Solipsism vs. Realism

The philosophical quest to understand the relationship between the conscious mind and the world that surrounds it stands as one of the most enduring, complex, and consequential pursuits in the history of human thought. At the heart of this inquiry lies an inescapable experiential reality: every entity, quality, and event we encounter is mediated through the subjective aperture of our own awareness. We do not experience physical matter, spatial dimensions, or distant cosmic bodies in their raw, unmediated formats; rather, we experience neural impulses, sensory perceptions, emotional reactions, and cognitive interpretations. From this singular epistemological baseline arise two radically opposed metaphysical worldviews: Solipsism, which radically restricts reality to the sovereign confines of the individual conscious mind, and Realism, which boldly asserts the existence of an autonomous, mind-independent universe governed by structural principles that persist regardless of whether any observer is present to witness them.

This debate is far from an idle parlor game played by scholastic metaphysicians. The dialectic between solipsistic skepticism and realist commitment cuts directly to the core of what it means to know, to live, to construct scientific knowledge, and to engage in ethical communion with other beings. If the realist position is correct, our sensory apparatus and empirical instruments act as windows—imperfect and refracting, yet fundamentally functional—opening out onto an immensely ancient, objective cosmos within which humanity represents a late-emerging, localized evolutionary phenomenon. If, however, the solipsist hypothesis cannot be definitively refuted, human consciousness finds itself trapped inside an epistemic fortress, unable to definitively determine whether the vast expanse of nature, the march of human history, and the interior lives of our closest companions are anything more than phantom projections, vivid cognitive fabrications, or sustained neurological hallucinations.

Navigating this profound division requires an exhaustive examination of the historical developments, epistemological mechanisms, ontological commitments, and practical implications that define both positions. By tracing the progression of thought from ancient skeptics and Cartesian foundationalism through classical British empiricism, German idealism, twentieth-century ordinary language philosophy, and contemporary philosophy of cognitive science and quantum physics, we can map the conceptual terrain separating the sovereign, isolated ego from the mind-independent cosmos. Through this rigorous comparative analysis, we will uncover how both solipsism and realism continue to shape our understanding of perception, artificial intelligence, virtual environments, and the very nature of truth itself.

1. Introduction: The Problem of Mind and External Reality

1.1 Defining the Philosophical Poles

To engage with the dialectic between solipsism and realism, one must first demarcate the rigorous theoretical boundaries that define each philosophical pole. Solipsism—derived etymologically from the Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self)—is the philosophical thesis that only one’s own mind and its internal contents are known to exist with certainty, or, in its most extreme metaphysical iteration, that nothing exists outside of one’s own mind. In the epistemological formulation, solipsism does not necessarily claim that the external world is definitively non-existent; rather, it asserts that the individual conscious subject possesses no rational justification, deductive proof, or indubitable empirical grounds for inferring the existence of an external reality beyond its immediate phenomenological impressions. The solipsist universe is thus radically constrained: the totality of what can be affirmed as real collapses into the immediate stream of conscious experience—the sensations, volitions, memories, and thoughts belonging to the single, experiencing ego.

Conversely, Realism stands as the foundational presumption of ordinary human life, scientific discovery, and classical metaphysics. Broadly defined, realism asserts that an objective reality exists independently of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, perceptual faculties, and conscious awareness. Under a realist framework, entities such as subatomic particles, tectonic plates, distant galaxies, biological organisms, and other conscious agents possess an ontological autonomy. Their existence, properties, and spatiotemporal trajectories do not depend upon an observer perceiving them. If every conscious organism in the cosmos were abruptly extinguished by a cosmic catastrophe, the realist insists that mountains would still erode, stars would continue their thermonuclear fusion, and physical laws would maintain their operational integrity. Realism maintains that while our cognitive faculties provide the representational medium through which we conceptualize the universe, they do not fabricate the reality of the objects being conceptualized.

The philosophical tension between these two poles constitutes the ultimate battleground of metaphysics and epistemology. When we probe the nature of existence, we inevitably run headlong into the epistemic boundary separating our subjective experiences from whatever might generate them. Does the sensory perception of a red rose provide direct cognitive contact with an external botanical entity possessing objective, light-reflecting wavelengths? Or does it merely present an internal, phenomenological sensation—a mental event that gives no logical warrant for claiming that anything beyond the sensation itself exists? By interrogating these divergent possibilities, the contest between solipsism and realism forces philosophy to evaluate whether human beings inhabit an expansive, shared, and intelligible cosmos, or whether consciousness is structurally confined to an impenetrable, solitary theater of its own creation.

