This article is really not good.
I need axioms to explain why I sometimes hurt, <other bad stuff>
The author seems to be conflating solipsism with the very specific position (which happens to be compatible with solipsism) that “it’s all in my imagination”. Even then, his argument is bad; it’s not hard to find examples of people treating themselves badly.
why my perceptions of what is nearby are so limited
Again, solipsism is compatible with many viewpoints like “the world is a computer simulation and I’m the only PC” which are perfectly compatible with the fact that people aren’t omniscient.
We find people who live as if they were the center of all being ethically repugnant.
This isn’t even an argument, it’s just a lazy appeal to pathos. If you’re looking for a specific fallacy, it’s definitely at least an Appeal to Consequences.
as you can plainly see, logic is flawed and finite.
The gist of this piece seems to be, to a large extent, “feels > reals”. I’m not sure what the author was trying to get across beyond that. It’s fine (and correct) to point out that you can’t be 100% confident about any of these things, but proposing “it’s bad” as a heuristic for not believing something is pretty lazy.
It is the kind of thing that makes ordinary people think of philosophers as Jackasses
No, it’s things like this article that makes me think of “philosophers” as jackasses; people who engage in unproductive masturbatory verbal perambulation and then pretend that they’ve made an argument worth reading and slap a big clickbait title on it.
it’s not hard to find examples of people treating themselves badly.
It’s even easier to refute his argument, since dreams are solipsism and you can hurt in dreams and bad things happen frequently in dreams (we even have a word for these, called nightmares) and you are not omnipotent in dreams either - in some you can fly, in others you can’t even move. And the artist of the dream and the experiencer of said dream is all the same person.
No, it’s things like this article that makes me think of “philosophers” as jackasses; people who engage in unproductive masturbatory verbal perambulation
Yes, the throwing around of big words is often a smoke-screen to prevent people from seeing that there is no argument behind that convoluted wall of words.
It may be, but I’ve always giggled at https://www.reddit.com/r/solipsism/
It’s sort of like https://www.reddit.com/r/outside for the mind.
I always liked the variant that states “God created the universe and all the individuals as it is the only way in which he/she may perceive him/herself.”
Besides, I really really love A Perfect Vacuum by Stanisław Lem, the largest and best known collection of Stanislaw Lem’s criticism of nonexisting books.
If the only thing you can find to say about the concept that “reality isn’t”, is “Bullshit”, You lack imagination.
Fortunately the likes of Lem have plenty.
There are some convincing arguments against solipsism, but this write-up ain’t one.
i think solipsism is a nice lesson on how “not being able to disprove something” is not a sufficient enough condition for proving something
Obviously the author isn’t real, and neither are any of you. QED
I’m a reverse solipsist. I don’t believe I exist.
I’m doubly solipsist. I believe others not only lack existence, but they actively unexist, whereas I exist even under circumstances where I’d normally not exist.
You are correct.