I can still question the need to challenge beliefs knowing how bad the process can go.

It was mentioned earlier that I use practical skepticism and recognize when it goes too far, but then again who decides what is "too far" or practical.

It's not really a contradiction. I know that morality or labeling something as moral doesn't mean more than the sound of the word, but as a gay man trying to live my life I have a vested interest in challenging homophobia.

I have laid out my point though. I only really got into philosophy because it was deemed to be "smart" and "good" to challenge one's views, despite that fact that in doing so it resulted in misery. A running trend I see in some philosophy majors is regret in having their assumptions challenged. I mean not everyone pulls away from solipsism so easily. Though people who say it's true are wrong as it can never be known.

Your essay against nihilism is rather weak, same with solipsism. Moral nihilism I would argue is true as there isn't an objective standard for it. Doesn't mean have no morality or meaning, but recognizing there isn't a capital T version of it.

This isn't about you and neither was my thread about solipsism.

Well the problem I have with challenging beliefs is that you end up with something like solipsism as a result. I mean at what point do you stop? What merit is there in being rational if I have no ground to stand on? I understand that some views like homosexuality being immoral need to be confronted, but not everyone is like that. The universe is vast and scary, there doesn't seem to be any real reason for us to be here or even continue existing. What harm is there in beliefs that offer comfort and solace in an indifferent reality? Also better person? That depends on what someone means by "better". Why is challenging yourself an improvement? According to whom? Isn't morality more or less what people say it is and not because there is any inherent good to it?

But doesn't philosophy have to start with axioms, statements that cannot be proven? What high ground does one have to chide others for their unreasonable beliefs when a philosopher is ultimately no different?

I just think if no one else is being harmed then it doesn't matter what folks believe. They don't need to challenge themselves if they are doing fine.

Honestly the replies remind me of Death from Discworld and his take on it (well Terry Pratchett).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi1atm2HkS8

I mean it's unproveable, well un "anything" really. You can't attack or defend it. I figured why waste time on it.

Actually I meant to say it's not egoistic.

Also it's not really ad hominem since there is a pattern among those who decry love the way you do. It's not really rooted in logic but more negative personal experience with it.

If that was true, you wouldn't need to defend yourself as much as you did. — Gus Lamarch

This is sort of false reasoning. I am explaining myself in regards to your claim about such a love not existing but all you seem to do is assume my feelings and what they mean. I never said it to be accepted by myself, you are reading into things that aren't there. I am merely qualifying the love I have for my dogs. You are making a claim about love but I am giving evidence on why that claim is false. There are also plenty of other people who also exhibit unconditional love or love that isn't egoic. I think you have a narrow conception on the matter.

I'm just saying that this love is not as deep as you think it is. — Gus Lamarch

I would have to disagree with this.

Either way, I wouldn't go by your argument on love.

Having loved and lost many times I can honestly say this is not true.

You underestimate me then. I would not hesitate to die for them if I knew if would save them. I don't say I have unconditional love to feel better about myself or label myself as noble, most people don't even know that and I don't tell them. It's just how I would qualify how I feel about them. I wondered if such a love existed and I did doubt it, until I found myself feeling it for my dogs. It's definitely egoistic.

And like I said there are plenty of Buddhist monks and some "enlightened" folks who would beg to disagree with your claim.

I would argue that your denial of it's existence makes you sound jaded or edgy rather than say anything about the love itself.

I mean isn't what is rational and logical just based on human judgments? To me I think philosophy isn't taken that seriously because it's just glorified opinions. There doesn't seem to be a "right" answer. Most people tend to take right and wrong for granted or given without wondering why that is.

Also I thought idealism was debunked.

I find it odd that he suggests that the position of solipsism is supported by his observations (early on in the thread).

I can't say I agree with it being egoistic, or that there is no unconditional love. I have unconditional love for my dogs, and I have the property damage to prove it. Nothing they do can make me stop loving them.

Also I think a few Buddhist monks might say otherwise.

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4846074/fpart/1/vc/1

Well the OP in the thread thinks that we are presupposing the existence of a thing to interact with but does not elaborate on that. He also thinks that it is the end result of Occam's Razor, but that is debatable to be honest.

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/17145957#17145957

Other topics say that solipsism just says that one cannot know if other minds exist or other consciousness but it doesn't deny such things just that you can't know for sure. If this is the claim then I can agree with that. I cannot know for sure. It's all induction. But Occam's Razor seems to point against solipsism not for it, but even then Occam's Razor doesn't make something right.

