is it logical to beleive reality might not exist?

Question

it seems logical at first glance however if you read up on it on wikipedia or the online encyclopedia of philosophy, it will say that the ideas of solipsism are One might even say, solipsism is necessarily foundationless, for to make an appeal to logical rules or empirical evidence As a theory, it is incoherent. What makes it incoherent, above all else, is that the solipsist requires a language (that is a sign-system) to think or to affirm his solipsistic thoughts at all.wittgenstein shows this in his private language argument. It is hoplessely undermined and dismissed

and in terms of the brains in a vat and the matrix idea it would not be possible to perceive that we are brains in a vat because if we did we would no be brains in a vat. i think the mans name who gos into detail on this is putman. he basicaly destroys the idea.

So then how is it that solipsism and the brain in a vat are deemed “irrefutable”?? is it that the ONLY reason they are “irrefutable” is because even though we have theories and even logic and common sense proving other wise we still cannot have true empirical evidence of reality because we cannot rely on our senses. So basically we know that reality obviousely exists. Its just that we cant use our senses to prove it. Am I correct?

Answer 1

I believe sceptism or hyperbolical doubt is a mere intellectual position. It fails to extend its boundries into the sphere of practicality. My first reason involves Moore's arguement; if you doubt everything, even my existence, then who are you talking to? You nautrally assume my existence. Wittgenstein agreed that sceptism of this sort is hollow. The person who you mean is Putnam. Putnam's arguement is more inclinded to linguistical logic, he uses a technique called 'reduction to absurdity'. He claims the proposition 'p' then justifies that meanings aren'e in the head which leads to the negation of 'p' or '-p'. If 'p-p=absurdity' the statement 'p' is false therefore solipsism is false.

Approaching the problem of sceptism from an empirical perspective is self destructive because empiricism eventually leads to sceptisism. You cannot solve the problem with the tool which creates the problem. To counter this, a theory of knowledge such as Rationalism is more effective. Apriori knowledge holds the nature of reason over knowledge that is derived from sensory experience. The statement 'a triangle has sides' needs no justification from experience; it is true A priori. Solipsism hits a glass roof when coming across rationalist claims becuase most claims are true in the virtue of the meanings of the terms it holds. Of course it can be argued that rationalsim can only justify our claims as knowledge, empiricism is needed to generate these claims. In this case i refer you to Moore's arguement for common sense. He argues that solipsism ignores the common sense view of the world, he does this by shielding his empirical claims through rational justification.

From this i conclude that our senses tell us little of the world and are limited to the sphere of the observable. Our mind and reason help us to justify the world as solipsism does to destroy it. Only flaw of solipsism is that it cannot be practised and therefore remains a mere intellectual position.

Answer 2

I think the human brain can come up with all kinds of ideas that have no basis in reality. Such as being a brain in a jar or solipsism. I look at the history of life on this planet and simply can't buy into those things. The earth exists, life exists, humans are not special in any way. The idea that everything we know is some sick joke or some illusion built just for us or just for me is laughable. It's like the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Answer 3

The main question. Is it logical? It isn't but it does happen. I at times have found myself doubting if all I know is truly real? Do I really exist am I truly here? I haven't bothered trying it out and I won't. It would mean to hurt oneself dispose of what is the reality in order to find out. As a believer I don't have that option. So I just choose to ignore those ideas.

Answer 4

I do not believe that argument "from language" works at all. Language can be contained perfectly inside one's mind, and does not require any outside world. I mean have you ever seen logic? heard it? smelt it? Why can't logic and language be internal?
If you go with Wittgenstein 's argument might as well drop all pretense and go with Moore's proof: "Here is one hand, here is another -- therefore the outside world exists".[1]
But how far really will that kind of proof get you?

Answer 5

YES, it is logical.
Reality might not exist or your reality may be different from anothers. I suppose that begs the question what is reality and who does it apply to? does a dead person experience reality? No, or perhaps yes, we dont know until we are dead.

Answer 6

"reality might not exist" is a reality in itself, so reality exists.

Answer 7

No, just pinch yourself silly. If it hurts you are real.