why is it that solipsism cant be disproven??

Question

i have anxiety issues but i was wondering is the only reason it cant be disproven is because you cant know and experince what an other person is feeling accept for your self?? am i correct?

so basicaly solipsism is saying " well since i cant experience that person, then they might not exist" is this correct?

Answer 1

The basis of disproving solipsism lies at disproving the self. Ultimately the self is just a bunch of ideas in which humans have identified with. Go to the heart of self and all you will find is ideas.

If you can transcend the self you might see an existance that no matter what it is; illusionary or not you're all a part of the same thing.

Everything is an illusion even you. Ultimately we are one in the great void.

Answer 2

Solipsism gives people such a hard time because we are trapped in our subjective realities. No matter how much we might like to, we can never "get outside of our heads." You are exactly right, i think, because we can only ever experience our sensations (and not the direct source of those sensations) it is possible that we could be totally mistaken about the source of those sensations. I think that the phenomenon of dreaming really is what gives solipsism so much popularity. Dreaming is a state we all experience in which all of our experiences are mistaken. Everybody (i think) has at least once mistaken a dream for reality. If we didn't have the experience of being totally mistaken like that, we might well not think solipsism so possible.

I think the best argument against solipsism is the pragmatic argument of Putnam: it really doesn't make any sense to talk about some sort of extra-sensory reality. We might be a brain in a vat, but since this "reality" is not something we could ever meaningfully talk about (since we don't experience it), when we refer to that reality, our words are empty. In other words, it would make as much sense to talk about being a brain in a vat (or all reality being a dream of yours) as it would to talk about rock formations on a planet on the other side of the universe. You might be absolutely right, but you could never know, and the words you are using do not refer to any experience you could possibly have had. In order for a word (noun, verb, or adjective) to have meaning, it must refer to something that you have had some experience of, but whatever the "objective" reality is, we do not and can not experience it. Let me know if you find this argument convincing or not. It doesn't offer solid proof against extreme skepticism, but it does explain why worrying or even talking about it is pointless.

Answer 3

Solipsism basically says that only perception exists.

There's gotta be, at least, a unit and therefore multiplicity(2) in order to talk about perception, the perception itself and the one perceiving. In the worse case scenario, there's gotta be, at least, duality, do not confuse this moving planes with physicality, perception has nothing to do with any action we think we perform here and this is where we start complicating things.

They're right about one thing; nobody can feel it for you, but don't worry, you're not alone!0!

This is my contribution to Philosophy: I think, therefore I think I am!0!

Because if you think does not mean that you are, only that you think you are. That's where the flaw is. We exist though, but we're not. Again, complicating things!0!

AND, we must not forget, that maybe they're right, just like everything else for us....Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps!

And also per haps...!0!

Answer 4

"sol ips" and "solipsism" needs no real proof and therefor needs no real disproof.

"so basically solipsism is saying " well since i cant experience that person, then they might not exist" is this correct?"

Since I can not experience the other as myself, they are other. Is it not a real trust issue rather than a reality issue. It is the unstable sense of ones own social commitments and emotionality that is ground for this distrust. I think it is either a form of mental retardation or a maniacal attempt at mind control. Be alert.

http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html

"Stages of Cognitive Development. Piaget identified four stages in cognitive development:

Sensorimotor stage (Infancy). In this period (which has 6 stages), intelligence is demonstrated through motor activity without the use of symbols. Knowledge of the world is limited (but developing) because its based on physical interactions / experiences. Children acquire object permanence at about 7 months of age (memory). Physical development (mobility) allows the child to begin developing new intellectual abilities. Some symbollic (language) abilities are developed at the end of this stage.

Pre-operational stage (Toddler and Early Childhood). In this period (which has two substages), intelligence is demonstrated through the use of symbols, language use matures, and memory and imagination are developed, but thinking is done in a nonlogical, nonreversable manner. Egocentric thinking predominates

Concrete operational stage (Elementary and early adolescence). In this stage (characterized by 7 types of conservation: number, length, liquid, mass, weight, area, volume), intelligence is demonstarted through logical and systematic manipulation of symbols related to concrete objects. Operational thinking develops (mental actions that are reversible). Egocentric thought diminishes.

Formal operational stage (Adolescence and adulthood). In this stage, intelligence is demonstrated through the logical use of symbols related to abstract concepts. Early in the period there is a return to egocentric thought. Only 35% of high school graduates in industrialized countries obtain formal operations; many people do not think formally during adulthood. "

Answer 5

thats a VERY limited perception of reality istn it? its an arguing or thinking point, you can reach teh conclusion YOU dotn exist either, waht abotu when your asleep, or when yor nto specifically thinking about your existance? do you exist at that moment?