the burden. If you think that idealism entails solipsism then explain how.

Hence, in order to show that idealism is not merely a form of solipsism, any mooted idealist must show that other minds exist. — Banno

They can just posit that there are other minds if they want to. Realists do that. Nobody actually tries to apply logic to whether there are other minds.

Idealism holds that for a statement to be true it must stand in some relation to mind
— Banno

It says that only minds and mental phenomena exist (or can be known to exist). — Michael

If there are only mental phenomena, and if there are true statements, then true statements are mental phenomena. Hence idealism holds that all truths are mental phenomena.

But I would avoid the use of "phenomena" here, it brings too much baggage.

They can just posit that there are other minds if they want to. — Tate

And in so doing they act in much the same way as the realists they critique.

Both realism and idealism must posit something bedsides one's mind. — Banno

And in so doing they act in much the same way as the realists they critique. — Banno

Nothing wrong with that

Both realism and idealism must posit something bedsides one's mind. — Banno

To avoid solipsism, yes.

How is it that an idealist can conclude that there are other minds?

Either idealism entails solipsism, or it doesn't. If idealism does entail solipsism, then idealism is merely one form of solipsism. Hence, in order to show that idealism is not merely a form of solipsism, any mooted idealist must show that other minds exist. — Banno

:smirk:

If there are only mental phenomena, and if there are true statements, then true statements are mental phenomena. Hence idealism holds that all truths are mental phenomena. — Banno

We don't need for someone to say "there are multiple minds" for there to be multiple minds. You seem to be conflating "truths" as true statements and "truths" as the facts that are expressed by true statements.

Or just commit to your usual deflation of truth. That should get you out of your bind.

And you're just shifting the burden. If you think that idealism entails solipsism then explain how. — Michael

Again, any argument I offered in defence of idealism would be open to criticism as a straw man.

So, let the idealists amongst us show how their claim that there are other minds is different to the realist claim that there is a world seperate to mind.

You seem to be conflating "truths" as true statements and "truths" as the facts that are expressed by true statements. — Michael

:lol: "P" is true IFF P

We don't need for someone to say "there are multiple minds" for there to be multiple minds. — Michael

...unless you are an idealist, in which case for there to be multiple minds, the truth "there are multiple minds" must be a mental phenomena... to try to put this into your odd wording.

I'm not sure where I said "accepted answer." Did I?