How could you convince a solipsist of that? It seems impossible to disprove the position "I am imagining that anything outside my consciousness is real". Anything you cite as evidence is premised on the conclusion.
Language is how we create our stories. The story is "I am imagining that anything outside my consciousness is real."
Without language the story cannot be formulated. But language presupposes an other. It exists to pass information. So the fact that we have language disproves solipsism.
This isn't my argument btw. It's Wittgenstein's argument against Decartes "I think therefore I am". Which was flawed anyway because he still believed in God and the Devil, so two others in Decartes solipsism.
Anyway, it's a hard argument to break because solipsism is so imbedded in Western thinking. I had to drop LSD to break through it and get what Wittgenstein was saying.
Language is how we create our stories.
The hard solipsist would disagree with you already from the 4th word. Your assuming an other to try to convince someone of their existence.
Here are a few theoretical realities:
The Matrix.
The Boltzmann Brain Hypothesis.
You're a higher form of life dreaming.
Last Thursdayism.
The perceived existence of language is compatible with all of these, is it not?
I think there's a difference between solipsism and being skeptical about what your senses are experiencing.
For example, there's an other in the Matrix. It's not a form of Solipsism but a form of prison. Ditto for the brain in a vat. Not sure if that's the brain hypothesis.
Also, me being asleep and dreaming all of this doesn't disprove that others exist. Just that we can't prove that the people we're interacting with currently aren't dream characters. Language still proves that somethone else is out there. Otherwise we imagined the whole thing and imagination is ultimately derivative regardless of what we tell ourselves.
The brain in the vat and matrix also fall into this. Someone else (an other) put you in the box to fool your senses (Descartes made this same fallacy assuming the devil maybe tricking his senses, which is silly to draw the conclusion that the fact you think proves you exist since the devil could surely change your thoughts if he could change everything else you experience).
Not sure what your last example is but I assume it's similar to the other three in essence. If not please let me know and I'll check it out.
And again, not my argument btw, I'm not this smart. It's Wittgenstein's and it was hard to grok at first due to social conditioning. But he's widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of the last generation partially because of his debunking solipsism.
How could you convince a solipsist of that? It seems impossible to disprove the position "I am imagining that anything outside my consciousness is real". Anything you cite as evidence is premised on the conclusion.
Language is how we create our stories. The story is "I am imagining that anything outside my consciousness is real."
Without language the story cannot be formulated. But language presupposes an other. It exists to pass information. So the fact that we have language disproves solipsism.
This isn't my argument btw. It's Wittgenstein's argument against Decartes "I think therefore I am". Which was flawed anyway because he still believed in God and the Devil, so two others in Decartes solipsism.
Anyway, it's a hard argument to break because solipsism is so imbedded in Western thinking. I had to drop LSD to break through it and get what Wittgenstein was saying.
The hard solipsist would disagree with you already from the 4th word. Your assuming an other to try to convince someone of their existence.
Here are a few theoretical realities:
The perceived existence of language is compatible with all of these, is it not?
I think there's a difference between solipsism and being skeptical about what your senses are experiencing.
For example, there's an other in the Matrix. It's not a form of Solipsism but a form of prison. Ditto for the brain in a vat. Not sure if that's the brain hypothesis.
Also, me being asleep and dreaming all of this doesn't disprove that others exist. Just that we can't prove that the people we're interacting with currently aren't dream characters. Language still proves that somethone else is out there. Otherwise we imagined the whole thing and imagination is ultimately derivative regardless of what we tell ourselves.
The brain in the vat and matrix also fall into this. Someone else (an other) put you in the box to fool your senses (Descartes made this same fallacy assuming the devil maybe tricking his senses, which is silly to draw the conclusion that the fact you think proves you exist since the devil could surely change your thoughts if he could change everything else you experience).
Not sure what your last example is but I assume it's similar to the other three in essence. If not please let me know and I'll check it out.
And again, not my argument btw, I'm not this smart. It's Wittgenstein's and it was hard to grok at first due to social conditioning. But he's widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of the last generation partially because of his debunking solipsism.