Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Solipsism isn't true

Solipsism isn't true, but Subjectivism is

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Your reference to epistemology as the belief that all information comes from one's own experience is a tadlet wonky: I think you're thinking of empiricism. Epistemology is simply the philosophy and study of knowledge, which is what your essay is about.

As to the rest... I'll get back to you, although I suspect your use of Occam's Razor is precarious, because it almost always is.


Nice Try


2002-12-05 10:25 am (UTC)

For your first arguement of the fact that it is hard to explain it to somebody else, that is because of the fact that they are "automotons" and designed to argue for there own conciousness.

For you second arguement of when two solipsist meet, one of them must be wrong. we can just leave it at that. one of them must be wrong, this isn't even an arguement.

As for the whole self is god shpeel. the only comment that you made is a why question. Why does the solipsist think that it is the product of conciousness. because that self is the only thing with the capacity to create it. this isn't an arguement only a question.

You final arguement is that by following what biologically the self has in comparison to other beings we can determine that the similarities mandate conciousness. This has two problems. The first is that to the Solipsist biology is created by the self and therefore bears no relevance. the second is that you are mistaking a correlation for a cause and effect. There is nothing to show that biological similarities mandate conciousness.

In short, nice try but you have only posed questions easily answered by the solipsist. these questions by no means demean, much less disproove solipsism as a whole.

John The Solipsism Debater

Re: Nice Try


2003-09-26 07:31 pm (UTC)

Er I got one more small voice arguement.

A) If Solipsism is real then why do you feel the need to argue I mean we are fake I don't exist why do you need to explain yourself, I don't mean why do we argue your answer to that is the same reason as pain. I mean why do you feel the need to argue with Dream Creatures.

B) How do you explain people knowing more than you? If you are "God" than how does the person down the street know more about a topic than you how do you not know everything.

C) In fact, why do you sleep, walk, run, sit, eat, drink, play football, THINK!!!!!

Stand around for a month without moving no food water speach anything. Just stand there

Can you do it? No. If you can do it as you die you will relize the mistake you have made but will not be able to go back and then you will as Vex explained eventually lose everything and die.

Good Ridiance

Re: Nice Try (Anonymous) Expand
Re: Nice Try (Anonymous) Expand
Re: Nice Try (Anonymous) Expand
Re: Nice Try (Anonymous) Expand
Re: Nice Try (Anonymous) Expand
Nicer Try: Nice Try (Anonymous) Expand
Re: Nice Try (Anonymous) Expand
Given your struggle with this issue, I think you might benefit from reading Ramana Maharshi and Ramesh Balsekar.


u dunno ur dreaming when ur in a dream, at least, most of the time, u lose that sense of judgement. however that dream becomes, u dun have an idea of your pseudo-existence in a world created by your brain. and although biologically and psychologically speaking, your brain creates all those people, things, places and events in your dreams, you don't necessarily have the power to control these things you create. in the same way, to say solipsism is a world out of your figment of imagination, you don't necessarily be omnipotent. besides it's also possible that you create conscious beings out of your mind. if their consciousness is dependent upon your existence, then your extinction will mean a total collapse of everything you create.

I agree with vexen


2006-08-06 09:25 pm (UTC)

Some people like myself have the ability to consciously control dreams. If all reality is projected from your mind and you realize it then you should have control over everthing.

You make the mistake of assuming that solipsism is making claims of validity regarding the possibility of the Other, which it is not. You state: "This [solipsism] means that only your self exists, nothing else." This is incorrect. Solipsism is the belief that only the consciousness of the self is knowable. It does not suggest that an other consciousness is not possible, only that it is not directly knowable. There's a big difference between knowable and existing which you do not address in your essay, and most of your points are rendered moot because of this.

Re: Solipsism


2003-12-10 09:26 pm (UTC)

If you look look solipsim up in a good dictionary u will find that there are in fact two definitions. The one which you hold and Vex's as well. Generally in philosophy Vex's defintion tends to be the more widely used. Yours is merely Socratic and selfevident, in that case everyone would be a solipsist. I happen to know latin myself and solipsism comes from the Latin solus > one/only and ipse > by the self (ipsus > self)

Re: Solipsism (Anonymous) Expand

All's well in Hell


2003-12-10 08:52 pm (UTC)

You're an idiot, solipism is impossble to refute in any way whatsoever. Your logic to disprove it is simplistically tautological in nature. You try to prove that solipsim doesnt exist by giving proofs that are suggetive ofthe fact that solipism doesnt exist. Every thing you said was insubstantial.



2004-01-27 01:01 pm (UTC)

Great essay, really. But I have to say it... prove it Vexen. ;)



2004-02-11 05:35 pm (UTC)

You aren't real, and I know you will not agree, cause I am writing this to myself almost, my mind will tell me exactly what you will say.

