Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

[Magnus Anderson]

The title of the OP "Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic" is not that Philosophical Realist claims to be solipsistic.
To be clear, I know Philosophical Realism do not claim to be Solipsistic; rather p-realists insist anti-p-realists are solipsistic.

My point is p-realist are accusing p-realists as solipsistic; but they are ignorant they are the one who is actually solipsistic.

To say that someone is solipsistic is to say that they believe that only their mind exists. As such, if you know that philosophical realists do not believe in solipsism, and at the same time, if you think they are not aware of the fact that they believe in solipsism, then you are contradicting yourself.

Let's go back to your argument.

1) Realists believe that things are independent of one's mind.

2) Due to ( 1 ), realists also believe that other minds are independent of one's mind.

3) But anti-realists have proven that things aren't mind-independent.

4) Due to ( 3 ), minds that are independent of one's mind are illusory.

5) As such, to the realist, only one's mind is real, the other minds are illusory.

6) Solipsism claims that only one's mind exists.

7) Therefore, realists are solipsists.

( 5 ) does not follow. If it is true that the Earth is flat, it does not follow that someone, let alone everyone, believes that it is flat. In other words, it does not mean that a round-earther is a flat-earther. That's the problem with your argument.

Realists, in general, do believe that other minds exist. As such, they aren't solipsists in the strict sense of the word. They merely believe that the existence of other minds does not depend on the existence of one's mind. In other words, they do not believe that if one's mind ceased to exist that all other minds would instantly and necessarily cease to exist as well. That's all.

Berkely wasn't a solipsist in the strict sense of the word either. However, his subjective idealism is very similar to it. You have to keep in mind that, when people accuse you of being a solipsist, they do not mean that you're literally a solipsist, they merely mean that your position is very similar -- very close -- to it.

Anyways, I think what you're trying to do here is quite a bit of a stretch. You're basically trying to argue that round-earthers are earth-denialists because the earth is actually flat. Even if the earth is flat, it does not follow that round-earthers deny the existence of earth. It merely means they are wrong about its shape.

[Magnus Anderson]

There is nothing wrong with the conclusion.

Naive realism assumes immediate access to the reality - this is equivalent to having direct access to a solipsistic mind; or in general - immediate access to whatever ontology you subscribe to.

In that sense naive realism is equivalent to solipsism.

It completely disregards how communication/information flow works.

"Realism" and "naive realism" are two different things.

[Skepdick]

"Realism" and "naive realism" are two different things.

Yawn.

Any two things are diferent. Except for their similarities.
Any two things are the same. Except for their differences.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The title of the OP "Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic" is not that Philosophical Realist claims to be solipsistic.
To be clear, I know Philosophical Realism do not claim to be Solipsistic; rather p-realists insist anti-p-realists are solipsistic.

My point is p-realist are accusing p-realists as solipsistic; but they are ignorant they are the one who is actually solipsistic.

To say that someone is solipsistic is to say that they believe that only their mind exists. As such, if you know that philosophical realists do not believe in solipsism, and at the same time, if you think they are not aware of the fact that they believe in solipsism, then you are contradicting yourself.

Thanks for the critique and noted, but somehow I still do not agree.
For intellectual sake, I am interested to know why my argument is not acceptable.

Except for some weirdos who explicitly claim they are solipsists, most anti-philosophical-realists do not claim to be solipsists.
But p-realists still insist they are solipsistic, most of the time in a very derogatory tune. The common target is Berkeley which you mentioned below.

Let's go back to your argument.

1) Realists believe that things are independent of one's mind.

2) Due to ( 1 ), realists also believe that other minds are independent of one's mind.

3) But anti-realists have proven that things aren't mind-independent.

4) Due to ( 3 ), minds that are independent of one's mind are illusory.

5) As such, to the realist, only one's mind is real, the other minds are illusory.

6) Solipsism claims that only one's mind exists.

7) Therefore, realists are solipsists.

( 5 ) does not follow. If it is true that the Earth is flat, it does not follow that someone, let alone everyone, believes that it is flat.
In other words, it does not mean that a round-earther is a flat-earther. That's the problem with your argument.

Your example above 'a round-earther is [not] a flat-earther' is obvious.

I need to modify (5) to (7), i.e.

5) As such, from the anti-realist's perspective, for the realist, only one's mind is real, the other minds are illusory.

6) Solipsism claims that only one's mind exists.

