Or, Why I Think Solipsism is Irrelevant At Best
I never read a lot of works on solipsism, nor do frequently
read a lot of philosophy, though I certainly appreciate the power and value of
so much of it. Truth is, I just like to
figure out things on my own (Mom used to said to me, when a kid, that I was
trying to “reinvent the wheel”!). Also,
I find a lot of philosophy too academic to have any bearing
on real world events, although I do appreciate (and even love to read!) about
the finer points of what makes an argument valid, coherent, etc. (though
largely limited to reading about fallacies).
I guess all this means I have a love-annoyance relationship with
philosophy – appreciating its very real value in shining light on formerly dark
aspects of the nature of things, but irritated that so much of it is not
readily applicable to helping people determine what truly is valuable in life,
nor how the academics findings are applicable to ordinary people.
Anyway, on to the topic in the blog title…
solipsism seems only
to have found a facile way to avoid the more difficult task of a critical
analysis of what is 'real' and what isn't, and what 'reality' means.[2]
I can certainly see what both sides are talking about. On one hand, I see nothing that would fatally defeat the
notion that, in principle at least, our minds may well be hardwired to see
the universe in a certain fundamental way - a way that our free will cannot
exercise the slightest control over. Mainstream philosophers apparently handwave away this
point of view as "absurd" without any evidence conclusively proving it absurd.
On the other hand, the Solipsist assertion does nothing to prove the
outside world does not exist (as if that is possible). Yet neither can they prove that our minds do, in fact, create all of reality, or even a small
part of it – as though we exist under a Matrix-like regime.
Likewise, the Solipsists claims are impossible to prove or even outright false.
In the end, it's difficult to see how discussions about Solipsism
beyond what I just wrote can be of any value beyond academic parlor games (and
movie plots, as noted above). Therefore,
as a matter of practical application, I side with mainstream philosophers
despite their inability to conclusively demonstrate Solipsism is, in fact, a
false view of reality. After all, even
if the Solipsists are right, I cannot in the slightest way will any changes in the basic laws of
the reality I experience.
Therefore, it is best to treat my perceptions as if it they were real (i.e. actually exist outside my mind). After all, that outside world (or
the involuntarily generated illusion) has considerable bearing on how my state
of mind is, so it is best to learn how that reality (real or not)
operates. I can only do so if I ignore
other Solipsists claims entirely.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#Philosophical_poverty
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#Philosophical_poverty
