6 Answers

  1. There is a good joke about this from fr. John Okhlobystin.

    Father Sava never greeted Buddhists because he was afraid of offending their religious feelings, because he knew for certain that Buddhists believe that nothing exists, including themselves.

    But seriously, the existence of something (someone)can not be the subject of proof.

  2. The very idea of non-existence of self is proof of the existence of self, because our mind, consciousness is a thought process. If you question your own existence , this will be the proof of your existence. This other questioning your existence questions, including its own existence, thereby questioning its own existence-THE MIND IS A THOUGHT PROCESS, CONTRADICTORY BUT LOGICAL AS MATHEMATICS)

  3. There's even a parable about it:

    The student runs to the teacher and says:

    • Teacher, I understand everything – there is nothing!

    • What's missing?

    • Well, neither you, nor me, nor this world, everything does not exist!

    The teacher takes the staff, hits him on the head with all his might, and says

    • If there is nothing, then what is it?
  4. The classic answer is no.

    But you can try to go a little further. If you answer the question immediately and briefly, then one person can tell the other something that the other person never knew and could not remember it or think of it himself. Thus, a person will prove his independent existence.

    A good example is a foreign language. Who, if not other people, invented it? Accordingly, the theory of solipsism raises a big question. If all reality is just a kind of “dream” of one person, then how can we explain the existence of completely new information for this person, which is not random, contains its own structure and is renewed in the same form in different conditions and situations?

    Moving on, we can assume that the solipsist claims that all this information was contained a priori in his mind, but was hidden from consciousness, or consciousness” on the fly ” generates this information, as if completing reality in the course of a person's movement forward in time. In this case, it is appropriate to ask the question: who is the being that contains not only all existing information and any sensory experience, but also contains everything that can potentially arise and happen? Humanity has only one appropriate definition for such a phenomenon-God. But entering this plane of reasoning, we must leave solipsism, since religious views do not raise such problems about the need to prove the existence of other people relative to a single subject. There, God is one and often everything around him, living and inanimate, is somehow an expression or manifestation of his or his will.

    In my opinion, solipsism is a sophism or a logical trick similar to the ancient Greek aporia.

  5. No way. Just as it is impossible to have confidence in the existence of an objective world. However, every “normal” person-existing in the context of social practices, in culture-has a sum of basic, obvious ideas about the world that are not related to empirical experience or are not provable in any way, but are not questioned – including the existence of the objective world and other people. Here we can recall the ironic anti-skeptical argument of the famous philosopher J. R. R. Tolkien. Mura: (showing her hands) ” Here's one hand. Here's another one. These are at least two objects in the world. Therefore, the objective world exists.”

Leave a Reply