7) Therefore, realists are solipsists [5, 6] from the anti-realist's perspective.

Realists will deny they are solipsistic, but that is because they are ignorant their own belief of mind-independence lead to solipsism as defined.

Note this;
Btw, the above is based on Kant's claim in the CPR that,
A realist [philosophical] is also a an idealist [empirical] in different perspectives.
Kant argued the transcendental idealist belief is illusory.
Thus when p-realists condemned idealists as solipsistic, they are actually condemning themselves since they are also idealists, i.e. e-idealist.

Meanwhile Kant accept he is also a realist, i.e. an Empirical Realist while being a transcendental Idealist.
An empirical realist beliefs is realistic while the empirical idealist [aka p-realist] belief is illusory, i.e. insist the mind-independent thing-in-itself is really real.

Realists, in general, do believe that other minds exist. As such, they aren't solipsists in the strict sense of the word. They merely believe that the existence of other minds does not depend on the existence of one's mind. In other words, they do not believe that if one's mind ceased to exist that all other minds would instantly and necessarily cease to exist as well. That's all.

As I had been arguing, p-realists beliefs are illusory.
Thus based on the p-realist's belief, their belief of other minds are illusory.

Berkely wasn't a solipsist in the strict sense of the word either. However, his subjective idealism is very similar to it. You have to keep in mind that, when people accuse you of being a solipsist, they do not mean that you're literally a solipsist, they merely mean that your position is very similar -- very close -- to it.

As I had referenced, Solipsism is incoherent.
But if p-realists were to condemned anti-realists as solipsistic [as defined] then, they are solipsistic themselves.

Anyways, I think what you're trying to do here is quite a bit of a stretch. You're basically trying to argue that round-earthers are earth-denialists because the earth is actually flat. Even if the earth is flat, it does not follow that round-earthers deny the existence of earth. It merely means they are wrong about its shape.

I believe my argument is valid.
Because solipsism is actually unsound, my argument is ultimate unsound.

But if p-realists are to use an unsound claim of solipsism to charge idealists of being solipsistic, then, p-realists are also solipsistic as I had argued above.

My advice to philosophical realists is do not bring in the unsound 'solipsism' label to throw at idealists because in this case, philosophical realists are kicking their own back.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here are examples of a philosophical realist kicking his own ass;

• viewtopic.php?p=648426#p648426
  "If I understood this right, then I have to say, what a load of idealistic-solipsistic-narcissistic nonsense coming from a self-important philosopher."

• Solipsistic lie - in, the dual-object noumenon, reality "out there" can be mind-independent.
  viewtopic.php?p=648551#p648551

These are the typical of p-realists throwing derogatory terms at anti-p-realists or idealists.

[Atla]

Here are examples of a philosophical realist kicking his own ass;

• viewtopic.php?p=648426#p648426
  "If I understood this right, then I have to say, what a load of idealistic-solipsistic-narcissistic nonsense coming from a self-important philosopher."

• Solipsistic lie - in, the dual-object noumenon, reality "out there" can be mind-independent.
  viewtopic.php?p=648551#p648551

These are the typical of p-realists throwing derogatory terms at anti-p-realists or idealists.

That's because mind-dependent reality automatically collapses into solipsism, whether you like it or not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

• As in
  viewtopic.php?p=648548#p648548
  
  I do not agree with and is against philosophical realism [the ideology], thus anti-philosophical_realism.
  I have NEVER claim things are mind-dependent because this can be very misleading.
  
  Rather I have been claiming,
  whatever is reality and are things CANNOT be mind-independent.
  Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK, of which, the scientific FSK is the most reliable, credible and objective.

[Atla]

• As in
  viewtopic.php?p=648548#p648548
  
  I do not agree with and is against philosophical realism [the ideology], thus anti-philosophical_realism.
  I have NEVER claim things are mind-dependent because this can be very misleading.
  
  Rather I have been claiming,
  whatever is reality and are things CANNOT be mind-independent.
  Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK, of which, the scientific FSK is the most reliable, credible and objective.

So in short reality is mind-dependent, you just deceive yourself, when it comes to taking your position to its logical conclusion?

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is a serious claim;
FJ: "So far the arguments are mainly non sequiturs, fallacies, or just plain bad."
If not all, give at least a few examples which you think are obvious in supporting your above.

viewtopic.php?t=40197

This one is particularly egregious. In trying to prove that realists are solipsists, you have to include premises which realists don't accept - thus not actually proving anything about what realists think at all.

