Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,009)
Recent Questions
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
- Do people with Down syndrome understand that they have abnormalities? How do they see the world? Are they self-conscious about their illness?
From the point of view of “the existence and nature of matter” – there is no way to refute it, since first you will have to somehow prove to the solipsist the existence of this very “matter”, which, by definition, is objective reality. And the solipsist is precisely engaged in rejecting objective reality, that is, matter – and this is a vicious circle from which you can not get out. Agree, the definition from the Marxist textbook that “matter is a reality given to us in sensations” is not an argument at all, it's just words, “vibrations of the air”.
On the other hand, it seems to me that solipsism can be refuted practically: if a Solipsist stands before me and claims that the whole world, including myself, is a figment of his imagination, I will only have one question: why are you proving this to me now? Or anyone else? Or in general, why do you communicate with someone, write books and articles about your solipsism, buy yogurt at a discount, or pay your apartment bills? Aren't all these actions interacting with some reality that doesn't seem to depend on you? And once you interact with it and continue to interact-it turns out that, in your opinion, only you really exist in the world (“solipsism” is formed from Latin solus – the only one), nothing changes, you still have to act as if there are other people too. And if there is no difference – isn't it better to admit that these others really exist?
No way.
It is so easy to refute solipsism that even a kindergarten child can do it. It's just that philosophizing talkers don't want to strictly follow the logic of proof – when everyone is required to prove their claims, and must state refutations of the other party's arguments.
A realist can do this, but a solipsist cannot even start an argument – because he is forced to start talking about comparing imaginary ideas and real ones )) Well, that's it, as soon as these two concepts are separated, as soon as a discussion about reality is allowed, then imaginability immediately flies by because it cannot refute reality in any way.
Solipsists brazenly suggest shifting the burden of proof to those who say that there is reality, but this joke will not pass, everyone proves their own. You came up with what happens completely imaginary world, well, go ahead, listen carefully to your reasoning!
A lawyer will immediately understand the trick of philosophers and other religious dogmatists.
It is enough for a realist to ask one question to a solipsist – and the imaginary world and the real world are definitely different concepts, do you confirm?
PS-you can immediately agree and say YES solipsist you are right, you are imaginary and impose fictional ideas on me, so I cross you out, because I really exist and prove it to myself perfectly absolutely.
There can only be one solipsist alive ))
So solipsists confuse the “inability to prove the existence of other external consciousnesses” that is true, and the inability to prove the existence of true representations of reality – which is wrong, because it is very possible.
PS-2 and if someone wants to talk about practice instead of pure logic, then it's even easier! Imaginary representations are our desires, aspirations. And if they do not come true, and do not obey the will of the solipsist, then somewhere there is an objective reality.
The solipsist cannot remove any external stimuli, for example, he cannot change this text that refutes solipsism ))
Solipsism offers at least two things: that there is a certain I, an imagining subject, and exactly what I imagined.
I am systematically confronted with the fact that this “imaginary” is beyond my control. At a minimum, this already means that the” imagined “world is”objective” in relation to me.
There is no way to refute Solipsism, because any proof can be reduced to its “illusory nature”, and any material argument can be declared a figment of the imagination. However, you should not be upset here – solipsism cannot be confirmed, it is an unscientific idea, so it is impossible to apply scientific methodology to it.