Re: "Solipsism"


2004-04-11 05:10 pm (UTC)

I find myself intrigued with your take on solipsism and confused as to precisely why you feel the need to drop it. I think perhaps I do not understand you when you use the term "biology." I consider myself a solipsist. I consider all others a manifestation of my SELF... I am eternal and I wrote these happenings before I was born. I have allowed self-created consciousness to forget my intentions so that I might learn from this game that I have set up to keep myself from growing bored. ;-) And so, my friend, I would like to see what it has been slated that you are to teach me... or perhaps a non-response is what is meant to be. Take care of yourself. Live forever and enjoy it. What else is there to do?

oh no

please dont say that


because if we both say that

then one of us has to be wrong.

Re: "Solipsism" (Anonymous) Expand

Off the wall Theory


2004-04-22 06:24 am (UTC)

Well, I don't know if any of you have every seen the movie "Waking Life", but I suggest you all do.

Okay here is the deal. My friend and I were sitting on his porch slightly intoxicated and talking about this whole Solipsism thing, although at the time we didn't know that was what it was called. Anyhow we were talking about in relation to dreams.

Consciousness is a dream and reality is a figment of our imagination. Is so far as what we know as existence is a dream. So my friend and I got into the normal Solipsist debate, you are my dream, no you’re mine… Well after another round we started talking again and we decided that the truth in Solipsism is this (in our humble minds):

I am a dreamer, and I dream things so well, so vividly what my dreams have life. They become self-aware and are therefore capable of dreaming themselves, which creates more life. On and on in an endless cycle until death, which is really just the cessation of dreaming. Them we got into Leary’s theory about the 6-12 minutes of brain activity, which are dreams after death in which many believe you can relive your whole life- that would explain reincarnation and also life after death as a god. So the tie in to solipsism is simply that we are all a creation of each other and there is no one universal consciousness except what we know as ourselves. What I mean is that while I am not the only person in existence I am because I am capable of dreaming and “creating” life.

We are humble high school philosophers with no real training other than our own personal research. I know this theory has holes in it but I’m working on it. Feel free to send me an e-mail with comments at ImADreamer9@hotmail.



2004-05-10 08:39 pm (UTC)

There is no spoon.



2004-08-17 09:53 am (UTC)

Ok, as for Biology, as Husserl would state, it is [bracketed]. It is outside of philosophy, just as all other sciences, and therefore cannot enter the equation of self. It is trancendental.

As for there only being 2 outcomes to "convince others of solipsism", that is wrong. There is a third. And that is that niether of the two "solipsists" exist. But then again, this is not the point of solipsism: to exist, or right or wrong. The point is that one cannot KNOW, to any degree of certainty, anything outside of the Ego, or Self.

As for the "one, true" solipsist being "god" is irrelevent. Solipsism is not a matter of existence, it is a matter of self-knowledge.

Now, this following statement is not an arguement for solipsism, because I am going to mention existence, or the lack thereof, but think about this: When YOU die, to YOU, I and everything that was once a part of YOU dies as well. You will have no way of knowing you or anything else had ever existed. Again, this is not solipsism, but I will leave it at that.

A mistaken concept of god


2004-08-25 08:04 pm (UTC)

The problem here is that many people have a mistaken concept of God. If we conceive of God as physical, anthropomorphic (like man) being, the question of God’s origin is valid. However, such a concept of God is alien to the Bible and to common sense.
When asked “Who or what created God?,” we are making the assumption that God was created. If God exists outside of time and space, and if He is the Creator of time and space, He obviously was not created! God began the beginning!
the question of who created God is an invalid question. The problem is like asking a student to draw a four-sided triangle. The terminology is self-contradictory.

No response


2004-09-07 01:21 am (UTC)

Of course it follows that any true solipsist wouldn't bother to respond or argue. Why would he bother?

Well by your arguments Solipsists would never communicate with anyone. That's not how Solipsists are. They communicate happily, and debate happily, because for those purposes that they've created puppets.

Re: No response (Anonymous) Expand



2004-09-29 12:51 pm (UTC)

your wrong, email me if you wanna discuss it

Ockham's Razor


2004-10-14 03:05 am (UTC)

I will have to take some more time to consider this, but one thing immediately came to mind: you use Ockham's Razor as a counter-argument to solipsism, because it seems to 'cause more problems and questions than it answers'. Now I ask you, still following Ockham's Razor: what could possibly be the need for an objective reality, existing outside oneself? It appears to me that this too would be superfluous. All that I need to exist is my own reality; what could possible be the reason of the creation of an outside world for me to live in, if I could generate one in my own mind? One could maybe argue that each person lives inside his own reality, created out of his own mind. But if this person has contact another person, solipsism automatically ceases to be, as the realities would merge. Or perhaps there are indeed multiple realities, all separated from each other (Picture each person's reality as a circle; multiple realities could exist by multiple, untouching circles)

Bad Argument


2004-12-20 08:26 pm (UTC)

Sorry, this argument won't convince yourself that you aren't all that exists. I am part of your imagination telling you this. I am not a conscious entity. You are. You are all that exists and you are telling yourself this as you read this.