Where I raise an argument in an OP, I will have to defend it until I am convinced I am wrong, then I will have to admit and concede my argument is false.
So far, there is no reason for me to concede with the OP argument.

I don't think I grasp what you are trying to point out.

One reason for your point,
FJ: "you have to include premises which realists don't accept"
is likely p-realists are actually adopting those said premises but they are ignorant they are doing so, thus insist they do not accept those said premises.

I will reread the whole thread again to try to understand the bottleneck.

[Flannel Jesus]

3. But, anti-p-realists proved the idea of mind-independence is illusory.

Whether you think you've proven it or not, this is not a belief that realists share. Therefore, if this is required as a premise to show that solipsism is implied by realist beliefs, then... it's not a realist belief.

You cannot show that realists believe something, by using premises realists don't believe.

Even if that third premise were strictly true, it STILL wouldn't be useable as a premise to prove anything about what realists believe.

This is what iwaanaplato was getting at back on page 1:

1. P-realists claimed things are mind-independent, i.e. of one's mind.
2. As such, other minds are independent of one's mind.
3. But the idea of mind-independence is illusory.
4. So, other minds which are independent of one's mind are illusory.
5. As such, only one's mind is real, the other minds are illusory.
6. Therefore the P-Realists are solipsistic!


Views?

You just mixed realism with anti-realism creating a hybrid set of premises which lead to your last statement. Premises 3 and 4 are anti-realist premises. Premises 1 and 2 are realist premises.
So of four premises you have 2 from each and this leads to conclusions 5 and 6.
IOW you just showed that someone combining CONTRADICTORY premises, two from realism and two from antirealism is a solipsistic person.

[Veritas Aequitas]

3. But, anti-p-realists proved the idea of mind-independence is illusory.

Whether you think you've proven it or not, this is not a belief that realists share. Therefore, if this is required as a premise to show that solipsism is implied by realist beliefs, then... it's not a realist belief.

You cannot show that realists believe something, by using premises realists don't believe.

Even if that third premise were strictly true, it STILL wouldn't be useable as a premise to prove anything about what realists believe.

This is what iwaanaplato was getting at back on page 1:

1. P-realists claimed things are mind-independent, i.e. of one's mind.
2. As such, other minds are independent of one's mind.
3. But the idea of mind-independence is illusory.
4. So, other minds which are independent of one's mind are illusory.
5. As such, only one's mind is real, the other minds are illusory.
6. Therefore the P-Realists are solipsistic!


Views?

You just mixed realism with anti-realism creating a hybrid set of premises which lead to your last statement. Premises 3 and 4 are anti-realist premises. Premises 1 and 2 are realist premises.
So of four premises you have 2 from each and this leads to conclusions 5 and 6.
IOW you just showed that someone combining CONTRADICTORY premises, two from realism and two from antirealism is a solipsistic person.

I have reread the whole thread.

I intend to open a new thread with only your posts so we can specifically find where is the bottleneck of confusions.

[Iwannaplato]

3. But, anti-p-realists proved the idea of mind-independence is illusory.

Whether you think you've proven it or not, this is not a belief that realists share. Therefore, if this is required as a premise to show that solipsism is implied by realist beliefs, then... it's not a realist belief.

You cannot show that realists believe something, by using premises realists don't believe.

Even if that third premise were strictly true, it STILL wouldn't be useable as a premise to prove anything about what realists believe.

This is what iwaanaplato was getting at back on page 1:

1. P-realists claimed things are mind-independent, i.e. of one's mind.
2. As such, other minds are independent of one's mind.
3. But the idea of mind-independence is illusory.
4. So, other minds which are independent of one's mind are illusory.
5. As such, only one's mind is real, the other minds are illusory.
6. Therefore the P-Realists are solipsistic!


Views?

You just mixed realism with anti-realism creating a hybrid set of premises which lead to your last statement. Premises 3 and 4 are anti-realist premises. Premises 1 and 2 are realist premises.
So of four premises you have 2 from each and this leads to conclusions 5 and 6.
IOW you just showed that someone combining CONTRADICTORY premises, two from realism and two from antirealism is a solipsistic person.

I have thought for a time that in these discussions there are confusions about what is entailed and what is asserted.
It's clear, to me at least, that most realists are not solipsists, in the sense that they do not assert solipsism, nor do they see it as entailed by realism.
It's clear that VA is not a solipsist in the sense that he asserts it as part (or otherwise) of antirealism. He does not assert that.

