Editing Solipsism (section)

==Main points==
{{Nihilism|origins}}

Mere denial of material existence, in itself, does not necessarily constitute solipsism.

Philosophers generally try to build knowledge on more than an inference or analogy. Well-known frameworks such as Descartes' epistemological enterprise brought to popularity the idea that all [[Certainty|certain]] knowledge may go no further than ''[[cogito ergo sum|"I think; therefore I exist."]]''<ref name="IEP">{{cite encyclopedia|url = http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/solipsis.htm#H1|encyclopedia = [[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]|title = Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds|first = Stephen P.|last = Thornton|date = 24 October 2004}}</ref> However, Descartes' view does not provide any details about the nature of the "I" that has been proven to exist.

The theory of solipsism also merits close examination because it relates to three widely held philosophical presuppositions, each itself fundamental and wide-ranging in importance:<ref name="IEP" />

* One's most certain knowledge is the content of one's own mind—''my'' [[thoughts]], experiences, affects, etc.
* There is no conceptual or logically necessary link between mental and physical—between, for example, the occurrence of certain conscious experience or mental states and the "possession" and behavioral dispositions of a "body" of a particular kind.
* The experience of a given person is ''necessarily'' private to that person.

To expand on the second point, the conceptual problem is that the previous point assumes [[mind]] or [[consciousness]] (which are attributes) can exist independent of some entity having this attribute (a capability in this case), i.e., that an attribute of an existent can exist apart from the existent itself. If one admits to the existence of an independent entity (e.g., the brain) having that attribute, the door is open to an independent reality. (See [[Brain in a vat]])

Some philosophers hold that, while it cannot be proven that anything independent of one's mind exists, the point that solipsism makes is irrelevant. This is because, whether the world as we perceive it exists independently or not, we cannot escape this perception, hence it is best to act assuming that the world is independent of our minds.<ref name="guardian1">{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-24820,00.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160605061325/http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-24820,00.html|archive-date=5 June 2016|title=Is there a convincing philosophical rebuttal to solipsism - See comment by Seth, Edinburgh Scotland|website=[[TheGuardian.com]]|access-date=8 April 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref>