Solipsism. Direction and interpretation in philosophy. What is solipsist and solipsism? Consciousness as subjective reality solipsism

Intellectual tricks. Criticism of modern postmodern philosophy [with an afterword by D. Kralechkin] Bricmont Jean

Solipsism and skepticism

When my brain produces in my soul the sensation of a tree or a house, I hastily say that in reality there is a tree or a house outside of me, and I even know their location, size and other qualities. Therefore, there is neither man nor animal who would doubt this truth. If any peasant wanted to doubt her, if he, for example, said that he did not believe that his bailiff existed, although he would be in front of him, he would be taken for a madman and with good reason; but when a philosopher puts forward such judgments, he wants everyone to admire his intelligence and enlightenment, which infinitely surpass the intelligence and enlightenment of the people.

Leonhard Euler (1911, p. 220)

Start over. How can we hope to achieve an objective (even approximate and partial) knowledge of the world? We never have direct access to it; We are directly familiar only with our sensations. How do we know that there is something outside of them?

The answer is that we have no proof that there is anything outside our senses; it is simply an eminently reasonable hypothesis. The most natural way to explain the persistence of our sensations (especially unpleasant ones) is to assume that they are generated by causes external to our consciousness. We can almost always dispose of sensations that are products of our imagination as we wish, but no one can stop a war, make a lion disappear, or fix a broken car with a simple effort of thought. It is obvious, and it must be emphasized, that this argument does not refute solipsism. If someone insists that he is “a harpsichord that plays by itself” (Diderot), there is no way to convince him that he is mistaken. However, we have never met sincere solipsists and doubt that they even exist45. This illustrates an important principle that we will use many times: the fact that an opinion cannot be refuted does not in any way imply that there is any reason to believe it to be true.

In place of solipsism there is often radical skepticism. Of course, they say in this case, there is a world external to my consciousness, but I do not have the opportunity to obtain reliable knowledge about it. And again the same argument: I directly have access only to my sensations; How should I know, correspond are they real? To do this I would have to resort to the argument a priori, such as Descartes's proof of the benevolence of the deity, and such proofs in modern philosophy have become (for quite reasonable reasons, which we will not consider) very dubious.

This problem, like many others, was beautifully formulated by Hume:

Whether sense perceptions are produced by external objects which resemble them is a question of fact, but how could it be decided? Naturally, through experience, like all questions of a similar nature. But experience in this case is silent and cannot do otherwise. The mind is always presented with mere perceptions, and there is no possibility for it to achieve any experience of their connection with objects. Thus, the assumption of such a connection has no reasonable basis. (David Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 1982, p. 160)

What position should we take towards radical skepticism? In short, the answer is that Humean skepticism applies to everyone our knowledge: not only to the existence of atoms, electrons or genes, but also to the fact that blood flows through veins, that the Earth is (approximately) round, that at birth we came from our mother's belly. Indeed, even the most trivial knowledge of everyday life - such as the fact that there is a glass in front of me - depends entirely on the hypothesis that our perceptions systematically we are not deceived that they were produced by external objects that somehow resemble them 46 . The universality of Hume's skepticism simultaneously turns out to be its weakness. Of course it is irrefutable. But since no one is a skeptic (at least when he or she is sincere) about ordinary knowledge, one must ask oneself Why skepticism is rejected in this area and Why it nevertheless turns out to be significant in relation to something else, for example, scientific knowledge. The reason why we reject systematic skepticism in everyday life is more or less obvious and it rests on approximately the same reasoning that leads us to reject solipsism. The best way to explain the coherence of our experience is to assume that the external world at least approximately corresponds to the image of it that is presented to us by the senses 47 .

From the book Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic? by Russell Bertrand

Skepticism There is the same degree of probability and possibility of the existence of a Christian god as there was for the Homeric gods. I can't prove that the Christian god or the Homeric gods don't exist, but I don't think it's likely that they exist

From the book Philosophical Dictionary of Mind, Matter, Morality [fragments] by Russell Bertrand

4. Skepticism Skepticism, as I advocate it, means only the following: 1) if experts agree, the opposite opinion cannot be considered true; 2) if they do not agree, non-experts should not consider any opinion correct; 3) when everything

From the book Words of a Pygmy author Akutagawa Ryunosuke

84. Solipsism Thus, I limit myself to what is called “solipsism,” that is, the theory that I alone exist. This point of view is difficult to refute, but even more difficult to believe. I once received a letter from a philosopher who stated that he