Now we can all try to show that solipsism is entails by realism or antirealism (or both, that seems to often get forgotten. Either team A or team B is right or believes X. When it may be the case that a 3rd position is correct or is the only one that is immune from, say, solipsism).

I think VA's argument that you quoted from my post above confuses entails with asserts.

Perhaps he can show that realism entails solipsism, but he didn't do it there.
Solipsism IS antirealist.
That does NOT mean that VA's antirealism is solipsistic.
But I think that bears repeating: solipsism is one kind of antirealism.
So it would be odd if realism ENTAILS a clear and COMPLETE antirealism. (pardon my Age-like capitalizations)

But I think it has a greater tendency to entail solipsism because of its stance (at least in some metaphysical anti-realisms) that there are no noumena and no mind free things. Most antirealists, like VA, believe in the existence of other minds.

But I think there is an exception being made there because there no direct experience of other minds.

It should be clear to VA that it's not that we think he is a solipsist.

We are, or at least I am wondering, if given his positions - no mind independent reality, if you cannot prove X exists it cannot exist and so on - solipsism is entailed, not that it is asserted.

When it comes to other minds and their justification, he jumps to scientific FSRs that are realist. They posit a mind independent world and one with other minds.

I think he makes and exception for other minds that he does not make for other noumena.

And you can't argue that other minds are not noumena since they are minds. But he, as an individual anti-realist doesn't have access to those minds. He is assuming, given how other humans seems similar to him they are not philosophical zombies or dream elements. Fine, many people make that kind of assumption. But if that one is OK, why not that the chair in the other room is the source of what I see when I go in there and that it exists when I am not around?

[Flannel Jesus]

I have thought for a time that in these discussions there are confusions about what is entailed and what is asserted.
It's clear, to me at least, that most realists are not solipsists, in the sense that they do not assert solipsism, nor do they see it as entailed by realism.
It's clear that VA is not a solipsist in the sense that he asserts it as part (or otherwise) of antirealism. He does not assert that.

I agree with all that.

Anti realists don't have to be solipsists, realists don't have to be solipsists. I think va was annoyed the people were comparing his arguments for anti realism to solipsism so he reacted by making this thread, but if you strip out all the bad feelings, the statement "anti realist reasoning is along the same lines as solipsist reasoning" is honestly pretty apparent. That doesn't mean they're exactly the same, that just means there's some really notable parallels.

An anti realist says, science can't prove the world is mind independently real, therefore it's not. A solipsist goes one step further and says, science also can't prove other minds are independently real, therefore they're not.

It's not malicious to point out the parallel here. It's right there, ready and apparent. It's not an insult begging for a comeback.

[Iwannaplato]

I have thought for a time that in these discussions there are confusions about what is entailed and what is asserted.
It's clear, to me at least, that most realists are not solipsists, in the sense that they do not assert solipsism, nor do they see it as entailed by realism.
It's clear that VA is not a solipsist in the sense that he asserts it as part (or otherwise) of antirealism. He does not assert that.

I agree with all that.

Anti realists don't have to be solipsists, realists don't have to be solipsists. I think va was annoyed the people were comparing his arguments for anti realism to solipsism so he reacted by making this thread, but if you strip out all the bad feelings, the statement "anti realist reasoning is along the same lines as solipsist reasoning" is honestly pretty apparent. That doesn't mean they're exactly the same, that just means there's some really notable parallels.

An anti realist says, science can't prove the world is mind independently real, therefore it's not. A solipsist goes one step further and says, science also can't prove other minds are independently real, therefore they're not.

It's not malicious to point out the parallel here. It's right there, ready and apparent. It's not an insult begging for a comeback.

And it's worth exploring what might be entailed. Also, is an exception being allowed for other minds, that is not allowed for other things. If so, why? I am not sure my considering other minds a noumena for the individual antirealist (va) holds. But I think it's worth looking at. Do we have direct experience of other minds or are they inferred? If he can infer other minds, why can't others infer other things that get called noumena and according to VA can't possibly exist?

Again, I don't know if that holds, but I think it's worth looking at.

[Atla]

And I hold that "subsuming the scientific-FSK in the negative noumenon" is automatically a kind of solipsism where we usually act as if we weren't solipsists.