Re: Bad Argument


2005-01-09 05:04 am (UTC)

I think a more approachable discussion of solipsism does not dispute the existence of others (in spite of the literal Latin etymology) but rather discussed how individuals experience the world around them. Take for example, the concept of color. For me, I have a very good mental approximation of what I see as the color 'orange'. However, how am I to know that what someone else has learned to call orange isn't really what I would perceive of 'purple'? I don't have their cones and rods, only their brain can determine what raw input = 'orange'.
Same with the other physical perceptions and how we describe them (e.g. the word 'pain', tastes, sounds...)

Solipsism isn't true


2005-02-19 06:40 pm (UTC)

Having stumbled upon your essay in my search for a definition of solipsism, I was delighted with your style and refutation. I love the manner in which you debated the issue. I felt as though I were on the teacup ride at Disneyland. It wa great fun!

solipsism for children


2005-03-01 05:44 am (UTC)

to argue the belief that 'my conciousness is all reality' you must be a child or delusionally egotistical.

i am a believer in Solipsism ie. that all we can know is our internal experience. to take this philosophy and then leap to the conclusion that all i know MUST BE EVERYTHING has no possible rational basis.

and of course i understand that it may well be true. however to hold the fervent belief that it definately is true is self contradictory.

God Exists


2005-03-06 02:17 am (UTC)


It is true that one cannot physically verify the "other", from the others point of view. In this sense, it is not hard to understand why it is nearly impossible for human beings to believe in the existence of intelligence outside of our own species. So, we have difficulty verifying the existence of extraterrestrials, God, and so on. The "ant" is alive, in a sense, but is not necessarily capable of comprehending the reality of higher life forms. I say higher, because "we" are capable of understanding some of their world, but they are incapable of understanding ours. Solipsism, as an idea, is the expression of the human mind trying to push beyond what it is currently able to comprehend. Since varying levels of consciousness among creatures is verifiable, and the self cannot deny its existence as a creature, at least in part, then it is logical to say that there is the greater possibility that lifeforms beyond our scope of comprehension do exist. If this statement is true, then we must by definition accept that it is possible that we are not the ONLY source of inspiration. Since our minds could be acted upon by another, without our awareness. This is true, whether or not one speaks as a collective mind or of being the "only". To say that all is of you, is to say that reality is less real than that which it affects. This would constitute an impossibility, since reality must exist first, in order to be affected by it. For a more simple analogy, one must first have a hammer to smash ones finger. After that, the pain becomes exceedingly real. The pain wasn't real before the damage. In the same way, we were born, and life became real to us. Before the event of birth our reality did not exist. So, reality created you and not the other way around. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that what we see as others, is in fact true.

Re: God Exists (Anonymous) Expand



2005-03-19 08:49 pm (UTC)

It`s a good job you don`t remember. You created all this because you were lonely, and you only get to experience the `conscious` mind because otherwise you`d remember, and that`d undo all your original hard work. Peace

post me here www.omegaprime.blog.com - Rumbolo


2005-04-07 09:34 pm (UTC)

This is a fact - We all believe in something greater than ourselves, even if it's just the blind forces of chance
I believe in the Universe as the one. The one behind the many faces of our gods and goddesses, our dietes and our spirits. I think the Universe is conscious in a way we could probably never understand. It is engaged in a constant search for meaning. So it breaks itself apart, investing its own consciousness in every form of life. We are the universe trying to understand itself. What is truth? Truth is a river. What is the Universe? The Universe is the mouth of the river.
How i see it there are at least 5 supreme questions in our lives that we must contemplate and if we can answer them correctly we will have achieved true understanding.
Who are you?
What do you want?
Why are you here?
Where are you going?
Why am I alive?
Now there may be others but these are the ones i think if you can answer will help you understand yourself and the Universe in a better way. Remember understanding is a three edged sword; your side, their side and the truth. We must reach for the truth.
Some people will not understand nor can they. Some will desire fairness. But wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair and all the terrible things that happen to us, come because we actually deserve them? So now I take comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the Universe. The fact is the Universe puts us in places where we can learn. They are never easy places, but they are right. Wherever we are, it's the right place .. and the right time. Pain that sometimes comes is part of the process of constantly being born. Also keep in mind that pain does not come from the heart or the hand but the mouth. Lies will blacken people's hearts and transform their hands into iron.
Some have proceeded to call me a heretic and a blasphemer and continually tell me that i'm going to hell. I just laugh and tell them if i was going to hell we will all probably wind up in there together anyways. So why not get a headstart?
The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast terrible inbetween. But there is still time to seize that one last fragile moment. To choose something better, to make a difference. And I intend to do just that.