From the book Philosopher at the Edge of the Universe. SF philosophy, or Hollywood comes to the rescue: philosophical problems in science fiction films by Rowlands Mark

From the book History of Philosophy author Skirbekk Gunnar

Skepticism Descartes' thought, his ideas about dreams and the evil spirit were directed in a certain direction - towards skepticism, the doctrine of knowledge, the main position of which is this: a person cannot have knowledge. Therefore we cannot claim to know anything. Myself

From the book Ancient Philosophy author Asmus Valentin Ferdinandovich

54. Skepticism The point of view according to which objective knowledge of reality is impossible. Thus, a skeptical view of the world around us assumes that a person cannot know whether he is dealing with objective reality or with his own idea of it.

From the book Phenomenology of Spirit author

Skepticism Ancient skeptics (for example, Pyrrho, ca. 360–270 BC, Carneades, ca. 213–128 BC, Sextus Empiricus, ca. 200 AD) were mainly interested in epistemological issues. In general, they doubted the possibility of giving definite answers to them.

From the book Lectures on the history of philosophy. Book two author Hegel Georg Wilhelm Friedrich

VI. Skepticism One of the first such movements was ancient skepticism. Like any significant phenomenon of philosophical life and thought, skepticism did not arise out of nowhere: it arose on the basis of ideas that were developed by the development of philosophy that preceded it. Already

From the book Lectures on the history of philosophy. Book three author Hegel Georg Wilhelm Friedrich

2. Skepticism Skepticism is the realization of what Stoicism is only a concept, and the actual experience of what freedom of thought is; it has something negative in itself and must manifest itself in this way. With reflection of self-awareness into a simple thought about oneself, contrary to

From the book Human Knowledge of Its Spheres and Limits by Russell Bertrand

D. Skepticism Skepticism completed the point of view of the subjectivity of all knowledge by the fact that in general, when speaking about knowledge, it put the expression “appearance” in the place of being. This skepticism appears as something extremely impressive, which we should treat with great respect.

From the book The Concept of Consciousness by Ryle Gilbert

A. Idealism and skepticism Thinking is generally a simple universal equality with itself, but as a negative movement, thanks to which the determinate is removed. This movement of being-for-itself now turns out to be an essential moment of thinking itself, while hitherto

From the book Epistemology, classical and non-classical author Lektorsky Vladislav Alexandrovich

CHAPTER 2 SOLIPSISM The doctrine called “solipsism” is usually defined as the belief that there is only one self. But if it is not true, then it is no longer a teaching. If it is true, it is the statement that I, Bertrand Russell, exist alone. But if it is false and if I

From the book Philosophical Dictionary author Comte-Sponville Andre

(10) Solipsism Modern philosophers are concerned about the problem of our knowledge of the minds of other people. Having bound themselves to the dogma of the spirit in the machine, they found that it was impossible to find any logically satisfactory proof justifying man's belief in the existence of

From the author's book

Skepticism (Scepticisme) In the technical sense of the word, it is the opposite of dogmatism. To be a skeptic is to believe that every thought is doubtful and we cannot have absolute certainty about anything. It is easy to see that for the purpose of self-preservation, skepticism, questioning everything,

From the author's book

Solipsism (Solipsisme) The belief that in the whole world there is only I (ipse) alone (solus). According to the solipsist, the existence of the rest of the world (insofar as it is given to us in sensations) remains doubtful, in contrast to “I” (insofar as “I” is given to us in

Solipsism is a radical position in philosophy. It defines personality as the point of reference for explicit and implicit reality, while denying objective reality. Or, more simply put, confidence in the exclusivity of one’s own individuality, representing extreme egocentrism in ethics. This position of solipsism affirms human consciousness as an irrefutable, unique reality. A prominent representative of ethical solipsism is Max Stirner.

Solipsism and its description

The phenomenological basis of solipsism is built directly on the sensations and understanding of one’s own consciousness. Reliability of assessment of the surrounding world is based on direct perception of reality. Feeling the world as it is, one cannot be sure of the correctness of its awareness. In this case, it is assumed that the world around us is recreated from our mind, or may be distorted within it.

