Can someone explain solipsism to me because I don't get it?
Do they mean that people are pretending? Say when someone breaks their leg and screams in pain turns white starts shaking wincing and limping etc, are they saying that he is pretending?
Since in solipsism only you exist, you cannot prove the existence of other people's subjective experiences.
>>384315
maybe *I* can't, but other people can
like why would you even doubt that, it makes no sense. as if people are like automatons or some shit
when somebody smiles, how is that not proof that they have that feeling when you smile?
or when somebody breaks their finger and screams, how is that not proof that they're in pain?
are they saying all that could happen without the feeling of pain?
>>384337
Well you do not, by definition, have direct access to the subjective experiences of others. All you see are outward expressions. Humans do have the instinct that other beings have feelings, but there is not any way to confirm this directly. I know Wittgenstein had something to say about language and private experience, but I'm not an expert on him.
>>384379
>Well you do not, by definition, have direct access to the subjective experiences of others. All you see are outward expressions
this is blatantly false. you don't see someone and then infer that theyre in pain, you see someone in pain
One thing I've always wondered about Solipsists is how they explain instincts - or rather, their own.
Why do you have the instinct to shy away from pain, to empathize with others, to be sociable and talk with friends, to have a girlfriend or other, to do anything?
Seriously, from the viewpoint of a solipsism how does one even explain these things? Solipsism to me just seems like something that can only exist under the misguided assumption that a person is a being of pure thought like a god or something.
it's ontology you fucking retards
>>384435
This is where we run into Wittgensteinian problems. Language is like a game where you have to use the correct words under the correct criteria. When we see someone grimacing and fall over we say that they are in pain, and others will agree with us because this is the correct criteria for usage of the word pain. We have public words for private experiences, but we can't go beyond this and ask things like "Do other people REALLY have minds or feels pain?" because those are just words with public rules for use.
philosophy is so fucking dumb holy shit
>>384525
>I'm stupid.
>>384496
>We have public words for private experiences
you misunderstand wittgenstein completely
I feel like if you talked about this stuff to a psychiatrist they would diagnose you with obsessive-compulsive disorder or some shit
>>384555
>muh interpretations of mystical language man
>>384584
>thinking solipsism is complete fucking bullshit is being "anti-intellectual" now
>>384496
Doesn't this sorta get debunked by neuroscience though?
>>384608
You still cannot, at the moment, feel other people's subjective feelings, although it may be possible with future technology. But that just raises a shit ton of metaphysical questions.
>>384584
Solipsists are solipsist because there is no way to truly disprove it , despite the actual possibility of it being small and there being no reason to believe it
Obsessive-compulsives lack the ability to disregard things which they cannot absolutely disprove despite the actual possibility of them being small and there being no reason to believe it
Honestly where's the line?
>>384650
>st because there is no way to truly disprove it
can you outline what solipsism is to me because I don't get it
and can you outline why you can't disprove it
as far as I understand it's like this. on a plate is two pieces of pineapple. I eat one and next to me is someone else and he eats one.
now the solipsist would say there is no way of knowing whether the guy can actually taste the pineapple even though he talks about it and describes the flavour?
>>384697
>now the solipsist would say there is no way of knowing whether the guy can actually taste the pineapple even though he talks about it and describes the flavour?
basically yes, which is why you can't disprove it, every argument can be met back with that you don't truly know how someone else experiences the world unless you experience it for them.
>>384697
Solipsism: Only you exist. How do you know that I am not just a figment of your imagination? You can't really prove it, and you can't really disprove it.
>>384697
Think about it this way; this is all a very good dream but you can't wake up because this dream, and you dreaming it, is all that exist.
>>384697
same scenario but it happens in your dream
does the man in your dream taste it
>>384337
Are you fucking stupid?
>only my experiences exist
>no other beings experiences exist
>even tho they do tho cuz, well, i thought they should given the rules even tho given rules say no1 else exists tho lololollolooolol
>>384282
>Can someone explain solipsism to me because I don't get it?
You have no way of proving anything other than you yourself exist, similar to the way I have no way of proving you exist. For all I know, you are part of an elaborate stage play meant to trick me into thinking there is such a thing as a world with minds separate to my own. Similarly, for all you know I am just another illusion meant to trick you into thinking an external world exists outside your mind, and all the arguments I am advancing are part of an elaborate plot into tricking you into thinking external minds exist.
Basically, you can't actually "prove" anything. Most people accept this and change the definition of "prove" to have "within a certain context" appear at the end, but a few diehard sophists continue to claim knowledge is impossible.
>>384435
>you don't see someone and then infer that theyre in pain, you see someone in pain
Behaviorists, plz go.
>>384604
If you think it's bullshit, it's important to dismiss it in a particular way, which requires a particular theory of knowing.
The fact that you think it's "fucking bullshit" because the answer seems obvious to you means you have yet to git gud.
>>386901
>>>385835#
>solipsism is not serious for anybody not a rationalist. solipsism is the problem of knowledge. so if you do not care about knowledge, then you do not care about solipsism. those who care about knowledge but not solipsism admit that they cannot go beyond solipsism and call other people retarded.
>
>solipsism is destroyed by empiricism (which does not even care about solipsism since it does not even ask about going beyond empiricism) not by rationalism, since solipsism is an abstraction just as rationality/logic is and that the defeat of a speculation by another speculation is again a speculation.
abstraction is what you do as soon as you wish to go outside of what you consider the self. empiricism is what you do when you content yourself with what you sensate. empiricism destroy solipsism because the more you analyse what you sensate, without speculating like the rationalist, you destroy first the relevance of any abstraction, like space and time, then the self. and since you leave space and time, you get out of the problem, of the rationalist, of the induction.