1.2 Historical Genesis and the Epistemic Divide

The deep historical roots of this philosophical divide can be traced back to the divergent impulses of classical antiquity, but the debate received its definitive modern formulation through the epistemological crisis of the seventeenth century. In ancient thought, the pre-Socratics and Aristotle operated predominantly within an intuitive realist paradigm. Aristotle’s empirical metaphysics anchored reality in substances (ousia)—concrete, hylomorphic composites of matter and form that populate an objective natural world. For the Stagirite, the human mind (psyche) possessed the innate capacity to receive the forms of external objects without their matter, establishing an epistemic continuity between the knower and the known. While ancient skeptics like Pyrrho and Academic skeptics such as Carneades questioned the possibility of acquiring certain knowledge, their skepticism focused largely on the fallibility of human judgment and the criteria of truth, rarely asserting a full-blown metaphysical solipsism.

The decisive turning point occurred with René Descartes’ epistemological revolution. In his quest to establish an immovable foundation for scientific knowledge against the corrosive skepticism of the Renaissance, Descartes introduced his method of radical doubt in the Meditations on First Philosophy (1641). By systematically questioning every belief that could admit of the slightest uncertainty—including the reliability of the senses, the reality of the physical body, and the mathematical properties of extended space—Descartes invoked the theoretical possibility of a deceptive power, an “evil demon” (genius malignus), capable of feeding his consciousness an elaborate, coherent illusion of an external world. Through this radical heuristic, Descartes demonstrated that all sensory reports concerning trees, skies, bodies, and other people could be systematically doubted.

What survived this universal solvent of Cartesian skepticism was the singular, indubitable truth of the experiencing subject: Cogito, ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”). Even if all perceived objects were illusory, the existence of the mind performing the doubting remained logically necessary. While Descartes famously sought to bridge the chasm between the isolated mind and the external world by invoking a benevolent, non-deceptive God who guarantees the veridicality of clear and distinct perceptions, his philosophical successors quickly noted the profound vulnerability of this theological bridge. By proving the sovereign certainty of the subject first, Descartes inadvertently cracked open an epistemic divide. Once the subjective mind is severed from the material world and made the primary datum of reality, establishing that an objective, mind-independent realm actually exists becomes an excruciatingly difficult theoretical problem. The Cartesian turn formalized the conceptual space wherein solipsism emerged not merely as an eccentric paradox, but as the uninvited specter haunting modern epistemology.

1.3 Significance in Contemporary Discourse

Far from remaining an archaic artifact of early modern philosophy, the dialectic between solipsism and realism has gained urgency within contemporary intellectual discourse, fundamentally inflecting modern philosophy of mind, cognitive neuroscience, theoretical physics, and computational technology. In cognitive science and artificial intelligence, researchers grapple with questions concerning the nature of mental representation and internal architecture. Jerry Fodor’s influential work on the computational theory of mind explicitly engaged with “methodological solipsism” as an operational paradigm, proposing that cognitive psychological explanations must focus on internal syntactic operations within the agent without presuming the truth or falsity of the external environment. As computational models simulate cognitive states, the philosophical question shifts toward the epistemic boundaries of artificial neural networks: if a machine achieves subjective consciousness, is it permanently confined within an algorithmic solipsistic bubble?

Furthermore, rapid technological advancements in virtual reality, brain-computer interfaces, and neural simulations have revitalized Cartesian skepticism in modernized guises. Thinkers such as Nick Bostrom and David Chalmers have catalyzed international debate over the simulation hypothesis—the proposition that our experienced reality could be a high-fidelity computer simulation operated by an advanced civilization. While the simulation argument does not necessarily culminate in ontological solipsism (since the simulators themselves are presumed to inhabit a real world), it dramatically illustrates the fragility of naive realism, demonstrating that an agent’s perceptual phenomenology can be completely divorced from the physical environment it assumes it inhabits.

In theoretical physics, particular interpretations of quantum mechanics—most notably the Copenhagen interpretation and its subjective extensions, such as the Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation or Quantum Bayesianism (QBism)—have revived rigorous debates over the ontological status of the observer. QBism explicitly models quantum states not as objective, mind-independent physical realities existing in the cosmos, but as an individual agent’s subjective degrees of belief concerning future sensory interventions. When foundational physics begins to treat the observer’s subjective measurement apparatus as primary, the line between sophisticated scientific modeling and epistemological solipsism blurs, making the defense of structural scientific realism an urgent matter. Finally, in meta-ethics and sociopolitical philosophy, maintaining a robust realist metaphysics remains an indispensable safeguard against radical epistemic relativism, providing the shared, objective ontological framework necessary to ground human rights, collective moral responsibility, and global environmental action.

