Topics Knowledge

Question My question will be introduced at the end of this post. I have thought on this question for some time now. But first off let me say that I do not know all there is to know about the theory of Solipsism. From what I gather, the definition can be summed up in the phrase: The theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist. Holding this to be true, person A kills himself. Moments before doing so, he scribbles down on a sheet of paper: If You can read this when I am dead, the theory of Solipsism is false. This seems to be a great way to find out if the theory of Solipsism is true or not, but I have come up with a counter: Person B discovers person A's body and the note. If Person A kills himself, having written down what he did, then he would have only been acting in person B's perception of the world; hence, the theory of Solipsism would be true to person B, because person B can still only be sure of his own existence- and cannot be sure that person A ever did exist. This brings up yet another oddity: Although this scenario would infer that the theory of Solipsism is true to person B, would that not also infer the theory of Solipsism to be false to person A- even though he is now dead? If I am person A, I am 100% sure of my existence- the theory of Solipsism is true to me, because I can only be sure of my own existence. If I kill myself, and person B is still around to read my note, than to person B the theory of Solipsism is still true, because he cannot be sure that I ever existed, the way I was sure of it before I offed myself; but to person A the theory is false- right? Can a philosopher please afford an opinion on this for me? Am I just thinking incoherently, or do my thoughts amount to anything?

Accepted:
October 26, 2006

Comments

I would suggest that the problem here is that the term "Solipsism" is being applied to more than one view. Solipsism, as I understand it, is the view that only I exist. This is obviously true. Nonetheless, my experience contains streams of sensations that I am able to organize, for my convenience, into sequences I call "persons", and I have sometimes encounted some of these "persons" discussing another view that they call "Solipsism", which they claim is the view that only they exist. I find this both confusing and amusing. These "persons" don't exist at all, except as streams of sensations, and so they certainly don't exist in the way I do (as I am not a stream of sensations). So it's not at all clear to me what view this other Solipsism is supposed to be. Is it that only the streams of sensations that constitute them exist? What a silly view! As if sensations could exist without someone whose sensations they were! But, well, I suppose it's not surprising that the view should be so silly, since, of course, the view is being "expressed" by mere streams of sensations that are, obviously, not really capable of "discussing" anything.

I guess, too, that I don't know why I would write a note saying something like, "If you are reading this after I die, solipsism is false". That would be like writing a note that said, "If you are reading this after the world has ended, the world has not ended". What sense does that make?