Journeyman Philosopher

On yesterdays point; what of the practicality of assumptions. Eventually, I would argue, it becomes reasonable to assume in certain situations. As a matter of fact learning in general would be considered a huge assumption. That being the assumption that what you know is the truth, and it is applicable as so in the future.

The problem of the solipsist is one of practicality and reasonability. If for, example, an individual walked out his front door everyday and got stung by a wasp when doing this. It would be considered sensible, if he wanted to avoid this, to exit the back door. However an individual who ignoring his previous experience and kept on walking out the front door and getting stung wouldn’t be considered very intelligent.

Why is this? I believe it is because he doesn’t reference his previous experience ie he doesn’t learn. A solipsist is put in the situation in which he refuses to acknowledge all his evidence based on previous experience, he refuses to learn, and in a sense this stagnates him.

A solipsist would say because all I have is knowledge of myself and my own sensation I am all I know exists. But despite this they continue to be influenced by the sensory data provided by their mind (they eat, they talk to these supposed mental fabrications, etc..). The belief doesn’t influence his actions at all, the solipsist still acts as if people are alive and this seems contradictory. It’s as if he’s practicing a form of mental masturbation, as he plays with himself by acknowledging his conceptual fabrications.

I guess the point is, I can never prove that other people exist externally. And as so I can never prove that the solipsist account is incorrect. But I can say that if you are a rationale reasonable person you have good reasons in not taking a solipsist account. As fundamentally holding such a view rejects rationality by saying ‘I cannot learn’.