2. Understanding Solipsism: The Sovereign Mind

2.1 Core Tenets and Metaphysical Claims

To analyze the solipsistic position with philosophical fairness, we must dissect its core tenets and metaphysical claims, distinguishing between its ontological assertions and its epistemological formulations. At its most radical metaphysical extreme, ontological solipsism posits an absolute monism of the self: the single, immediate conscious ego is the totality of existence. There is no physical spacetime, no mind-independent matter, no physical universe operating outside the bounds of the subject’s consciousness, and no other conscious agents. The entirety of the experienced cosmos—from the brilliant light of distant supernovas to the tactile sensation of one’s own skin, from complex geopolitical conflicts to the intimate laughter of a companion—is ontologically equivalent to a dream. These entities are not external substances; they are internal, phenomenological modifications of the subject’s solitary awareness.

In contrast, epistemological solipsism does not demand the definitive ontological denial of an external world. Rather, it imposes an absolute epistemic restriction upon what the human mind can rationally claim to know. The epistemological solipsist asserts that even if an objective universe and other conscious beings exist, the individual subject possesses zero epistemically reliable mechanisms to bridge the divide between internal mental states and external states of affairs. Because all evidence advanced to prove the existence of an external reality must inevitably be filtered through the subject’s own sensory faculties and cognitive architecture, the evidence itself becomes just another internal mental state. Consequently, the epistemological solipsist concludes that one can only ever know with certainty the contents of one’s own mind. The external world remains, at best, an unprovable hypothesis.

This doctrine systematically reduces the cosmos to subjective phenomenology. Under solipsism, the concept of “existence” is effectively synonymous with “being perceived by me.” It represents an absolute collapse of the classical subject-object distinction. The objective realm is entirely swallowed by the subjective realm; the cosmos ceases to be an external theater in which the observer plays a tiny evolutionary part, transforming instead into an inward, self-contained spectacle where the sovereign mind acts as author, actor, audience, and stage simultaneously.

2.2 Taxonomy of Solipsistic Thought

The broad philosophical tradition of solipsism can be categorized into distinct modalities, each serving different functions within theoretical inquiry. A rigorous taxonomy reveals three primary branches: methodological solipsism, ontological solipsism, and linguistic solipsism.

• Methodological Solipsism: Unlike its ontological counterpart, methodological solipsism is not a metaphysical doctrine about what actually exists; rather, it is an epistemic and research heuristic. Popularized in modern cognitive science and philosophy of mind by thinkers like Hilary Putnam (who critically discussed it) and Jerry Fodor, methodological solipsism insists that for the purposes of scientific psychology, an agent’s cognitive states should be described purely in terms of their internal relations, without assuming the existence of, or reference to, an external world. The computational states of a mind or machine are evaluated based on their internal formal syntax, bracketed entirely from environmental truth values. Similarly, in the phenomenological epoché of Edmund Husserl, methodological bracketing suspends ontological judgment about the external world to rigorously investigate the structures of pure consciousness.
• Ontological (or Metaphysical) Solipsism: This is the absolute and uncompromising claim that only the self exists. It dismisses the external world and other minds not merely as unprovable, but as non-existent. The physical cosmos is viewed as an insubstantial illusion, an ongoing, involuntary hallucination generated by the solitary consciousness. This position is rarely defended as a permanent lifestyle, but it represents the logical terminus of radical skepticism when pushed to its absolute limits.
• Linguistic Solipsism: Rooted in the philosophy of language, this variant examines whether it is theoretically possible for an isolated mind to construct a private linguistic system whose terms refer exclusively to its own immediate, unshareable phenomenological sensations. If language is fundamentally subjective and its meanings are anchored solely in private mental events, communication between minds becomes illusory, and each speaking subject remains trapped within an idiosyncratic, linguistic solipsistic prison.

2.3 Major Arguments and Philosophical Roots

The philosophical scaffolding supporting solipsism has been constructed through centuries of skeptical argumentation. One of the earliest precursors can be found in the ancient Greek sophist Gorgias of Leontini, whose lost treatise On Non-Existence (or On Nature) advanced three famous skeptical theses: first, that nothing exists; second, that even if something exists, it cannot be known or comprehended by human beings; and third, that even if it could be known, it could never be communicated or explained to anyone else. Gorgias demonstrated that the semantic medium of communication (words, logos) is fundamentally distinct from the ontological reality of things, thereby erecting an early epistemic wall around the experiencing individual.

The cornerstone of modern solipsistic argumentation, however, remains the Cartesian epistemological asymmetry. Descartes highlighted that my knowledge of my own mental states possesses a direct, immediate, and infallible quality that knowledge of the physical world can never match. When I experience a sharp sensation of pain, I may be mistaken about the physical cause of that pain—there may be no physical needle pricking my finger—but I cannot coherently doubt that I am currently experiencing the sensation of pain. My conscious states are immediately present to me (privileged access). By contrast, my apprehension of external physical objects is mediated by sensory mechanisms that are notoriously susceptible to optical illusions, hallucinations, dreams, and neurological glitches. This epistemic asymmetry creates an inescapable hierarchy: the internal mind is foundational and certain, while the external world is inferred, indirect, and perpetually open to doubt.

