Talk:Solipsism

Minimalism and Occam's Razor

"So the realist can claim that, while his world view is more complex, it is more satisfying as an explanation."

Genuine question: in what real terms is it a more satisfying explanation, what more does it explain of the universe? Are these better explanations objective and definite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimensional dan (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, realism is too narrow to call the many philsophical discourses which aren't so vain as to credit one person's psyche with only 'real' existence. The article says that if you read it all. Most tempting postulates for a few moments (or period of infancy) such as this bar nihilism negate solipsism. It's a rhetorical, patronising brain exercise to get you to think of the consequences of being a sociopath, selfish human or hermit. E.g. John Lennon was a pure idealist. His ideal and songs certainly pre-suppose the universe and other minds are actually important than one's own as we die and life across the universe, universes, or future conscience(s) does continue. As the article begins: it is sophistic and so ends with being self-refuting idea. It is like saying we are all semi-robotic? Perhaps we all daydream if moralising or philosophising? The very argument that you can only be permanently sure of your own consciousness is flawed in vivid dreams. Genetics and lust/love disproves the thing more I think than death, but Dawkin's Selfish Gene is not the answer. Moreover ultimately religions and philosophies often converge in short that these or one of these will last until the very end, or even surpass in any sense we could perceive as the end. - Adam37 Talk 21:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Metaphysical vs epistemological solipsism

Although the introduction describes both, much of the rest of the article is true only for metaphysical solipsists (eg., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#Main_points , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#Last_surviving_person ), and is false for epistemological solipsists. This seems highly misleading to those unaware of the distinction. Not sure what to do here. Ienpw III (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No reply after two months, so I am listing examples of the above complaint:

1. Main points
   1. "Possibly the most controversial feature of the solipsistic worldview is the denial of the existence of other minds." (A feature only of metaphysical solipsism; other solipsists do not concede such existence but do not deny it either)
   2. "Solipsism is not a single concept but instead refers to several worldviews whose common element is some form of denial of the existence of a universe independent from the mind of the agent." (see 1.1)
2. Psychology and psychiatry
   1. Last surviving person (Is Psychology and psychiatry even the right section for this subsection?)
      1. "whereas a solipsist believes that his or her consciousness is the only one in existence regardless of who else, if anyone, is living. If the last surviving person is a solipsist, he or she will believe that even when others were alive, there never had been another thought, experience or emotion other than his or her own." (see 1.1)
3. Relation to other ideas
   1. Idealism and materialism
      1. "On this scale, solipsism can be classed as idealism. Thoughts and concepts are all that exist, and furthermore, only the solipsist's own thoughts and consciousness exist. The so-called "reality" is nothing more than an idea that the solipsist has (perhaps unconsciously) created." (see 1.1)
   2. Cartesian dualism
      1. "but solipsism usually finds those further arguments unconvincing. The solipsist instead proposes that his/her own unconscious is the author of all seemingly "external" events from "reality". (this subsection actually earlier does not state that all solipsists deny external reality. However, this part makes that mistake again)
   3. Radical empiricism
      1. "Solipsism agrees that nothing exists outside of perception" (see 1.1)
      2. "The solipsist would say it is better to disregard the unreliable observations of alleged other people and rely upon the immediate certainty of one's own perceptions" (not actually the specific complaint I had earlier, but solipsism is a positive viewpoint, not a normative one)
4. Responses (I'm not going to pick out specific examples here. The whole section is uncited, unclear, at times contradictory, and in keeping with my complaints above, often fails to distinguish between varying types of solipsism. It is in need either of a major rewrite or deletion.) Ienpw III (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Multiple Issues

As the article gives undue attention to metaphysical solipsism (or, more accurately, does not give due attention to other forms of solipsism) I have added the POV template to the article. I'm not certain whether this is the right one, but as far as I can tell it mostly fits.

