Q&A: A Solipsistic Approach
A Solipsistic Approach
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I read a book that claims that the solipsistic approach is the only truly certain approach.
I wanted to ask the Rabbi whether there really is no “proof” that an external world exists beyond thought. That’s a shocking realization, isn’t it?
That is, even more than that, this is not just a mere doubt, because we ourselves see and know that sometimes we imagine things—for example dreams, or even actual creatures like Pegasus, for instance, etc. So who says we aren’t imagining the world? What exactly is the difference between the two?
And does someone who accepts the existence of the external world (why?) also ought to accept a concept that is much less graspable, like God (the anthropological proof)?
That is:
A. Why should we assume that an external world exists outside us, when we have no proof of it, and moreover we know the imagination is capable of depicting the world and deceiving us?
B. How does our soul make the distinction between what occurs in reality and what comes from imagination? Or how do we distinguish between them?
C. Should someone who accepts the world also accept God? (the anthropological proof).
Thanks in advance!@
P.S. This realization that there is no proof for the world around us is kind of “driving me crazy.” Maybe the Rabbi knows of some proof.
D. Has the Rabbi written an article/book related to this?
Answer
I haven’t written one, and there is no point in writing one. It may be that everything is our hallucination, and it may be that it isn’t. It is impossible to prove it either way, and the matter is left to each of our intuitions. You understand that even if I write an argument against solipsism, it will be based on assumptions that you can always cast doubt on as well (after all, right now you are really talking to yourself. I don’t really exist. If I write you an argument, that too will be imagination). So would I then also have to bring arguments in favor of those assumptions? There is no end to it.
I see no reason to be troubled by this. At most it is true—so what? Beyond that, I personally rely on my intuitions, and whoever wants to challenge them bears the burden of proof.
How do you know that your consciousness sometimes deceives you? After all, you also derive that from consciousness. If everything is imagination, then the fact that you have imaginings is also imagination. These are absurdities that I see no point in dealing with.
Obviously we sometimes have illusions, but that doesn’t mean everything is an illusion. On the contrary, from the fact that I recognize that this is an illusion, it is proven that at other times I recognized that it was not an illusion (that is what I wrote in the previous paragraph). When I have a mirage, that does not make me abandon trust in my eyes.
The question about God is unrelated to the issue. You can be a solipsist and believe in Him, or be a realist and not believe in Him.
Discussion on Answer
I already wrote that I have nothing to write about this matter. And anyone who writes something about it may safely be presumed to be writing nonsense. The basic argument is that maybe everything is an illusion (because we have illusions), and the counterargument is that not everything is an illusion (intuition). That’s all.
The proof for God’s existence or non-existence is nonsense. There are people who have an intuition that the chair exists and have no intuition about God, or one intuition is stronger than the other, and so on. All of this is just hot air.
I wrote books about intuition (mainly Two Carts and Truth and Unstable). You won’t find arguments there against solipsism (because there is no need and it is impossible).
Even those who have no intuition about God know what they are talking about…
After all, the debate between the atheist and the believer is not just hot air.
Rather, one claims that a defined entity exists, and the other denies it.
So by definition they have defined the concept of God. And it is such a vast concept that it should have to come to them from outside, no?
Mattityahu, you are mixing things up here. Now you have introduced the anthropological proof. There are other proofs for God’s existence too. But what does all this have to do with solipsism?
That the moment some person accepts his external world, he ought to accept God. Since the understanding of Him is far more complex than anything his mind could produce and use to deceive his soul.
And the connection is found in the response you wrote:
“The proof for God’s existence or non-existence is nonsense. There are people who have an intuition that the chair exists and have no intuition about God, or one intuition is stronger than the other, and so on. All of this is just hot air.”
A person who denies God’s existence understands what he is talking about (for example: there is a great being who created the world). But that does not mean he has an intuition that such a thing exists, and it also does not necessarily have to come to him from some external source. The believer claims there is such a thing and the atheist disagrees. One can deny the existence of demons and monsters while understanding what is being discussed, without concluding that they exist.
See the first booklet for a discussion of the ontological proof.
Because regarding them we have a way to explain how they came into being—the mind combined the two.
But that is not always claimed, certainly not regarding the concept of God.
P.S. Does the Rabbi believe in the existence of ideas as something real?
I didn’t understand. Are you talking about demons? How was that concept formed if not by external influence? A synthesis of other concepts? Then the concept of God can also be formed that way. What is the problem with forming the concept of “an omnipotent being that created the world”? Is our mind not capable of synthesizing such a concept? I do not see any real problem here.
I tend to think so, but I’m not sure.
Thank you, Rabbi,
Indeed, what I thought is that this is determined only by each and every person’s intuition.
A] I would be glad if the Rabbi would write some claims on the matter (even just in outline form), even though they can always be refuted. Because on the internet most of the arguments I saw are fairly weak.
B] Regarding the part where this has nothing to do with God: people tend to bring solipsism as a ‘theological proof’ for God in the context of the anthropological proof.
That someone who recognizes the existence of external things outside the ‘self’—must see the existence of God as something more certain than all other things.
That is, the argument in favor of the existence of things external to his consciousness must have the following pattern: I have a sensation/intuition of a table and a chair, and this thought is not the product of my imagination or a dream.
So what is true regarding the table and chair is all the more so true regarding the concept of God.
Because He is an infinite being, and much harder to “produce” than any other thought.
(Or they bring this as a proof of the Creator’s existence through simple faith, just as the understanding that this world is only in my mind is too narrow an understanding, so too the understanding that this world is random is too narrow an understanding… even though both are correct.)
C] I understood that you have a book that deals with intuition and its importance, right? Meaning that without natural common sense, philosophy can seriously mislead us (the solipsistic approach being the example).