Solipsism

Firstly I would like to offer my thanks to Pro for an opportunity to debate this fascinating topic with him. We should start with some definitions. Pros title to this debate is Solipsism, although his first round appears to mainly discuss Idealism. We can take the two together for the purposes of the first round, and Pro can lead off where he wants to take us (ie more towards discussing Solipsism, or more towards discussing Idealism) Solipsism - The philosophical position that there are any no other conscious minds instantiated reality Idealism - That reality is infact entirely or mainly a mental construct Lets start by looking at Idealism. This view is prevalent in a number of philosophies, even to the present day. In essence the Idealist believes that because we only can experience the world subjectively using our senses, reality is a mental construct formed from those senses and can therefore not be independent of our minds. Ultimately this tends to lead to a skeptical stance in epistemology and the view that we cannot be sure of any mind-independent thing. Idealism supposes that Consciousness metaphysically precedes Existence (Reality), that in some way reality is morphed by our minds. This view adopts the concept of the Primacy of Consciousness (PoC). Lets contrast that with Realism, which maintains that there is an objective Existence (Reality) and that it metaphysically precedes Consciousness. Reality can therefore be discovered by our minds through Consciousness, but our minds cannot create it. This view adopts the concept of the Primacy of Existence (PoE). I will offer a short sketch on why Idealism is false and Realism is true. We need to start by looking at foundational and axiomatic presuppositions about our world, which I take directly from Objectivist thinking. Axiom 1 - Existence, exists. An undeniable fact of the world is existence. In order to utter the phrase "Existence does not exist", one must at least exist. There is a reality of something. Axiom 2 - Consciousness, exists as an emergent feature in the world. An undeniable fact of the world is consciousness. In order to utter the phrase "Consciousness does not exist", one must at least be conscious. Consciousness is the faculty of perceiving reality through sense data. To be conscious in the first place, is to be conscious of something. Axiom 3 - The law of Identity is true. An undeniable fact of the world is that things are what they are and do what they do. Things have an identity which they cannot escape and their Identity determines and describes their behaviour. To deny the law of identity identity, would require the law of identity in the first place. The key point for the Realist about the Axioms (which we all must accept), when taken together is that we cannot be conscious only of our own minds. This would mean that a Consciousness is conscious only of its own Consciousness, which rightly Ayn Rand described as a contradiction in terms. Therefore we must be conscious of something, and there must be something independent of us to be conscious of. In Reality, everything has an Identity which it acts in accordance with. This leads us to the conclusion that Idealism is not true, or put more crudely "we do not live in a dream where our own whim wishing can make it so". We know this from our own experience. We cannot alter the fabric of our reality (although we may be able to deceive ourselves that we can). People with severe sensory deprivation of the real world, have severely impaired Consciousness. If Idealism were true these facts about our world would not also be true. There is much more on this topic we could explore, which is unsuitable for a short sketch of the argument. Hard solipsism takes Idealism one stage further and asserts that all of the experiences we have are only "my experience", all mental states are only "my mental states". Firstly it would have to overcome the above problem that Consciousness can not be conscious only of itself. Secondly we have to question why we would believe such a thing, when all the evidence supports the existence of other minds. Thirdly and more damagingly, Solipsism is incoherent because it relies on "Privacy of Experience", at the same time as it relies on concepts relating to "non-Privacy of Experience". Wittgenstein argued that this was the case with language. Language is a uniquely social construct which allows one mind to communicate with another. Without other minds there would be no need for language, without language Solipsism could not communicate itself. Again there is a lot more to this argument, but whilst it may not render Solipsism dead, it deals a blow to it, and given there is no reason to believe it, it is sufficient to dismiss it and not take it seriously.