are there any arguments against cartesian skepticism or solipsism?

Answer 1

If, in fact, the solipsist idea is true and concrete, then there is no need for Cartesian skepticism. If the solipsist idea is false, there either an absolute need for philosophy or no need for it at all. Solipsism is the ultimate idea of philosophy because it cannot be altered physically. This philosophy is rooted in dualism.

Answer 2

the problem with trying to refute something that is structured to allow no refutations is that it allows no refutation -- then again, skepticism itself doesn't make any sense from a skeptics point of view, so it's kind of self-defeating too.

the best answer to skepticism that leads to solipsism is that it's highly unlikely to be the case that i am the only one in existence. plus, whether or not i AM the only one around, i have to act as if, and believe that there are others --- since i certainly can't *control* all of these other false beings i've created if solipsism is true -- so even if it IS true, i have to act as if it's not. that was enough to get me to abandon it awhile ago. like david hume says at the first part of Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion --- let us consider that gravity doesn't exist, but then continue to live under its dominion... the same is true of solipsistic considerations -- we can consider all day that we are the only one's here, but then we have to go to work and deal with other people.