A further philosophical root is found in the extreme logical trajectory of British empiricism, particularly through George Berkeley’s subjective idealism (immaterialism). Berkeley famously declared: esse est aut percipi aut percipere (“to be is to be perceived or to perceive”). Seeking to defeat materialist atheism, Berkeley argued that physical matter, conceived as an unthinking, mind-independent substance, is a philosophical impossibility. When we analyze our conception of an apple, we discover nothing more than a bundle of sensations: a round shape, a red color, a sweet taste, and a crisp texture. We never perceive an underlying, invisible “matter” supporting these qualities; we perceive only ideas. Berkeley himself avoided solipsism by asserting that the continuity and regularity of the physical universe are sustained by an omnipresent, infinite mind—God—who constantly perceives all things and coordinates sensory impressions across multiple human minds. However, critical philosophers quickly realized that if one removes Berkeley’s theological premise—a move made inevitable by modern secular epistemology—subjective idealism rapidly collapses into pure solipsism. Without God to guarantee an external order or the existence of other minds, Berkeley’s empirical reduction leaves the solitary subject stranded with nothing but its own personal sensory ideas.

2.4 Critiques and Structural Limitations

Despite its theoretical resilience against pure deductive refutation, solipsism faces devastating critiques and structural limitations that render it philosophically untenable as an account of reality. The first and most intuitive barrier is the classical “problem of other minds.” In our daily engagement with the world, we encounter other human beings who display immense behavioral complexity, emotional depth, creative ingenuity, and physiological similarity to ourselves. When another person burns their hand on a hot stove, they flinch, cry out, and display neurological responses identical to our own when experiencing pain. To claim that these individuals are mindless automata—philosophical zombies lacking any interiority, or dream figures projected by our own mind—requires an immense, implausible ontological burden. If my consciousness is the sole generator of the entire human social sphere, my unconscious mind must be vastly more intelligent, creative, and structurally sophisticated than my conscious self, inventing the mathematics of Isaac Newton, the literature of William Shakespeare, and the philosophies of thinkers I struggle even to comprehend.

A second, intellectually lethal strike against solipsism came from Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Private Language Argument, articulated in his Philosophical Investigations (1953). Wittgenstein attacked the foundational solipsistic assumption that a person could invent a strictly private language to describe their inner phenomenological experiences—a language that, in principle, no other person could understand. Wittgenstein demonstrated that language is an inherently rule-governed activity. To follow a rule, there must be a genuine distinction between following a rule correctly and merely believing one is following it correctly. In a strictly private sphere, however, the solitary subject has no independent criterion or external standard of correctness; whatever seems right to the subject will be right, which means that the concept of “correctness” loses all coherent meaning.

Wittgenstein used the famous analogy of the private diary where an individual records the letter “E” every time a particular sensation occurs. Without an external, public criterion to verify memory and establish semantic rules, the diarist cannot distinguish between genuine recollection and false memory. Meaning requires a social context—an intersubjective linguistic community that engages in public “language-games.” Therefore, the very concepts, grammar, and vocabulary that the solipsist uses to articulate their skepticism are public tools inherited from an external, shared world. To utter “I am the only mind that exists” is to employ a conceptual framework that could only have been developed within a collective, communicative reality, rendering the solipsist position a performative self-contradiction.

3. Understanding Realism: The Mind-Independent Cosmos

3.1 Core Tenets and Ontological Commitments

In stark contrast to the solipsistic confinement within subjective consciousness, Realism presents an expansive, robust metaphysical architecture centered on the autonomy of the universe. The fundamental ontological commitment of realism is mind-independence: the physical cosmos exists, possesses structural integrity, and operates according to fundamental physical laws completely independent of whether any conscious observer perceives, conceives, or measures it. An oak tree standing in a primeval forest before the evolutionary emergence of hominids possessed physical mass, cellular structure, photosynthetic chemistry, and spatiotemporal coordinates. Its ontological status was not held in abeyance waiting for a human eye to render it actual; it existed as an objective, physical substance in its own right.

The second core tenet of realism is epistemic accessibility. While realists acknowledge that human perception is mediated through biological sense organs, neural pathways, and cognitive models, they reject the skeptical claim that these mechanisms sever us from the world. Instead, realists assert that our sensory and cognitive faculties have evolved precisely to track, navigate, and interact with the physical environment with reasonable fidelity. Sensation is not an impenetrable wall isolating the mind from reality; it is an interactive interface forged by evolutionary pressures that reliably delivers information about the objective state of affairs. While our knowledge may be fallible, partial, and historically provisional, the external world is genuinely knowable through systematic observation, rigorous logic, and empirical experimentation.