In different sources, philosophy interprets the term solipsism as:

The question of solipsism in philosophical doctrine:

A prominent representative of the solipsistic point of view was the Parisian philosopher, physician and writer Claude Brunet. In 1703, he developed his project on metaphysics and published brochures on it. Also, frequent publications were devoted to the phenomenological approach of research by H. Wolf in 1719.
Famous philosophical thinkers A. Schopenhauer and M. Gardner, on the contrary, subjected radical subjective idealism to repeated criticism, considering this philosophical approach to be complete madness. But they never provided any significant substantiation for their claims.
The latest works of domestic researchers V. Yu. Argonova and S. I. Atina were devoted to solving the question of what solipsism is in objective reality. Their phenomenological approach to simplifying the objective world came down to the pure consciousness of the transcendental mind. But according to the critic Husserl, the problem does not receive a detailed conclusion.

"Enlightened" solipsism:

Philosopher Daniel Kolak made another attempt to explore the topic of solipsism. His look led to open individualism, considering all humanity to be one and the same person. Going against the basic foundation of solipsism, where the main idea lies in the denial of other “minds” and “intelligent bodies,” the author recognized the rationality of human physiology.

Basic provisions of solipsism in philosophy

1. Taking everything personally

A person imagines himself to be the center of the world and is inclined to believe that everything concerns him. Random requests from people, various inscriptions from information sources, up to the social status of people. Randomly thrown phrases can also cause offense. Self-obsession gives an excuse to disregard the feelings and dignity of others. Considering himself exceptional, he is capable of being offensive.

The main thing is not to forget that any person is focused on his problems and his own experiences. In fact, people hardly evaluate others. Thinking about what others think of you can only lead to a decrease in sociability and productivity in any area of life.

2. Don't notice anything around you

A person sees only what he directly interacts with. At the same time, without taking into account ethics and norms of behavior, he allows himself whatever he wants. He'll pay attention to the fact that it bothers someone, only in the case of a non-ambiguous remark or rudeness. But if such situations are repeated, it does not draw conclusions.

To live in peace and tranquility, you don't need anything supernatural. It is enough to do your favorite things and not disturb other people.

3. Always be right

It is important to distinguish between decisive self-confidence and self-confidence and banal tyranny. Have your own opinion not less important as well as admitting your mistakes. In the absence of self-criticism, evaluation and analysis of one’s own actions and results, a person simply ceases to develop his personality and abilities.

Believing in his own infallibility, he can go far from reality and find himself on the sidelines of life's circumstances.

4. Constant excuses and the victim position

A person believes that only he has the right to express his exclusivity. It's important to him convince all of humanity in personal conviction and vision of the issue. Likes to be the center of attention, making big words and promises without keeping them. He is in confrontation and in constant struggle with what does not suit him.

Man is a social being. And by acting ungratefully towards others, he receives the same from others.

5. Consider yourself smarter than everyone else

Defining himself as a specialist in any matter, a person cannot imagine how they can manage without his help. He allows himself interfere with circumstances and situations of other people, having a direct impact on the course of things and processes. Willingly showing his expertise, something he is not at all aware of, he actively helps solve questions and adds his correct tips everywhere.

Overflowing with feelings of self-importance and indispensability, it seems possible to him to correct absolutely any situation, while forgetting about your own responsibility. The consequence of this is that they do not have their own self-determination, and therefore do not respect this in others.

Explicit such a person is a contradiction consists of two opposing conclusions. Avoiding responsibility for their actions, they feel responsible for everything that happens. As a result, there is a lot of anxiety and fuss instead of thoroughness and concrete results. With this approach, the situation looks like a constant tugging of the blanket.

Objective reality (reality) is the entire material world as a whole, in all its forms and manifestations. In terms of the main question of philosophy, objective reality is understood as something that exists independently of human consciousness and is primary in relation to it. The concept of “Objective reality” is relative. In relation to the individual, this is everything that exists outside of his consciousness and is reflected by him. But he himself with his consciousness will be objectively real in relation to other people, etc. Abstracting from the individual view of the world, we can say that objective reality coincides with all material reality. The latter includes various material objects, their properties, space, time, movement, laws, various social phenomena - production relations, state, culture, etc. However, it cannot be concluded from this that the concept of “objective reality” is opposed to the concept of matter. Movement, space, time, life, etc. - all these are properties or manifestations of the properties and interactions of types of matter of varying degrees of complexity, which together form the world as a whole or the entire objective reality (Being). The existence of objective existing reality is relative, since what is an object of knowledge for one being may not be an object for another. The existence of objective reality is dependent on the existence of consciousness, conditioned by the existence of consciousness, since cognition of an object is impossible without the existence of consciousness. Objective reality can be not only “existing outside of us,” but also everything that exists within us, all our organs and processes occurring in us, including our consciousness (feelings, concepts, knowledge) and emotions. That is, not only real reality can be objective, but also unreal reality (consciousness, knowledge).

