Solipsism is unconvincing and implausible because it is a complex and confusing explanation.

  1. Solipsism offers two different explanations for no reason at all: one for my behavior and one for other people's behavior.

This makes solipsism a more complex and confusing explanation.

The existence of other minds offers a single explanation for my behavior and the behavior of other people. This makes the existence of other minds a simple and straightforward explanation.

  1. Solipsism says that only I have a mind, and other people who are very similar to me and whose behavior is very similar to mine do not have minds.

This explanation is complicated and confusing because it makes me special among other people for no reason at all.

  1. Solipsism says that only my mind exists and that all people are created by my mind and exist only for me to interact with them. That is, all people and the whole world were created by my mind just for me.

It's also a complicated and confusing explanation because it also makes me special for no reason at all.

  1. But if we consider the scenario in which I am in the world created by the mind.

And in this world, other people have no minds.

Other people are also created by the mind.

But this is not my mind.

In this case, I will no longer be special because other people and the surrounding world were not created by my mind and not for me.

Where in this explanation are implausible and unconvincing statements?

Help me figure this out.

Also, please explain if I made any mistakes in my explanations.

Thank you very much.

  • 1
    All this misses the key point: There is something very unique to your experience of you being you. Something completely unexplainable, unshareable, indescribable. See What is it like to be a bat. It is a fact that the verb to be is not just irregular in English but is regularly irregular in a slew of languages. Eg He is, you are, I am. Compare with any other verb sit, talk, eat...
    – Rushi
    Apr 13 at 11:14
  • 3
    I find it implausible and unconvincing, and that is all that matters.
    – Scott Rowe
    Apr 13 at 13:02
  • 1
    I'm not sure who or what you are arguing against here. I think you're probably right that solipsism's explanatory power is rather limited compared to non-solipsistic views. But that is not controversial: I have never encountered solipsism functioning in a philosophical work as an "explanation" for anything. ... Apr 13 at 18:24
  • 2
    Here is the thing I dislike about solipsism: someone else thought of it first. Apr 13 at 22:47
  • 2
    If you argue in favour of solipcism with others, you've already lost.
    – IMil
    Apr 14 at 1:03

2 Answers 2


OP: "Where in this explanation are implausible and unconvincing statements?"

  1. Solipsism says that only my mind exists

Your mind has been cultivated by interaction with others and immersion in culture since birth, so it is not an island. A child may initially assume that it actually is the whole world and later develops an appreciation of separate identities, but the idea that "this bit is mine to look after" does not mean that your mind is all your own product. Your mind is produced with others, in, as Heidegger puts it in Being & Time, a "with-world".

¶ 26. The Dasein-with of Others and Everyday Being-with

. . . Thus in characterizing the encountering of Others, one is again still oriented by that Dasein which is in each case one's own. But even in this characterization does one not start by marking out and isolating the 'I' so that one must then seek some way of getting over to the Others from this isolated subject? To avoid this misunderstanding we must notice in what sense we are talking about 'the Others'. By 'Others' we do not mean everyone else but me—those over against whom the "I" stands out. They are rather those from whom, for the most part, one does not distinguish oneself—those among whom one is too. This Being-there-too [Auch-da­-sein] with them does not have the ontological character of a Being-present­-at-hand-along-'with' them within a world. This 'with' is something of the character of Dasein; the 'too' means a sameness of Being as circumspectively concernful Being-in-the-world. 'With' and 'too' are to be understood existentially, not categorially. By reason of this with-like [mithaften] Being-in-the-world, the world is always the one that I share with Others. The world of Dasein is a with-world [Mitwelt].

  • Please explain why solipsism is not convincing and implausible?
    – Arnold
    Apr 13 at 11:47
  • @Arnold Because your mind is not an island. Apr 13 at 12:08
  • 1
    But this suggests that only I have a mind and other people do not have minds.Where exactly is implausibility and unconvincingness here?
    – Arnold
    Apr 13 at 12:34
  • 1
    @Arnold So you are dreaming everything, like in the Chuang Tzu : "you do not know whether we that are now speaking are awake or in a dream. ... When one rests in what has been arranged, and puts away all thought of the transformation, he is in unity with the mysterious Heaven.'" Apr 13 at 12:46
  • 1
    @ScottRowe hear hear! Why oh why do people perpetuate the meaningless blather spouted by the likes of Heidegger. FFS. Apr 16 at 21:19

I consider it unplausible and unconvincing that solipsists do not act and behave as solipsists in their daily life. Solipsism is only an interesting game of thoughts.

  • If they did act like solipsists, everyone else would clash with them pretty quickly. They are probably smart enough not to.
    – Scott Rowe
    Apr 14 at 0:37

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .