3 Answers

  1. In fact, the strongest argument against Solipsism is its practical futility. This is, so to speak, a pragmatic argument. For example, solipsists will never be able to organize a solipsist conference, because the phrase” solipsist conference ” is de facto an oxymoron. Thus, consistent solipsistic practice is impossible, in other words, the philosophy of solipsism cannot be used as a basis for one's behavior.

    If we talk about the logical critique of solipsism, we can note that the very definition of” I “implies a distinction between “I” and” not-I”, that is, the opposition of oneself to the rest of the world. Without the not-self, that is, without the world, we would not be able to define ourselves, so this juxtaposition is a necessary condition for our thinking (and perception of the world). In other words, we have no other way of thinking than through the juxtaposition of ourselves and the world. So consistently solipsistic thinking is also impossible.

    At the same time, it seems that it is impossible to strictly prove the existence of external reality (or, in any case, there are no decisive arguments in favor of this). This brings us to another fun problem that belongs to the field of epistemology. If we start from the fashionable notion that negation in itself is more scientific than affirmation (see fig. “Russell's Teapot”), then any study of natural sciences becomes impossible, since the very existence of physical reality is not proven, and therefore, from the point of view of this approach, the most scientific hypothesis is that the physical universe does not exist at all. But that's a different story altogether.

  2. What remains against solipsism is the ego – the unexplored individual ” I ” that wants to enjoy, be happy, be, rule, manipulate, shine for the external “world”, but evade itself – and it needs to disappear? Explore it, because the most obvious-the visible can turn out to be an incredible mirage., surprise!

  3. I have not seen any “strong” arguments, i.e. a logical justification for the impossibility of solipsism. It is possible that they do not exist. “Weak” arguments that show the improbability and/or unnaturalness of a solipsistic situation usually rely on the fact that the arguments and illustrations used by solipsists, the very language they speak, are taken from the very objective/intersubjective reality that they deny the existence of.

    Both Husserl (through intersubjectivity and monads) and Wittgenstein (through the interpersonal nature of language) tried to overcome Solipsism, but somehow, in my opinion, it was unconvincing.

Leave a Reply