Solipsism - a philosophical direction, according to which the only thing that exists is the subjective Self and the content of its consciousness.

Skepticism - a philosophical direction that questions the possibility of knowing reality or some fragment of it.

Agnosticism -philosophical doctrine that asserts the unknowability of the world.

The problem of man in philosophy. Man as a microcosm, as a personality, as a subject of knowledge. Three Kantian questions about man.

The importance of the human problem is due to the fact that philosophy is called upon to solve a complex of ideological problems, and they are directly related to man’s place in the world, to the degree of his freedom, to the meaning of life, to man’s relationship to society and nature, to understanding the prospects for the development of mankind.

The problem of man was solved in different ways by various philosophical schools and directions, among which the main ones can be identified : objective-idealistic understanding of the essence of man, subjective-idealistic, metaphysical-idealistic, dialectical-materialistic, irrational.

This problem is of particular importance in dialectical-materialist philosophy. It indicated The goal of society is to ensure the free development of every person, his comprehensive development.

The importance of solving the problem of man is due to the fact that man is the creator of the history of society, and without understanding the essence of man it is impossible to understand the historical process.

Man is a very complex phenomenon, therefore the study of man is the task of medicine, physiology, pedagogy, psychology, psychiatry, aesthetics, cultural studies, etc., i.e. a whole complex of sciences.

The specificity of the philosophical approach is that in philosophy a person is considered as an integrity, a person and the human world in its main manifestations.

The idea of the combination of the natural and the social in a person is important. There are two one-sided approaches here. The first one is a naturalistic approach to man, exaggerating the importance of the natural principle in him, influencing his life and behavior, and therefore the development of society. The naturalistic approach continued the idea of the immutability of human nature, not susceptible to any influence.

The socialist approach is the recognition of only the social principle in man and ignoring the biological side of his nature. Of course, man is primarily a social being, but at the same time he is the highest level in the development of living organisms on Earth.

Most modern scientists believe that the essence of a person is that he distinguishes the value-based from the pragmatic. The ability to understand and adequately evaluate the real world is what distinguishes a person. And a person also has the physical and spiritual ability for self-improvement.

Man is like a microcosm.

There are two lines of philosophical reasoning within the framework of the microcosm concept: argumentation from macrocosm to microcosm and argumentation from microcosm to macrocosm. In the first case (for example, the version of Democritus) there is nothing in man except cosmic elements, which leads to naturalistic anthropology. In the second case, the existence of a cosmic soul or mind is often postulated, as can be observed, for example, in Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Plato and in Stoicism. This cosmic soul is often identified with the immanent pancosmic god.

There are no privileged places in space. The cosmos is one and infinite. God is scattered everywhere (pantheism). Nature is the limitation of space. She is a relative maximum. We cannot know God, because he is infinite, but we can know the cosmos, because nature is potentially infinite. On the one hand, nature limits space and does not allow it to be studied, on the other hand, it allows it, because space is anisotropic. The mind is subject to the law of opposites, for which “yes or no”, a circle or a polygon are valid.

An infinite polygon is identified with a circle. If God is infinite, then all opposites merge in him and no rational efforts of philosophy can clarify his essence. From this also follows the identification of the greatest and the least in the infinite. The endless expansion of God in the universe is the same process as the unfolding into individual existence. Just as the folded divine maximum in the cosmos endlessly expands, a similar thing happens in the minimum, in the microcosm, in human nature. And a person carries out the processes of “completion”, “filling”, which is nothing more than “divinity”, although it is limited in an individual person. The absolute fusion of the divine and the human was realized only in Christ, hence the Christological nature of Cusanus’s teaching about man. Man is also “god,” but not in an absolute sense. He is a limitation of the divine principle, just as the cosmos is a limited maximum.

However, he is not only a part of the whole, but also a new whole, an individuality. God is not something outside the world, he is in unity with the world. Kuzansky develops the ideas of the dialectics of knowledge of essence and phenomenon. The subject of knowledge is the pantheistic God, who exists in inextricable unity with the sensually perceived world of nature. Knowledge of the “unfolded” world, that is, God, is a matter of reason, and not of faith, which wants to comprehend God in a “collapsed” form.

Man as a personality.

Personality- these are the innate qualities of a person, developed and acquired in the social environment, a set of knowledge, skills, values, goals.