In your essay on solipsism, I noticed you included quotes from the Isha Upanishad. On the surface, these may seem to be espousing solipsism, however if you look into the Upanishads further you'll realize that Advaita Vedanta proposes a "small self" (our everyday selves, our egos) and a "big Self" (often written with a capital "S"). Thus the Upanishads aren't solipsistic, but nondualistic with a Vedantic (as opposed to Buddhist) flavor. I guess there's nothing wrong with taking a quote that *appears to* support solipsism, but I do feel it's misleading.

BTW, I agree with you that solipsism is not only false, but rather shallow and ultimately dangerous. What's to stop a solipsist from raping, torturing and harming others if they believe others are mere figments of their imagination? However, I feel solipsism contains a grain of truth, a "hint" if you will, which is one reason so many can't seem to shake the feeling there's something to it.



2005-08-22 10:38 pm (UTC)

The point of solipsism is that you cannot PROVE that anything exists besides yourself "cogito ergo sum".

It doesn't mean to say, for a fact that "nothing else exists" that would be a belief and only idiots "believe".

Re: Solipsism


2006-04-09 08:38 am (UTC)

Wow, is that what you believe?



2005-08-22 10:39 pm (UTC)

The point of solipsism is that you cannot PROVE that anything exists besides yourself "cogito ergo sum".

It doesn't mean to say, for a fact that "nothing else exists" that would be a belief and only idiots "believe".


Re: Solipsism


2011-06-04 09:51 pm (UTC)

thank you for being one of the only people who realize that solipsism stands alone as a perspective, or a possibility and not immediately attacking it like some scared child that was just told that santa claus isn't real.

Your essay on Solipsism


2005-08-30 02:44 pm (UTC)

Good essay. The awareness of subtleties, and the gracious withdrawing from unproveable (but likely) propositions, made it all the more worthwhile.

My own feeling is that Solipsism is, since its ultimate basis is founded in an inability to feel that the consciousness of others exists as much as one's own, no more than an indication that the "solipsist" is one who is incapable of feeling of and for more than him/her self. Whether one calls the ability (or capacity) to be aware of others by the name of Love, is really neither here nor there, though such nomenclature is not without use if only as a vehicle for imagery with an interest pre-declared. However try telling a mother who hears her child cry that there is no reality other than herself, and at one level Solipsism can be dismissed instantly and entirely (other than for the simply mischievous or determinedly depressed).

If one wished to develop thought further, one would have to bring in both Aristotle on the nature of virtue (does it exist of itself or is it something adhered to for selfish ends), and arguments developed in the book "The Selfish Gene", relating insfar as they do to the idea that all is based around self. The latter is however a shallow approach, since by implication the selfish gene will do all that is necessary, including the making of allies, to further its health and survival. The former is something that can only be experienced.

All I can add from a personal point of view is that I have been aware of others at times in the same ontological and holistic way as I experience myself.

In summary, to embrace or consider the possibility of the correctness of Solipsism being valid, is to, implicitly or explicitly, admit to a lack of capacity to feel.

Re: Your essay on Solipsism


2011-06-04 09:48 pm (UTC)

It's understandable that you may think that those who subscribe to solipsism actually carry out the scheme and attempt not to feel for or acknowledge others as equal participants in existence. It only follows that someone who doesn't acknowledge their own role in understanding something such as this form of though, would come to a conclusion like this. I believe you are all taking this idea to an extreme level. Solipsism as an idea or thought DOES NOT SEEK to desprove any "realness" or "validity" to life as we understand it. If a mother were to ignore her crying child because of her belief that it is only a projection of herself, I believe that she would feel more responsibity and a new found sense of purpose in her role as a mother. If everyone and everything in existence is a manifest of some small part of yourself then it would follow that any misdeed or act of neglect would indeed harm yourself instead of the suffering of another just simply being something that doesn't apply to you. Solipsism aims to integrate an individual with the world instead of feeling like an individual has no purpose or effect on the world. Everything anyone does affects the world as a whole, the duration that elapses to see these reprecussions may vary, but nonetheless the statement is true. The very idea of wagering whether or not a perspective on life is completely valid and true for all is absurd. even more absurd is the idea that one perspective can prevail over all the rest. To subscribe to solipsism as the truth or as false will leave you right where you started, knowing nothing.

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

You are viewing vexen