But to answer the question of how do I know? I don't for sure. I read things, test them and if it works then that's how I know. But for this I can't really test it.

Yes I realized that now. I find it comical how many misuse the theorems.

There was a reply on the Reddit page for solipsism that helped me out a lot:

A thing being logically sound =/= that thing being true. In fact since the idea that the world is as it seems is logically sound, that argument is self defeating.

If you want to throw around philosophical razors and logical gizmos, Occam’s razor is the idea that the simpler more mundane explanation is more often the correct one. So we have a) the world is as it presents itself, or b) everything is a lie and you are the only real thing in this world. Occam’s razor is really firmly against solipsism. However, just as something being logical does not necessitate its truth, Occam’s razor does not dictate truth either.

I’d also point out while we are on the subject of Razors that Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword (for an idea to be worth discussing as a true possibility it must have demonstrable consequences), Hitchen’s razor (he who makes the claim must provide proof, a claim without proof requires no evidence to dismiss), and Sagan’s Standard (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) are all also firmly against solipsism.

https://www.reddit.com/r/solipsism/

Though browsing the Reddit for it helps show me how stupid it is from an outside perspective. People tend to interpret it as something spiritual or whatnot, saying we are all one (which is NOT what it says, even the wikipedia page clarifies that on the Eastern religions).

I totally agree with you here. Unfortunately, when strict logic and one's individual, immediate perception suggest something, it moves out of the realm of "ad ignoratiam" as you put it.

This was a follow up to my original quote about who positing the existence of anything else is faith.

For what it's worth, on some level I don't think "Strict logic" would point to solipsism. To me that is more about doubt that anything else, which most people wouldn't unless their senses fail to a drastic degree. I don't think an average logical person would conclude they are the only thing in existence or that they are the only thing they can know to exist (which is one thing I doubt about solipsism). I mean the difference between this world and my dreams is radical, so I don't consider this world "fake" because I would have to know what's real (and that can literally be turtles all the way down). A reasonable person would look at all this and not conclude they made it or it's not real unlike they woke up from it or looked at it from the outside. So in order to prove solipsism true it would have to be false.

Solipsism dose not take into account the relational nature of existence, it makes no comment on this issue whatsoever. Nothing can exist relative to itself. A human being is born. A human being is a living organism, that has evolved in the biosphere, so it has evolved relative to the biosphere. A human organism must exchange gases, heat, take in water, food, excrete entropy, etc, as well as interpret sensory data from the information surrounding them. Note you have evolved various senses to interpret sensory data relating to the information external to you. Sorry to put it this way, but you are a system evolved to interact with an external world, and other people. — Pop

There's still that pesty "last thursdayism" where everything you knew and all that was sprung into being last thursday. I'm also sure there is an argument for what you are saying about an external reality (again I urge folks to look at the links, it's a quicker read than it looks).

But I do highly doubt solipsism is the truth because of...well everything around me. I find it highly unlikely I made everything so tuned like this, also why would there be a dream where anything can happen and this world. Even if I don't have hard evidence for an external reality, if I were to comply with his STRICT LOGIC the explanation would be an external reality. It would explain how there is a dream where anything happens, and this reality where everything is stable and enduring. As for my mind and self being the only thing to be known to exist, I disagree. That's an assumption, especially since I don't even know what a mind is truth be told.

If I want to Occam's Razor an external reality is the simplest explanation, I don't see how Occam's Razor leads to solipsism like they claim because to me that just complicates things.

Still, it's...odd to doubt the people you've known for so long. It's scary to invest in them in case they aren't real. Scary to know that when I die there is a chance all of this could be lost and nothing I would do would matter. What point is there in helping others if you don't know if they are even real? Such fears are hard to shake. Makes me wish I never heard of it. You have to understand how little it means to hear other people tell you they exist when a counterpoint could argue that they are just programmed that way.

I suppose sensation is being as opposed to not being. Without sensation, there is nothing, which is inconceivable to the conscious mind. Stop moving completely for a moment, stop thinking, do not attempt to rationalize anything and just be still. Your state of being at that time will be the only thing in existence from your perspective, to assume that anything else is existing will require faith. I guess I can't give you a concrete answer because you are still presupposing that you are experiencing a "thing." Why does this have to be so? When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency. You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight.

It's just that the doubt gets me thinking and it worms it's way in. I've always taken this sort of thing for granted in the past, that other people exist, external reality, etc. I never doubted that until it was asked "how do I know"? I don't have an answer. How do I even know I am experiencing a thing?

https://www.quora.com/Is-solipsism-a-satisfying-philosophical-thought

The first answer here says the Incompleteness Theorems says that all truth is ultimately solipsistic and that nothing can be proved without resorting to unproveable premises. Also the Boltzmann brain thought experiment.

I get that everyone is trying to say to me that other people exist, but how do you know? How does anyone know?

I've been trying to do that so far, but it hasn't worked. Once I stop doing the things I find meaning in it comes back in to me. Even when I wake it comes back. I don't like problems with no solutions, or people saying that I am presupposing that I am experiencing a "thing" when solipsism doesn't argue that.

I would like to think that, but the man hasn't been on the forum for 5 years so I doubt I'll get a resolution to that question.

Nonetheless however, should one cease to find faith in either resolution, solipsism gifts you with a number of meaningful comforts. If the existence of your mind is all that can be known, then contemplate this: the entirety of the universe, its most dazzling recesses, the very nature and history of man and all its discoveries - in short, the complete and exhilarating narrative that has complemented your consciousness thus far, is a consequence of your own imagination.
How reassuring an eventuality is that? — Aryamoy Mitra

That rings hollow if I am all alone though. It's like if I won the lottery but had no one to celebrate, or being alone on your birthday. I'm sorry, but I just can't take any comfort in solipsism if it was true. But trying to tell myself that it's not true or that I don't believe it feels like I'm just lying to myself for comfort. I've had this before and the experience then was major unreality to the point that my driving was impacted. I somehow forgot about it, but it came back again because I never "got over it" because it has no solution. I don't now how to go on in life second guessing everything and everyone I meet. I mean if solipsism were true and one feels loneliness, why create all this? But then again it doesn't really say you made all this though, it just says that the mind is all that can be known to exist.

I've combed through a lot of arguments and forums on this so I can't relay everything or remember it all.

I would encourage looking at this one: https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4846074/fpart/2/vc/1#4846074

As the OP's replies kind of hurt my objections to it. I mean the minor saving grace is that the whole thread is just a "maybe", OP believes in it but says he treats it like it's real (still wrapping my head around it).

Other lines of reasoning say: "Nothing exists. Even if it did nothing can be known about it. Even if something could be known it can't be communicated. Even if it could be communicated it can't be understood".

Combined with my poor understanding of philosophy and how it all works and what a good argument or not (and the sting of reading how some folks say it's true), I'm sort of in the tempest without a boat.

Well one of the links I posted questioned why a mind would have to exist anywhere or what rule says that. It also says that solipsism doesn't argue that you can control reality. I would like to say that I can summarize the points but it's a long thread (6 pages) and there is a lot of points made. I don't want to post all of them if I can help it.

Also you say that I know other people exist, but the thing is I don't. I vehemently believe this, but I don't know it (not for sure). It's getting harder each day to be honest and right now I'm just doing this out of habit, but every now any then the full weight of solipsism dawns on me every now and then and it threatens to swallow me.

Sorry for the dense text but this is the post on solipsism as the default:

I will begin by saying that by any standard of proof, the onus is on an opponent of solipsism to prove solipsism is false. That is because solipsism is the default stance. You exist, and that is all you can be sure of. Basic Descartes which has not been shown to be false. The best argument against Cogito is that 'maybe you only think you exist' but this argument can never get off the ground since this already implies the Cogito. (How can you think something without existing?)

Now,

IT is important to define the different notions of solipsism.

First there is the notion that all that exists is your mind. This might encompass an experience.

If if encompasses an experience then nothing disproves solipsism. Your feeling something bump is just a sensation of yours, as is your sensation of being in control of things when you are. All that exists are the sensations, and they are what comprise your mind.

Mind might encompass experience plus action If it encompasses action then there must be something that you have action over. Therefor either you have action over all things or else you have action over some thing, IN WHICH case there exist multiple things.

Now solipsism can still hold true if you think the self has action over some of its 'body'. IF you think that the self is comprised of a body and a mind, then solipsism is still defualt, because quite simply, the things you experience, the 'people' you have relationships with are just part of your body, part that you do not have control over.