Thus, a person is a socio-biological being, and in the conditions of modern civilization, due to education, laws, and moral norms, the social principle of a person controls the biological.

Life, development, upbringing in society is a key condition for the normal development of a person, the development of all kinds of qualities in him, and transformation into a personality. Of great importance for the transformation of a biological individual into a socio-biological personality is practice, work. Only by engaging in any specific activity, and one that meets the inclinations and interests of the person himself and is useful for society, can a person assess his social significance and reveal all facets of his personality. When characterizing a human personality, attention should be paid to such a concept as personality traits- congenital or acquired habits, way of thinking and behavior.

People are distinguished by qualities, their presence, and development. Through qualities one can characterize a person’s personality.

To a large extent, qualities are formed under the influence of family and society.

In philosophy there are positive moral qualities:

Humanism;

Humanity;

Conscience;

Modesty;

Generosity;

Justice;

Loyalty;

Other qualities.

AND socially condemned - negative:

Swaggering;

Coarseness;

Parasitism;

cowardice;

Nihilism;

Other negative traits.

TO socially useful qualities relate:

Determination;

Wisdom;

Installations;

Beliefs;

Patriotism.

A person, as a rule, combines all types of qualities; Some qualities are more developed, others less.

A characteristic feature of every person, personality is the presence needs And interests.

Needs- this is what a person feels the need for.

Interests- a specific expression of needs, interest in something. Together with needs, interests are also the engine of progress.

Man as a subject of knowledge.

To be a subject of cognition, a person must have two sets of qualities: needs and abilities. Needs are the motivating force of a person, abilities are the active force of a person. Everything else - interests, drives, goals, thinking, speech, memory, imagination, etc. - are variations, types, modes of needs and abilities. In the structure of the needs of the subject of cognition, the conceptual blocks are: “the goal of cognition – the tasks of cognition – the program of cognition.” Based on the goal of cognition (goal-setting integrator), the tasks of cognitive activity are developed, and they are formalized into a specific constructive program of cognition. In the structure of the abilities of the subject of cognition there are conceptual blocks: “methods - methods - techniques”. Here methods are concretized in methods, and methods in specific techniques. This is all the technological side of cognitive activity. If in the structure of cognition (like any other subject) we distinguish three types of readiness for activity (I want, I know, I can), then we can talk about three main characteristics of the subject of cognition: 1) motivational readiness (goals, tasks, program); 2) information readiness (knowledge, hypotheses, problems, theories); 3) operational readiness (methods, methods, techniques); 4) informational and operational readiness are polar opposites of the subject’s abilities, and motivational readiness is the needs. The heuristic nature of this typological approach lies in the fact that it immediately sets three directions for preparing the subject of cognitive activity: a) education - the formation of information readiness (knowledge: problems, hypotheses, theories); b) training – formation of operational readiness (methods, methods, techniques); c) education – the formation of motivational readiness (goals, objectives, programs).

Three Kantian questions about man.

The three basic questions of philosophy are: “What can I know?”, “What should I do?”, “What can I hope for?” - can, Kant argues, be reduced to a single problem: “What is man?” We should not forget, however, that a person, according to Kant, can be studied in different ways. It can be studied by empirical methods, observing the manifestations of human nature in different eras and in different cultures and paying attention to the possibilities of improvement of man in general and his various abilities in particular. This technique is typical for anthropology, and the results of such research were published by Kant in Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View (1798), the text of which is based on notes from lectures on anthropology that Kant gave at the University of Königsberg from the early 70s. Another way of studying a person is based not on experience, but on philosophical reflection, and it allows us to identify the a priori forms of the three basic human abilities, namely the ability of cognition, desire and the so-called ability of pleasure-unpleasure. This approach to man can also be called anthropology, but it will be a special, “transcendental” 1 anthropology. Her theses are developed in detail in Kant's three Critiques.

This theory is connected, on the one hand, with the position of the previous theory taken to an extreme, and on the other, with the theories of infancy developed in the psychoanalytic school (Z. Bernfeld). The theory under consideration is a kind of synthesis of these two concepts. In its most complete and consistent form, it was developed by J. Piaget, who says that the consciousness of a baby is a mystery to us. One of the ways to penetrate his consciousness is the regressive path. It is known, says Piaget, that the most significant feature that distinguishes the behavior and thinking of a child from that of an adult is egocentrism. It intensifies as you go down the age ladder. In a person at the age of 18, egocentrism is expressed differently than at the age of 10, and at the age of 6 even differently, etc. At the age of 4, egocentrism fills almost all the child’s thoughts. If we consider this egocentrism to the limit, then we can assume, Piaget believes, that the infant is characterized by absolute egocentrism, which can be defined as solipsism of the first year.

