Solipsism and Debate.

[DanieltheDragon]

SOLIPSISM

: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing;

This can creep up in a variety of ways in debate. Most specifically when an individual has a hard time supporting their claims. It is a tactic to shift burden away from answering a question and redirecting to attack an opponents ideas.

An example.

Person 1 =1 Person 2 =2

1 Holds claim X
2 holds claim Y

X=2+C
Y= (X= n/a)

1. X is true because C exists
2. What is C?
1. C is C
2. What is the reason for accepting C
1. We can't prove anything why would you make me prove C
2. Well I can't accept X since you can't prove C
1. You can't know that C doesn't exist
2. If I can't know C does or does not exist what value is X?
1. Y is false because you can't disprove C


I am sure there are countless variations of this. Solipsism as a concept has value. Just not in debate. If we take the stance that all we can know is our self then nothing can be known and any debate because null.

It is not a debate starter it is a debate ender. Once a solipsistic argument is made there is nowhere for the debate to go. It might seem like a clever tactic, but I urge folks to avoid it. It doesn't just end your opponents argument it ends your own arguments as well.

[Divine Insight]

It doesn't just end your opponents argument it ends your own arguments as well.

Exactly.

Solipsism can't be disproved. But as you point out, it's a meaningless debate. Anyone who wants to take the position of solipsism is necessarily debating with themselves by definition of solipsism.

A solipsists isn't worthy of debate, because as far as they are concerned nothing else exists but them.

The other irony is that often times these types of arguments are made by people who are claiming to be arguing for the existence of a God. But once they take the position of solipsism they are automatically claiming to be this God they believe to exist. Because in solipsism they are all that exists.

[Hamsaka]

Funny how this subject comes up down here in Chat. I just replied to a poster in a thread in Apologetics with, erm, this accusation. It happened to be in your thread Daniel, so naturally you saw it too and here we are with a timely thread about it.

There seem to be folks who are literal solipsists for life, and those who I coin 'developmental' solipsists (ie, very young persons). I think human maturity is an ever evolving emergence from solipsism, while it is maintained, but prioritized in such a way that it doesn't inflict harm on the other 'less real persons' that are always about . . .

I know solipsism is a lot more than self-centeredness, but I haven't studied the subject in a formal way. What little I do understand about it really leaps out of the context in debates. It is so exposed in the debate format.

I also sense the attempts to disguise the solipsism when a person feels cornered and is unable to further support their claim (whose evidence is pure solipsism). The 'developmental' solipsists have yet to recognize the pit of egocentricity that their 'evidence' is leading them toward. The persistent literal solipsists have all manner of disguises and diversions that don't much more 'n put lipstick on a pig.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 3 by Hamsaka]

I think human maturity is an ever evolving emergence from solipsism,

Interesting thought, I never really thought of it that way before. Some people just get there faster than others I guess .

Glad you saw it in the debate to. I was hoping to head off other would be solipsists to show its value in debate. Then again if we can't know anything other than our own existence then how much value does this thread really contain!!!It does come up in debate a lot though and man is it one of my pet peeves as I am sure it is likely one of yours as well.

[Divine Insight]

I think the idea of using solipsism as a debate tactic is actually becoming popular in theistic circles. It's not that any of these theists actually believe in solipsism, or have even seriously thought about it deeply. Instead, the popular trend in theism is to simply point to solipsism as something that is unprovable, and then ignorantly extrapolate from this that they also shouldn't need to prove their religious beliefs.

I don't think they even truly understand why solipsism cannot be disproved. And they certainly don't understand the concept of solipsism if they think it will support their position that their religion can then not be disproved.

I think it's just a desperate attempt to grasp at straws by theists who are becoming increasingly aware that their theism is indeed indefensible. This is actually an act of scraping the very bottom of the philosophical barrel in an attempt to come up with something to support their theism. But solipsism doesn't support theism in the slightest. On the contrary solipsism is the idea that God is all that exists and that the solipsist is God. There is no one else. In fact, there isn't even a physical creation. All that exists is a single entity that is basically having a dream.

Most theists would reject that idea anyway. So ironically they are using a philosophy that totally rejects their creator God and the idea of separate souls.

So any theist who uses the solipsism argument has just shot themselves in the foot.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

I agree, it seems like every week someone new is coming up with a solipsistic argument.

I don't think they even truly understand why solipsism cannot be disproved. And they certainly don't understand the concept of solipsism if they think it will support their position that their religion can then not be disproved.

This is the part that really bugs me, committing a special pleading fallacy combined with solipsism= the most irrational argument that has ever been presented.

[Ancient of Years]

What is the point of presenting an argument in favor of solipsism? Who are you trying to convince?

[DanieltheDragon]

What is the point of presenting an argument in favor of solipsism? Who are you trying to convince?

It is often presented accompanied with special pleading. So when asked to prove a claim they make it is a way of copping out from making a case for their claim. It is more of an evasive tactic than one of convincing someone. The special pleading part is that this does not apply to their own beliefs. They can often state something like love exists because of the spirit of love from god, and they don't have to support their claim because nothing can be proven to exist.

It is just really highly irrational and makes my face melt everytime.

[Ancient of Years]

Solipsists unite!

[Goat]

What is the point of presenting an argument in favor of solipsism? Who are you trying to convince?

They are trying to convince themselves.