To deny solipsism in this sense is to say that other people have consicous minds, but this is not proven and in fact we have no way of proving this. We take it by faith.

If the self is considered to have control over all of itself, then solipsism is clearly FALSE because we do not have control of everything.


So the senses that solipsism is not disproven are:

All that exists is your experience, including your experience of control and of being affected by things that you percieve as 'other'.

Or

All that exists is your mind and your body. You have control over some aspects of the body, and not others. The body supplies your mind with sensations. The crucial point is that no other minds exist.


A sense that solipsism IS disproven is:

All that exists is you (either body+mind or just mind), and you have control over every aspect of yourself. This is not true because we simply dont have control over everything.


Solipsism is a most potent idea in the context of philosophy of MIND. Does your consciousness exist in a world with other consciousnesses or is it just your consciousness?

Since each consciousness only has access to its own consciousness, it has no way of proving that any other consciousness exists. Therefor the default stance is SOLIPSISM. Nevertheless this is hard to accept because we see other 'peope' who seem to behave just like us, therefor we infer INDUCTIVELY that other consciousness probably exists, unproven.

Well I was hoping people would leaf through the links I left and point out something that I missed in it.

You ask me to act on faith but that sounds very uncomfortable to me. When I think faith I think of religion and the like and that faith is sort of a weakness of the mind for those who can't accept reality. I wish I had the strength of mind to believe you guys but, I've just read several replies that make me question the notion of other people. Some on Quora say it's true because all we have is experience. To believe in others is faith. I'm not sure how to reply to the few who say it's true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

"There is no conceptual or logically necessary link between mental and physical—between, say, the occurrence of certain conscious experience or mental states and the 'possession' and behavioral dispositions of a 'body' of a particular kind."

You say it's no difference between a perfect illusion or a real deal, but the way I see it if this is just all in my head then nothing matters and I am truly alone. There is no family, friends, other people. There is no reason to treat anyone well or invest in this reality at that point because it all vanishes on my death. Were it real then it would be different because I would be impacting the lives of people and making a difference or change. But if it's not, well then I feel like nihilism would follow shortly after. It's why I can't take seriously that it doesn't matter, it does. I mean by that logic it would matter how I treat characters in a video game when that isn't true because they aren't real.

Also the link I provided explains how it's a straw man to say a solipsist can bend reality, solipsism does not assert that you can defy the laws of physics.

I've tried thinking about something else but this worms it's way into everything in my life because it shattered the certainty I had in an external reality. I'm not even sure how I'm still holding it together like this.

Well I'm embarrassed to admit that I poked around a few forums and got responses of people saying it's true, some saying it's not, some saying it doesn't matter, etc. The ones who said it was true stuck out the most in my mind.

I also browsed a few forums that had philosophy sections and two of them stuck out (I know that the site name might seem like it's sketchy but rest assured I don't partake in the stuff, I just found some people arguing about it there and I couldn't come up with a good rebuttal to their points):

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4846074/fpart/2/vc/1#4846074

(This one is the one that sort of shook my sanity on the subject)

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/14562023/fpart/2/vc/1#14562023

This is the one that maintained solipsism as the default and that realism is the one that needs to meet the burden of proof. I read through both but the first one gave me the most issues. I wasn't entirely convinced that solipsism is the default. People sometimes use the dream argument for solipsism but my point to that is that you only know that world was "fake" because you woke from it. It says nothing about the world you woke up in.

Nobody is cosmically alone. It is an impossibility. You cannot exist without the information surrounding you. The information surrounding you includes your friends, family, community, etc. Whilst you comprehend this information in your mind, it is real information from real sources - your peers, and a real physical world. Consciousness can not exist in the absence of integrated information, In my opinion, so external information is vital for consciousness. This means connection to externalities, without which everything would be ineffable. So don't worry, you are not cosmically alone, and can not possibly be. — Pop

I'm pretty sure that the reply I heard to this stance on the matter is that such a stance is not "known" it is a leap of faith to assume others and an external world. I would love for it to be an impossibility because I can ditch this ghost. But the information around me is just that, information. It doesn't make them real or existent. As my quote from the thread I read says, we presuppose that this information comes from a source or that we are experiencing some "thing". I don't mean to sound like a "butt" but I'm just saying what I've heard others say in response to such claims. I want to be over this, yes. But I don't want to cheap shot it, though I'm not sure what that entails.