According to Piaget, logical thought develops late in a child. It always contains something social. It is related to speech. Without words, we would think as in a dream: images, united by feeling and having a vague, completely individual and affective meaning. This thought, in contrast to the socialized logically mature thought, is what we observe in dreams, as well as in some patients. It is commonly called autistic thought. Autism and logical thinking are two poles: one is purely individual, the other is purely social. Our normal mature thought constantly oscillates between these poles. In dreams and in some mental illnesses, a person loses all interest in objective reality. He is immersed in the world of his own affects, which find their expression in figurative, emotionally charged thinking.

The baby, according to this theory, also lives as if in a dream. 3. Freud speaks of the infant's narcissism as if it had no interest in anything other than itself. The baby takes everything around him for himself, like a solipsist who identifies the world with his idea of it. The further development of the child consists of a gradual decrease in solipsism and the gradual socialization of the child’s thinking and consciousness, turning to external reality. The egocentrism characteristic of a child of a later age is a compromise between initial solipsism and the gradual socialization of thought. The degree of egocentrism can therefore be used to measure a child’s progress along the path of development. From this point of view, Piaget interprets a number of children's reactions that he observed in experiments and that are similar in type to frequently manifested forms of behavior in infancy, for example, a magical attitude towards things.

Even from a simple presentation of the theory, it is easy to see that it represents an attempt to depict development in infancy in an inside-out form. This theory is the direct and polar opposite of the concept of infant development we have given. We have seen that its initial moment is characterized by the fact that all the life manifestations of the baby are intertwined and woven into the social, that through long-term development the consciousness of the “prime-we” arises in the child, that the consciousness of an indivisible mental community, the absence of the possibility of self-separation constitute the most distinctive properties of the baby’s consciousness . The theory of solipsism asserts that the child is a presocial being, completely immersed in the world of dream thinking and subordinated to affective interest in himself. The error underlying this theory, as well as Freud's theory, lies in the incorrect opposition of two tendencies: 1) to satisfy needs and 2) to adapt to reality, i.e. the principle of pleasure and the principle of reality, autistic and logical thinking. In fact, both are not polar opposites, but are closely related to each other. The tendency to satisfy needs is, in essence, only the other side of the tendency to adapt. Pleasure also does not contradict reality. Not only are they not mutually exclusive, but in infancy they almost coincide.

In the same way, logical and autistic thinking, affect and intellect are not two mutually exclusive poles, but two closely related and inseparable mental functions, appearing at each age stage as an indivisible unity, although containing all new and new relationships between affective and intellectual functions. Genetically, the issue is resolved from the point of view of how much autistic thinking can be taken as primary and primitive. Freud famously defended this view. In contrast, E. Bleuler showed that autistic thinking is a late-developing function. He objects to Freud's idea that during development the mechanisms of pleasure are primary, that the child is separated by a shell from the outside world, lives an autistic life and hallucinates about the satisfaction of his internal needs. Bleuler says that he does not see hallucinatory satisfaction in the infant, he sees satisfaction only after actually eating. Observing an older child, he also does not see that the child prefers an imaginary apple to a real one.

The newborn reacts in all its aspirations to reality and in the spirit of reality. Nowhere can one find or even imagine a viable being that would not react primarily to reality, that would not act, completely regardless of what low stage of development it stands at.

E. Bleuler shows that the autistic function requires the maturation of complex prerequisites in the form of speech, concepts, and the ability to remember. Autistic function is not as primitive as simple forms of real function.

Thus, animal psychology, like infant psychology, knows only the real function. The child's autistic thinking makes the greatest progress following the development of speech and the most important steps in the development of concepts.

Thus, autistic thinking not only does not coincide with the unconscious and wordless, but is itself based on the development of speech. It turns out to be not the original, but a derivative form. Autistic thinking is not a primitive form of thinking, it could only develop after thinking, working with the help of memory pictures alone, takes precedence over the immediate mental reaction to actual external situations. Ordinary thinking - a function of the real - is primary and just as necessary for every viable being endowed with a psyche, as are actions that correspond to reality.

