Most people find the concept of solipsism to be ridiculous. But what if it is, technically, true?
I’m going to define Solipsism as the position that all that can be known is the self and its emanations, i.e., content within the framework of perception, or mind.
It’s imperative that one not mistake my position for the more radical form of solipsism which posits that nobody else exists except their self. These types claim to have absolute knowledge that nobody else exists. I’m not making that position, of course; I’m claiming that all that can be known is one’s own self, and the content that emanates from their self, or mind. To claim that other people don’t exist implies knowledge of otherness, something beyond one’s own limited form of perception.
I hear this common ’ rebuttal ’ all the time, that my position of solipsism is refuted because one can perceive other people in an external world. But, actually, one does not perceive an external world which is somehow wholly disconnected from their mind; the mind forms these perceptions of externality and people. Imagine this akin to how one can have an experience of externality in a dream. Does the dream environment refute the position that the dream content are emanations of the mind? Of course not, so too with what we call " the real world "; our perceptions, i.e., sight, taste, smell, touch, and hearing are all subjective. Our experiences may be very similar, but no one has the same experience numerically.
In regards to otherness, an objective world, we can only believe, or speculate about it; human knowledge is subjective.
I speak for myself, of course. What I mean is that all that I know of is based in personal experience, subjectivity. Maybe there is some way for me to know things objectively, but I’ve never experienced it. If you can show me how, I’m all ears.
But yes, technically, you are correct in pointing out that error.
So you are saying that you don’t think, just experience?
And btw, Logic is the path to certainty/“knowledge” in place of supposition. Logic reveals when your experience is a mis-perception (a “magic trick on your senses”). Experience merely indicates when your effort at logic (thinking) might be in error. If you don’t use logic in the first place, experience teaches you nothing. But no one lives more than an hour without their intuitive use of subtle logic, “subconscious thinking”.
That is the claim that you only believe what you see, void of thinking.
In other words, if you don’t already believe it, you are not going to believe it.
But I am curious; have you ever seen an atom?
Why do you believe they exist? Because someone ELSE told you they did and showed you techno-miracles they claimed came from such a thing? Or do you deny that too?
So good luck with that. Hillbillies do the same thing.
I don’t " believe " what I see, I know what I see. And I do believe some things based in thinking.
I’ve never seen an atom, no. But theoretically, it makes sense to believe in them. I don’t claim to know that they exist in the same way I don’t claim to know that there are unicorns existing on far away planets.
Thinking of solipsism is impossible, and so is know, because what You see is impossible, and You cannot see solipsism. Therefore solipsism is escapable. Thinking of solipsism is impossible except for the seeing before thinking. Seeing solipsism is impossible for axiomatic reasons. Therefore solipsism is both: escapable, and impossible.
).