Is there a convincing philosophical rebuttal to solipsism?

Tagged:

Philosophy doesn’t really work that way.

Philosophy isn’t really interested in arguing against stuff. You can use philosophical ideas to attack solipsism, but the only thing that really accomplishes is the creation of more philosophy. It doesn’t invalidate solipsism, it just creates another position against it.

You can’t use philosophy to argue against God, or Christianity or free will. You can just add to the existing positions. Nothing changes, except for people that are interested in that particular junction.

If you don’t like solipsism, the only thing you have to do is simply not think about it. That’s the biggest argument that you can make, not that it’s wrong, but rather irrelevant. Not even worth thinking about.

This is what makes atheism so hilarious to me. You’re going to define your philosophical position in terms of something you don’t believe in? It tickles me to watch gallons of virtual ink spilled by people who don’t believe who want so hard for other people who do believe to just stop all that nasty belief business.

I never think about solipsism, except when a Quora question grabs me to make an answer. And even then I don’t need to engage with the actual particulars of the idea in order to dismiss it.

But let’s do it anyway, just for funsies. My favorite rebuttal technique is to point out that the position is literally swimming in evidence to the contrary. You, someone who believes that I’m only a figment of your imagination, want to convince me, said figment, that I don’t exist?

Have fun with that.