Attempts have been made to limit the theory of solipsism to application only to the neonatal period. Supporters of this view explained that the stage of solipsism does not last long in an infant and already in the 2nd month loses its absolute character. The first gap is formed at the moment when the child begins to respond to the voice or smile of an adult with general animation or a reciprocal smile. In general, in light of the known data on the sociality of infancy, it is difficult to subscribe to the concept of solipsism regarding a child older than 2 months. According to our definitions, it is fully applicable only to children who are deeply mentally retarded and idiots.

Piaget's second statement regarding infant autism also applies more to the mental retard than to the normal child. This compromise point of view, in essence, does not refute, but confirms Piaget, reinforcing his idea about the primacy of autistic thinking. Meanwhile, one cannot but agree with Bleuler, who showed that it is precisely at the primitive stages of development that any possibility of unrealistic thinking is excluded. Starting from a certain stage of development, the autistic function joins the original realistic function and from then on develops along with it. The imbecile, says Bleuler, is the real real politician. His autistic thinking is simplified in the same way as realistic thinking. Recently, K. Lewin showed that imagination - one of the most striking manifestations of autistic thinking - is extremely underdeveloped in mentally retarded children.

From the development of a normal child it is known that in him this function begins to develop to any noticeable extent only from preschool age.

We therefore think that the theory of solipsism should not only be limited, but replaced by the opposite, since all the facts cited in its defense receive a true explanation from the opposite point of view.

Thus, V. Peters showed that the basis of a child’s egocentric speech and egocentric thinking is not autism or intentional isolation from communication, but something opposite to this in mental structure. Piaget, who, according to Peters, emphasizes the egocentrism of children and makes it the cornerstone of the explanation of the uniqueness of the child's psyche, must still establish that children talk to each other and that one does not listen to the other. Of course, outwardly they do not seem to take this other into account, but precisely because they have still retained to some extent traces of that immediate community that, as a dominant feature, characterized their consciousness at one time.

In conclusion, we would only like to show that the facts cited by Piaget receive a true explanation in the light of the above teaching about the basic neoplasm of infancy. Piaget, analyzing the logical actions of an infant, foresees the objections that his theory may cause. One would think, he writes, that the infant uses any action to obtain any result, since he simply believes that his parents are fulfilling his desire. According to this hypothesis, the technique used by the child in order to influence things is simply a kind of language used by him in communication with people close to him. It will not be magic, but a request. Thus, we can state that a child of 1.5-2 years old turns to his parents when he needs something and simply says “please”, without worrying about clarifying what he wants; He is so convinced that all his wishes are known to his parents. But if this hypothesis becomes plausible for a child who is already beginning to speak, then until that time it is completely untenable, according to Piaget. Piaget considers one of the main arguments against this hypothesis, the best proof that primitive behavior is not social, that the behavior of the first year cannot be considered social, to be the following: the child does not yet distinguish people from things. Therefore, Piaget believes, at this age we can only talk about solipsistic, but not about social behavior.

However, as we have seen, already in the 2nd month the child begins to develop further developing and increasingly complex specific reactions of a social nature (to a human voice, to the expression of a human face), an active search for contact with another person and other symptoms that undoubtedly show that he is already V. During infancy, the child distinguishes people from things.

We have seen from Fayans' experiments that the child's attitude towards an object is entirely determined by the social content of the situation in which this object is given. Can it be said about the child’s behavior in these experiments that he does not distinguish a person from a thing? The only true idea of Piaget is that for the infant the social and objective content of the situation is not yet differentiated. Unlike a 2-year-old child who can speak, an infant cannot differentiate a request to an adult for help from direct influence on an object. As we saw in experiments with the distance of an object, a child who has already given up reaching for an unattainable goal again resumes his attempts with the same vivacity as soon as a person appears near the goal. True, the child here does not turn to the experimenter for help, but continues to reach out directly to the object, which creates the appearance of magical behavior. But the experiment shows with undoubted clarity: these apparently magical actions arise in a child only under the influence of the fact that in a situation with an unattainable goal, the usual path for the child through another person suddenly becomes possible. The child is not yet aware of this path and does not know how to use it intentionally, but only in the presence of this path are his quasi-magical actions actualized. A careful analysis of Piaget's experiments would also show that the child reacts with magical actions not to a situation with a disappeared object, but to a situation the center of which is the path to the object, which runs through relationships with another person. Thus, the soliptic behavior of the infant turns out to be in fact social behavior characteristic of the infant consciousness of the “prime-we”.