The article is also generally poorly written beyond its introduction, with scads of references to "the solipsist", rhetorical questions, and other poor style. It reads more like International Art English than an encyclopedia. Ienpw III (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The subsection Samsara under Relations to Other Ideas is too vague, sloppy and somewhat misleading, in addition to lacking in citations. Moreover, this subsection seems unnecessary, given the subsections on Hinduism, Advaita Vedanta, Samkhya and Yoga etc. that follows and thus may better be deleted. Nidhishunnikrishnan (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The article does not need to be long, so there is good case for deleting most of the unreferenced material.1Z (talk)

- - - - I just added a new "See Also" topic: Subjective Idealism (Mar 10, 2014) - - - -

Deleted

I have deleted the uncited Responses section per the arguments above. Ienpw III (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Solipsism

I think a revamp for the latter half of this article is necessary. The majority seems to half been written by someone who decided to use it as his/her own vehicle for showcasing their metaphysical viewpoints. No citations, just complete complete opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michanniel (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course re-word whoever wrote, but citations could be easily added. It is a staccato, not really joined-up cross-citation tour of relevant philosophies. Just as it may not be an orthodox presentation by a 'leading thinker' does not make it non-encyclopaedic. Indeed it WP:PHILOSOPHY, plagiarism like that is to disparaged even more strongly. Unless that is you believe in strong paternalism! - Adam37 Talk 22:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible new category for solipsism...

I skimmed this. This may have been mentioned. It will be hard for me to articulate this, but I will try my best. My theory is, solipsism: I am conscious at this moment, but I have always been conscious, and my physical existence is what has changed. There is only one consciousness, and I can only be one at a time, but I have been conscious as the other people that "exist" around me, and their consciousness and behavior that I am perceiving is actually like a memory, or shadow of a previous or future life. Every choice and decision is one that I had made when I was them. My memory of being that person has been forgotten, or stored in the mind. Like reincarnation. We can sense these past lives through empathy ( or sympathy, whichever applies to this ), or déjà vu. This would mean, however, that time doesn't exist. That we live on a plane of existence where we are born, we interact with our past ( older people? ) and future selves ( younger people? ) on what has been the same plane of existence since our creation ( or when we created ourselves ). People in history that we "learn" about are just really old memories of ourselves that our minds have for some reason decided that are so long ago, they can't exist with us in our current consciousness. Or perhaps that our consciousness has been " jumping" around time making us live at different moments which is why there is so much variety in the existences of the "people" around us. For example, in one life we were a beautiful woman who died in a high speed car crash. We experience death ( either consciously or not, for an eternity or a millisecond ), and we are " reborn" as an effeminate man with a serious psychological fear of airplanes and roller coasters ( or anything really fast or related to our "death"). Along the line our new and/or similar experiences change us into completely different people that we love or hate at the moment in our current life. ---- AUP December 29th, 2013 757 am. My iPad doesn't have the button for me to sign and date.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.105.35 (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Utter confusion

This article starts by correctly defining solipsism from its etymology from Latin solus, meaning "alone", and ipse, meaning "self". THE Self, that is, not MY self. But then exhibits total misunderstanding of the subject by stating: "[solipsism] is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist." This makes two glaring assumptions: that Self is identical with mind, and that mind is real. Which is as nonsensical as asserting "I am my nose". Mind has no existence, it is simply a mass of thoughts. Just as the nose inhales (selectively, since it can choose not to) odours, so thoughts are mere pollen or fragrances all around us. After choosing to admit a few, they are assimilated and we call them OURS.Or even OURSELF,as the further stage of folly, defining ourselves in terms of these thoughts, follows. The process is akin to a crustacean absorbing calcium in order to define itself by possession of a shell. "solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist". Solipsism denies the ego, so WHAT 'other' minds? Does anything exist apart from pure consciousness? It is possible to quantify a supposed component of a gestalt such as consciousness or an ocean as a 'personal mind' or a 'drop of water' respectively. First one defines 'mind' or 'drop', then one counts the number of such units. But in reality both are unbounded and unlimited. There are not several billions of minds, nor 10^37 drops in the ocean, but one. It is not solipsism that is a contrived theory, but the reverse; if we define people or oceans by their limitations - imaginary skins - then we are forced to see each as an individual. Like counting drivers by cars, or puppeteers by puppets.122.57.152.168 (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)