please tell me why solipsism and cartesian skepticism are considered self refuting and not to be taken serious

Question

in addition to that what about wittgenstein?

i want philisophical facts based on logic. i dont want to hear any biased opinionated answers who never even read up or studies on it. i want universaly or at least generaly accepted philisophical arguments against solipsism and skepticism

Answer 1

Mostly because of the problem of evil.

The idea is that if a solipsist believes only in his/her perceptions, and that those perceptions make up reality, then why are there bad things happening all the time?

Or, as wikipedia puts it:
"If the world is completely in my head, how come I don't live the most fantastic life imaginable?"
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

There is also the "shared conciousness" problem. That is, if only your perceptions and thoughts are reality, and an award winning poet exists in reality, why can't you write award winning poetry? He is in your head, after all...

Not to mention the "problem of language". From wikipedia:

"...for to make an appeal to logical rules or empirical evidence the solipsist would implicitly have to affirm the very thing in which he or she purportedly refuses to believe: the 'reality' of intersubjectively valid criteria, and/or of a public, extra-mental world."

Sorry to quote wiki so heavily, but they are much more succint than I am.

Hope this helps!

Answer 2

Neither philosophy is considered self-refuting by philosophers. Actually, there is no purely logical way out of the positions (unless you accept Descartes's argument in the Meditations).
Philosophers reject solipsism and Cartesian skepticism based on pragmatic reasons. If I believe that I am the only person in the world and that everybody else is simply part of my imagination, how am I supposed to treat people? What philosophies should I adopt after accepting solipsism? Obviously, it seems like there is no philosophical guide for my actions, nor can I really make judgements about anything (because I can never get "outside" myself).

One of the most famous arguments against skepticism is G.E. Moore's "proof" that objects exist outside of one's mind. It goes something like this:
Here is a hand
Here is another hand
Therefore here are two hands.
Hands are objects external to my mind, therefore there are objects external to my mind.

The point of this argument is to reveal the absurdity of skepticism. If we are global skeptics, then how can we trust anything? For that matter, why do we eat food? If I don't believe that the food actually exists, then I can't really believe that it is necessary for my survival, so why do I eat? Thus, we can see that solipsism can take one into some pretty absurd positions that philosophers are unwilling to accept.

Additionally, it is impossible to argue with a solipsist because they reject almost all premises from which you start. As a solipsist you can't take any positions except solipsism because you are not justified in believing the truth of any premises.

So philosophers reject solipsism/skepticism because they don't actually do anything worthwhile as epistemological beliefs.
There are, however, philosophers who advocate these positions, though I'm not sure where to direct you to find any. Try Barry Stroud's "The Significance of Philosophical Skepticism" for more information on the topic.


Edit: Don't get your philosophy from Wikipedia. If you want a good resource on the internet, try the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy (written by actual philosophers):
http://plato.stanford.edu/

Edit: I'm not sure what you want about Wittgenstein. I don't recall him ever adopting a skeptical position. In fact, his positions would be anti-skeptical. Perhaps you're looking for his arguments against skepticism.
His position in the Tractatus (which is what I'm assuming you want) is that philosophy is just a way to understand natural science and that philosophizing is senseless, because the best philosophy would just be natural science. So, according to Wittgenstein, the best philosophy would be no philosophy at all. (And that's why we throw away the ladder when we're done.) However, since solipsism is a philosophical position and has no empirical testability (and is therefore not science) we reject it.

Answer 3

Hi you,

If you follow skepticism and what we call solipsism in practical life, it will be a mess because you become a quite mischief to all, you can convince nobody. This can be a matter of philosophical discussion and not a matter of serious debate to reach a conclusion. . So make a habit to believe what you see, hear and touch.

OK, goodies