Today, many people consider their opinion to be the only correct one and not subject to any doubt. Such individuals reject the existence of another reality, which is in some way different from their own, and treat it critically. Philosophers have paid enough attention to this phenomenon. By exploring such self-awareness, they came to certain conclusions. This article is devoted to solipsism as a manifestation with a subjective centric attitude.

General concepts

The philosophical term "solipsism" comes from the Latin solus-ipse ("single, self"). In other words, a solipsist is a person who has a point of view that perceives without doubt only one reality: his own consciousness. The entire external world, outside one's own consciousness, and other animate beings are subject to doubt.

The philosophical position of such a person undoubtedly affirms only his own subjective experience, information processed by individual consciousness. Everything that exists independently of it, including the body, is only part of subjective experience. It can be argued that a solipsist is a person with a point of view that expresses the logic of that subjective and centrist attitude that was adopted in Western classical philosophy of the New Age (after Descartes).

The duality of the theory

However, many philosophers have found it difficult to express their views in a solipsistic manner. This is due to the contradiction that arises in connection with the postulates and facts of scientific consciousness.

Descartes said: “I think, therefore I exist.” With this statement, using ontological proof, he spoke about the existence of God. According to Descartes, God is not a deceiver and, therefore, He guarantees the reality of other people and the entire external world.

So, a solipsist is a person for whom only himself is reality. And, as was said above, a person is real, first of all, not as a material body, but exclusively in the form of a set of acts of consciousness.

The meaning of solipsism can be understood in two ways:

Consciousness as a real personal experience as the only possible one entails the affirmation of “I” as the owner of this experience. The theses of Descartes and Berkeley are close to this understanding.
Even with the existence of a single undoubted personal experience, there is no “I” to which that very experience belongs. “I” is only a collection of elements of the same experience.

It turns out that a solipsist is a paradoxical person. The duality of solipsism was best expressed by L. Wittgenstein in his “Logical-Philosophical Treatise.” Modern philosophy is increasingly inclined to a point of view that the inner world of the “I” and individual consciousness is not possible without the subject’s communications in the real material world with other people.

Tight limits

Modern solipsistic philosophers abandon the framework of classical philosophy regarding the subjective centrist attitude. Already in his later works, Wittgenstein wrote about the inconsistency of such positions of solipsism and the impossibility of purely internal experience. Since 1920, the opinion has begun to take hold that people fundamentally cannot agree with solipsism proposed on behalf of another person. If a person views himself separately from others, then solipsism will look convincing regarding self-experiences, but it is the attitude towards another person that is a statement of real experience.

What position did famous solipsists of the past and present express?

Berkeley identified physical things with the totality of sensations. He believed that no one perceives the continuity of the existence of things; the impossibility of their disappearance is ensured by the perception of God. And this happens all the time.

D. Hume believed that from a purely theoretical point of view it is impossible to prove the existence of other people along with the outside world. A person needs to believe in their reality. Without this faith, knowledge and practical life are impossible.

Schopenhauer noted that an extreme solipsist is a person who can be mistaken for insane, since he recognizes the reality of the exclusive “I”. More realistic may be a moderate solipsist who recognizes the supra-individual “I” in a certain form as the bearer of consciousness.

Kant considers his own experience to be the construction of his “I”: not empirical, but transcendental, in which the differences between others and one’s own personality are erased. Regarding the empirical “I,” we can say that its internal awareness of its own states presupposes external experience and consciousness of independent material objects and objective events.

Psychology and solipsism

Such modern ones as J. Fodor believe that the main strategy for research in this field of science should be methodological solipsism. a position different from the classical understanding of philosophers, according to which it is necessary to study psychological processes by conducting an analysis outside of relation to the outside world and its events together with other people. This position does not deny the existence of the external world, but associates the facts of consciousness and mental processes with the activity of the brain as a material formation in space and time. However, many psychologists and philosophers consider this position to be a dead end.

Radical views

I wonder what extreme conclusion a solipsist who can be considered radical logically comes to?

This position, although sometimes more logical, is at the same time implausible. If we start only from the observance of logical correctness, to which solipsism strives, then a person must limit himself only to mental states that he is now directly aware of. For example, Buddha was content to think while the tigers roared around him. If he were a solipsist and thought logically, then, in his opinion, the tigers stopped roaring when he stopped noticing them.

An extreme form of solipsism says that the universe consists only of what can be perceived at a given moment. The radical solipsist must assert that if for some time his gaze rests absent-mindedly on something or someone, then nothing happened in him as a result of this.