Conversation:

I think that solipsism is nothing more or less than an illustration of the stupidity of the objective perspective. For me, solipsism has no merits other than that it makes a nonsense of objectivity:

Solipsism *cannot* be refuted if you adopt an objective mindset. [It can't be proved either...] But it can be exposed as being rather silly if you adopt a more rational perspective, as we all do in our daily lives... Solipsism isn't the problem: it *illustrates* the problem, which is objectivity. Objectivity and humans don't mix.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

P.S. Nice entry, Lucinda! How did you get it past the editors, given their requirement that all entries should be factual?

Bah!

> "Solipsism *cannot* be refuted if you adopt an objective mindset."

Is that a truth? Is it true for everyone, or is it just true for you?

Well, I was worried that they'd reject it because I didn't exist, and therefore couldn't be writing an entry. Some idiot sub-ed rejected my entry on circular reasoning because it wasn't very good. Sie said you could tell it was no good because sie rejected it. Which just goes to show what I've always thought - certain sub-eds have an over-inflated sense of their own importance...

( to any sub-eds reading this... )

>> "Solipsism *cannot* be refuted if
>> you adopt an objective mindset."
> Is that a truth? Is it true for everyone,
> or is it just true for you?

Well *I* think it's generally true, but you must judge for yourself:

AIUI, a refutation compatible with an objective mindset would have to prove *with certainty* that solipsism is in some way false. I can conceive of nothing that could convince me *with certainty* that the universe *isn't* a figment of my imagination. I don't believe it *is*, but that's not proof.

That stuff about glitches in reality being a give-away doesn't wash with me, I'm afraid. Have you ever tried to catch yourself in a dream, say by trying to actually *read* the book you're dream-reading? It doesn't work - not for me, anyway. Somehow the dream retains its coherence, at least for the dreamer, for the duration of the dream.

In the same way, I expect my vision of a universe would retain *apparent* coherence. I was going to say "for me, at least", but in this scenario there's *only* me. That's rather the point, isn't it?

And then there's the minor matter of the many philosophers who've attempted to debunk solipsism through the ages, and failed miserably... That's not proof either, but at least it tells us that solipsism is a tough nut to crack. For the objectivist, that is.

I'll end by saying that I don't defend the objective viewpoint, for reasons I've already made quite clear. In fact, I'd like to observe that its excessive standards of proof (i.e. certainty) seem to be its downfall in this case.

Common sense and intuition (whatever they are! ) lead me to believe that solipsism is silly, and I think most people agree...? But you can't (objectively) prove it.

Convinced?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

What do you MEAN when you say something exists?

And if my consciousness is all there is there can't be ANYTHING going on that I don't explicitly know about - including how I go about conjuring the whole phantasmagoria into existence!
Sage

Who has perfect self-knowledge?

Precisely!
Sage

Is there any way in the theory of Solipsism for a Solipsist to *prove* to themselves that they are right?

And on the other side, can someone who follows the objective viewpoint use their theory to *prove* in the theory of objectivity that Solipsism is wrong....