2

https://vernonpress.com/file/7502/e19b0d05052691e5d1fa06f3a2939a5f/1543562412.pdf

I wanted to ask people on here to take a look at the above and see if it does.

From what I know you can’t prove it true or false, there’s just no way to demonstrate it.

The issue I have is that when it comes to philosophy I just end up assuming that the person who wrote the paper is right and end up getting fixed on that and it usually doesn’t go well soon after. So I have to have people help me out because I tend to obsess and fixate over one thing in the paper and forget all else.

Especially when it comes to solipsism. I have a bad habit of taking anything that doesn’t call it outright nonsense as proof of it. Yeah, philosophy isn’t my strong suit.

Anyway I would appreciate any help with this very greatly.

Improve this question
8
  • 1
    A single paper never proves anything. After all, the paper could be wrong. I think "Especially when it comes to solipsism. I have a bad habit of taking anything that doesn’t call it outright nonsense as proof of it." is a much bigger problem than whether the paper exists at all.
    – Mast
    Commented Apr 1, 2023 at 5:34
  • 1
    @Mast Papers in mathematics do prove things. Although, yes, mathematics papers can still be wrong, this just means we should use a definition of the word "proof" that is still compatible with some small level of uncertainty. Because if we don't, then the word "proof" loses its usefulness to us because it could never be accurately applied. In general, when faced with a philosophical problem that would render a word universally inapplicable, we should instead define the word in such a way that it remains applicable while still capturing most of the naive meaning, if possible.
    – causative ♦
    Commented Apr 1, 2023 at 5:56
  • 1
    Can you add a summary of what you felt constituted as proof?
    – tejasvi
    Commented Apr 1, 2023 at 6:05
  • 1
    No, it doesn't prove solipsism is true.
    – David Gudeman
    Commented Apr 1, 2023 at 6:27
  • 1
    This is not a paper, it is an excerpt from a 2019 book by a Turkish academic philosopher. And its stated purpose is not to "prove" solipsism, but only to defend it against traditional objections. Considering the absence, as far as I could find, of responses to the book in the academic literature it was not very successful so far.
    – Conifold
    Commented Apr 1, 2023 at 9:33

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

I cannot say for certain, since I do not have the time to read the hundreds of pages of text one finds when clicking the link you have kindly provided. But on encountering the following sentence on Page 2 of the paper...

Since sensations depend on consciousness, the existence of physical things has to depend on the existence of consciousness.

I am inclined to suppose the entire document to be overblown nonsense.

Improve this answer
1
  • 2
    I suggest not to incline such supposition since the culture of Turkey intellects may be influenced by Sufism and Sufi master Rumi has some saying like "How could we recognize something outside of us unless we saw it inside ourselves first?" (not very far from Plato's claim that learning is remembering) Ergo the word existence quoted out of societal cultural context by you may be fully constrained in the inside consciousness domain, for him the existence of physical things is nothing but one of his sensations, then the logic is tight and perfect here since it's just simple Modus Ponens...
    – Double Knot
    Commented Apr 10, 2023 at 3:52
1

Descartes in his Meditations starts from the same premise that he is only certain of his existence, yet using this premise he arrives at realism, not solipsism.

Have a read, even if it is not your cup of tea, you can still get ideas.

Improve this answer
5
  • Hello. What are Descartes's steps to end up at realism, starting at Solipsism?
    – Ryder Rude
    Commented Apr 10, 2023 at 8:41
  • Read the Meditations (available online) and Wikipedia/SEP entries to get an idea
    – Nikos M.
    Commented Apr 10, 2023 at 9:55
  • That would be a bad idea as I will likely come out of it worse for wear. But that is something to think about. But what if someone said they did prove it true.
    – DarkNeos
    Commented Apr 11, 2023 at 3:59
  • @DarkNeos realism is as strong an argument or even stronger. Personally I would doubt anyone proved solipsism true, since I have strong arguments that it is false. Descartes is an example of how starting from the same premise as epistemological solipsism, one can still arrive at realism. Hope these help.
    – Nikos M.
    Commented Apr 11, 2023 at 5:08
  • @NikosM. I posted another question with a different article that suggested otherwise (I think ).
    – DarkNeos
    Commented Apr 13, 2023 at 5:50

You must log in to answer this question.

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