Thirdly, realism is historically tethered to the correspondence theory of truth. Within a realist framework, a proposition, statement, or belief is true if and only if it corresponds to an actual state of affairs in the objective world. The proposition “The boiling point of water at sea level is 100 degrees Celsius” is not rendered true by internal mental coherence, subjective conviction, or linguistic convention; it is made true by the objective thermal and molecular properties of water molecules under specified atmospheric pressures. Truth is an objective relation between an asserting mind and an independent reality.

3.2 Major Variants of Realist Philosophy

Realism is not a monolithic doctrine; it spans a sophisticated spectrum of philosophical positions that balance the relationship between mind, perception, and external objects in nuanced ways. The primary variants include Naive Realism, Indirect (or Critical) Realism, and Scientific Realism.

• Naive Realism (Direct Realism): This is the intuitive, common-sense worldview of everyday life. Naive realism posits that the world is pretty much as we perceive it. Physical objects possess the very qualities we perceive them to have—color, smell, sound, shape, and solidity—and perception provides immediate, unmediated access to these mind-independent entities. When you look at a blue sky, you are directly apprehending the sky’s objective blueness. However, naive realism struggles deeply with perceptual illusions, hallucinations, and scientific findings regarding human sensory neurobiology, prompting philosophers to construct more sophisticated frameworks.
• Indirect (Critical) Realism: Championed by early modern philosophers such as John Locke and defended by many modern cognitive scientists, indirect realism preserves the objective existence of the external world while acknowledging that we do not perceive it directly. Instead, our minds directly perceive internal mental representations, impressions, or “sense-data” that are causally generated by external physical objects. The physical object exists outside the mind, emitting light waves or acoustic vibrations that impact our sensory organs, which then generate an internal perceptual representation. While this model successfully accounts for illusions and sensory variations, it introduces the infamous “veil of perception,” forcing realists to justify how they can know their internal representations accurately match external physical objects.
• Scientific Realism: Centered in the philosophy of science, this variant asserts that the universe described by mature, successful scientific theories is an accurate or approximately accurate depiction of objective reality. Crucially, scientific realism extends beyond observable physical objects (such as rocks and planets) to embrace unobservable entities, processes, and structures (such as quarks, gravitational waves, electromagnetic fields, and DNA). The scientific realist argues that theoretical constructs are not mere mathematical fictions or instrumental tools designed to predict observations; they describe actual, mind-independent features of reality.

3.3 Historical Evolution and Theoretical Pillars

The historical architecture of realism was formally erected in classical Greece by Aristotle, who rejected Plato’s transcendent World of Forms in favor of an immanent, empirical reality. For Aristotle, reality is not located in a shadowy, abstract realm accessible only to pure intellect, nor is it an illusion of the senses. It consists of concrete primary substances that compose the natural world. Aristotle’s emphasis on observation, biological classification, and causal analysis established the foundational realist premise that nature possesses an intrinsic order that human reason can decipher.

In the seventeenth century, John Locke modernized realism to accommodate the emerging mechanical worldview of the scientific revolution. In his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689), Locke introduced the crucial distinction between primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are intrinsic, mind-independent properties inseparable from the physical body itself: solidity, extension, figure, motion, rest, and number. Whether an observer perceives a rolling boulder or not, the boulder’s mass, shape, and velocity are physically real. Secondary qualities, by contrast—such as color, taste, sound, and smell—do not exist within the physical objects themselves; they are powers within the objects to produce various sensations in conscious observers by virtue of their primary qualities (the microscopic arrangement of particles). Locke’s dual classification enabled realism to assimilate the counter-intuitive findings of Newtonian mechanics without capitulating to subjective idealism.

In modern philosophy of science, the primary defense of scientific realism is crystallized in the famous “No Miracles Argument,” definitively formulated by Hilary Putnam. Putnam famously declared that scientific realism “is the only philosophy that doesn’t make the success of science a miracle.” Throughout human history, scientific theories have made astoundingly accurate, novel predictions—from the deflection of starlight by gravity predicted by general relativity to the existence of the Higgs boson deduced from the Standard Model of particle physics. Furthermore, science facilitates the engineering of extraordinarily reliable technologies, such as microprocessors, satellite global positioning systems, and mRNA vaccines. If the theoretical entities and physical structures posited by modern science do not correspond to an objective, mind-independent reality, the ongoing, predictive, and practical triumphs of modern science would represent an inexplicable, continuous series of cosmic coincidences. Realism provides the only rational, non-miraculous explanation for the empirical success of scientific inquiry.

3.4 Vulnerabilities and Theoretical Challenges

Despite its intuitive appeal and scientific triumphs, realism is confronted by profound theoretical challenges that prevent it from achieving total philosophical closure. The first and most persistent challenge is the aforementioned “Veil of Perception” that plagues indirect realism. If human consciousness is directly acquainted only with internal representations, sense-data, or neural activations, how can an agent ever step outside of its own sensory apparatus to compare its internal mental image with the mind-independent object itself? To compare two items, an observer must have independent access to both. Because human beings can never escape their own perceptual interface to inspect the universe in a state of absolute, unperceived purity, inferring that our mental representations accurately resemble external objects remains an act of inductive faith rather than deductive certainty.

A second major vulnerability comes from the history of science itself, known as the “Pessimistic Meta-Induction” argument, articulated forcefully by philosophers like Larry Laudan. Looking across centuries of scientific progress, history reveals that the vast majority of our most successful scientific theories were eventually demonstrated to be false and their posited entities non-existent. Scientists once achieved tremendous explanatory and predictive success utilizing concepts such as the caloric theory of heat, the luminiferous ether, phlogiston chemistry, and Ptolemaic epicycles. Yet, every one of these entities was ultimately discarded as pure fiction. By inductive reasoning, we must conclude that our currently accepted scientific theories will likely be discarded by future generations, undermining the claim that science delivers an accurate mapping of mind-independent reality.

Finally, modern quantum mechanics poses an ongoing challenge to classical realism. In phenomena such as the double-slit experiment, quantum entanglement, and the measurement problem, physical systems appear to exist in indeterminate superpositions of states until an act of measurement or observation occurs. The historic debate between Albert Einstein (a staunch defender of local realism, who famously asked whether the moon ceases to exist when nobody looks at it) and Niels Bohr (who argued that physical properties cannot be meaningfully separated from the observational context) demonstrated that the microphysical universe does not conform to naive, classical realist expectations. While quantum theory does not prove solipsism, it severely destabilizes naive materialist realism, suggesting that the boundary between the observer and the observed is profoundly entangled.

4. Key Differences Between Solipsism and Realism

4.1 Ontological Framework and the Status of the Universe

The ontological chasm separating solipsism from realism is absolute and irreducible, concerning the fundamental architecture of being itself. Solipsism operates as an extreme ontological monism: the universe is collapsed entirely into an individual subjectivity. There is no independent spatio-temporal matrix; physical space and time are treated either as subjective forms of sensory intuition (echoing Kantian aesthetics, but stripped of the external manifold) or as purely hallucinatory narratives generated by the solitary consciousness. Under solipsism, mind does not emerge from matter; rather, what is erroneously called “matter” is merely a localized, transient mental state within the single existing mind.

Realism, conversely, is profoundly pluralistic and objective. The realist asserts that the universe is an ancient, self-sustaining physical system that predated conscious life by billions of years and will continue to exist long after conscious life has vanished. Spacetime and physical matter are ontologically primary. Minds are not the creators of the physical cosmos; they are highly localized, late-emerging evolutionary products of complex neurobiological organization. Under realism, the universe is autonomous, populated by trillions of independent physical entities, causal chains, and fundamental structural laws that are utterly indifferent to the presence, desires, or cognitive faculties of conscious observers.

4.2 Epistemological Mechanics and Truth Criteria

The two frameworks utilize radically divergent epistemic mechanisms and criteria of verification. For the solipsist, epistemology is fundamentally introverted and phenomenological. The sole criterion of truth is the immediate, indubitable presence of an experience within the subjective consciousness. There can be no appeal to intersubjective validation, empirical falsification, or objective corroboration, because there are no other subjects or external objects to consult. If an experience is felt, the experience itself is an indisputable reality for that subject. Epistemological coherence and immediate phenomenological introspection serve as the solitary compass within a closed cognitive loop.

For the realist, epistemology is necessarily extroverted, empirical, and intersubjective. Truth is defined by correspondence: an assertion is true if it accurately tracks mind-independent facts. Because human perceptual faculties are recognized as fallible, realism relies on communal methodologies designed to filter out individual subjective bias. This includes the scientific method, double-blind experimentation, peer review, statistical analysis, and technological instrumentation (such as electron microscopes and radio telescopes) that expand human observational capacity far beyond the organic limits of biological sense organs. Evidence, for the realist, is not merely another mental impression; it is the causal imprint of an external, mind-independent physical system acting upon our investigative tools.

4.3 The Status of Other Conscious Agents

Perhaps the most profound ethical and human distinction between these two philosophies lies in their characterization of other people. In the solipsist universe, other individuals are completely stripped of their interiority. They are treated as ontological phantoms—behavioral automatons or dream figures lacking any private conscious experience, emotional life, or genuine sentience. When the solipsist witnesses someone weeping or smiling, they are observing an internal sensory projection possessing no more subjective awareness than a character in a nightly dream. Consequently, the foundation of morality disintegrates; ethics collapses into radical, solipsistic egoism, aesthetic hedonism, or profound existential isolation, since one cannot possess moral obligations toward behavioral illusions.

Under realism, other conscious agents are recognized as autonomous, ontologically distinct beings who possess private phenomenological interiority just as real, rich, and vulnerable as one’s own. Realism affirms that the human social world is an intersubjective community composed of billions of distinct minds, each experiencing joy, suffering, mortality, and agency. This ontological affirmation serves as the non-negotiable foundation for ethics, human rights, law, and justice. The moral imperative to alleviate suffering, honor promises, and respect the dignity of others relies entirely on the realist premise that those others genuinely exist and experience the consequences of our shared actions within an objective, interactive world.

4.4 Treatment of Causality and Regularity

The problem of natural order, causality, and predictability provides one of the sharpest analytical battlegrounds between the two paradigms. Realism provides a natural, coherent account of universal regularity: the physical world behaves with mathematical precision and predictable consistency because it is governed by mind-independent physical laws and structural constants (such as the speed of light, gravitational constants, and thermodynamic principles). An apple falls from a tree in accordance with gravitational attraction, regardless of whether a human observer expects it, desires it, or observes it. Causality functions symmetrically and bidirectionally: physical objects exert causal force upon one another and upon human sensory organs, while human intentional actions physically manipulate external matter.

Solipsism, by contrast, suffers from a fatal explanatory void regarding natural regularity. In our conscious experience, sensory impressions do not unfold in arbitrary, chaotic nonsense; they exhibit profound, mathematically consistent physical order. If the physical universe is an illusion generated by my solitary mind, why does this illusion follow the complex, invariant laws of quantum electrodynamics and general relativity—laws that require years of arduous intellectual study for my conscious self to comprehend? Why do I experience excruciating physical pain when I involuntarily trip over an unseen object in the dark? Solipsism cannot explain why the sovereign mind generates a reality governed by rigid physical laws that frequently run directly contrary to its own will, comfort, and survival, leaving the profound order of the universe an arbitrary, unexplained mystery.

4.5 Comparative Matrix: Solipsism vs. Realism

The fundamental philosophical contrasts between Solipsism and Realism across their major theoretical dimensions can be systematically summarized as follows:

Philosophical Dimension	Solipsism	Realism
Ontological Foundation	Absolute subjective monism: only the self and its internal mental contents exist; all else is projection.	Mind-independent pluralism: an objective physical universe exists autonomously without requiring an observer.
Epistemic Primacy	First-person infallibility; immediate phenomenological introspection is the only certain datum.	Third-person empirical accessibility; sensory observation and scientific instrumentation yield objective knowledge.
Theory of Truth	Internal coherence or direct phenomenological presence within the sovereign conscious mind.	Correspondence theory: statements are true if they accurately represent objective states of affairs.
Status of Other Minds	Ontological illusions, dream figures, or philosophical zombies devoid of genuine interiority.	Autonomous, ontologically distinct conscious subjects possessing their own private phenomenological lives.
Account of Natural Order	Arbitrary, unexplained regularities generated involuntarily by the internal mechanisms of the mind.	Mind-independent physical laws and fundamental structural properties operating across spacetime.
Ethical Implications	Moral solipsism: ethical duties collapse into radical egoism or aesthetic contemplation.	Intersubjective moral realism: objective duties, human rights, and social justice grounded in shared existence.
Scientific Applicability	Methodological utility only (computational modeling, cognitive bracketing); useless for natural science.	Essential foundational axiom for natural sciences, experimental validation, and technological engineering.

5. Similarities and Conceptual Overlap

5.1 Shared Epistemic Starting Point

While solipsism and realism arrive at diametrically opposed metaphysical destinations, their philosophical investigations inevitably begin from the exact same experiential starting point: the first-person, phenomenological stream of human consciousness. Both paradigms must acknowledge that every claim to knowledge, every sensory observation, and every conceptual deduction is originally apprehended within subjective awareness. The realist does not experience the mind-independent world through a miraculous, disembodied transcendence; the realist looks through biological eyes, hears through biological eardrums, and processes data using a biological brain. Consequently, both frameworks are compelled to address the fundamental Cartesian challenge: how can a conscious subject, starting from its own private internal states, formulate reliable claims about reality?

Furthermore, both positions recognize the active, constructive role that cognitive architecture plays in organizing reality. Neither modern cognitive realism nor solipsism treats the human mind as a passive, empty wax tablet upon which reality mechanically imprints itself. Cognitive science demonstrates that the brain actively filters, predicts, and constructs our perceptual experience, utilizing predictive processing models to translate chaotic raw stimuli into coherent objects. Solipsism takes this constructive cognitive power and treats it as the entirety of existence; realism treats it as a sophisticated biological adaptation designed to navigate a pre-existing physical territory. Nevertheless, both frameworks must begin by analyzing the subjective interface before establishing their ontological conclusions.

5.2 Engagement with the Problem of Perception

The philosophical challenge of perception represents a massive zone of conceptual overlap and shared struggle for both doctrines. Specifically, indirect (critical) realism concedes a vast amount of ground to skeptical and idealist arguments. By admitting that human beings do not directly perceive physical objects, but rather mental representations (sense-data, qualia, neural patterns), indirect realism accepts the foundational premise that the immediate object of awareness is mind-dependent. This critical concession brings indirect realism into intimate dialogue with subjective idealism and solipsism: both doctrines agree that the immediate “world” an individual experiences is a cognitively generated simulation.

The point of divergence is strictly ontological: the indirect realist insists that this mental representation is causally anchored in, and systematically caused by, a real, physical entity existing outside the mind (Kant’s Ding an sich or the physical object of Locke), whereas the solipsist discards the external cause as an unproven, redundant metaphysical luxury. Furthermore, both positions are forced to grapple with the identical problem of perceptual errors, optical illusions, dreams, and hallucinations. A person experiencing a vivid hallucination or dreaming of flying perceives events that feel entirely real within consciousness. Both solipsism and realism must explain why certain mental states feel stable and coherent while others are ephemeral, and both must account for the persistence of perceptual illusions even after our rational intellect knows them to be false.

5.3 Vulnerability to Skeptical Hypotheses

A profound epistemological symmetry between solipsism and realism is that neither framework can offer an airtight, mathematically conclusive deductive proof that completely invalidates the other. The realist can present an immense array of empirical data, scientific successes, and logical arguments concerning the absurdity of assuming one’s mind generated the universe; yet, the solipsist can calmly absorb all of this evidence, pointing out that every single piece of empirical data, every scientific instrument, and every philosophical argument presented by the realist exists purely as an experience within the subject’s consciousness. Pure solipsism is a logically impenetrable fortress; it cannot be decisively refuted by empirical evidence because any counter-evidence is instantly co-opted into the subjective realm.

Conversely, the solipsist cannot prove their own negative claim: that nothing exists beyond their mind. To dogmatically assert that no external world exists requires a leap of metaphysical faith that far outstrips the modest epistemological claim that one cannot know an external world exists. In the face of radical skeptical scenarios—such as the Cartesian Evil Demon, the Brain-in-a-Vat thought experiment popularized by Hilary Putnam, or contemporary simulation arguments—both realism and solipsism reach an explanatory limit. Ultimately, both sides must resort to pragmatic justification. The realist adopts realism because it is the only philosophy that allows for coherent living, scientific enterprise, and social survival; the solipsist retreats into solipsism as an intellectual exercise, yet paradoxically relies on realist habits to eat, sleep, cross the street, and avoid physical harm in daily life.

6. Contextual Applications: When Each Framework Operates

6.1 Methodological Utility of Solipsism

While metaphysical solipsism is universally rejected as an unlivable lifestyle and an ungrounded cosmic claim, solipsism possesses tremendous, indispensable value when deployed as a methodological heuristic. In the cognitive sciences and philosophy of mind, methodological solipsism operates as a rigorous framework for investigating internal computational architecture. When cognitive psychologists model how an artificial neural network or a biological brain processes sensory inputs, they must deliberately bracket whether the sensory inputs correspond to an actual external world. The computational engine operates exclusively on the formal syntax and electrical charges delivered to its internal registers. By isolating the processing system from external semantic truth values, researchers can uncover the precise mechanisms of cognitive processing without contaminating their analysis with external environmental variables.

Similarly, in the phenomenological tradition pioneered by Edmund Husserl, a quasi-solipsistic technique known as the epoché (phenomenological reduction) is employed to advance human self-understanding. Husserl argued that to truly understand the nature of consciousness, one must “bracket” or suspend the natural, unreflective belief in the objective existence of the external world. By doing so, the philosopher does not deny reality; rather, they turn their investigative attention entirely toward the structures of pure experience—intentionality, temporality, spatial intuition, and emotional constitution. Methodological solipsism also serves as the ultimate diagnostic stress-test in epistemological pedagogy: by forcing students to confront the sheer difficulty of logically disproving solipsism, educators dismantle unexamined dogmatism, intellectual arrogance, and naive realism, compelling thinkers to build their epistemological models on rigorously justified foundations.

6.2 Pragmatic Necessity of Realism

If methodological solipsism serves as an indispensable tool for internal cognitive analysis, realism is the absolute pragmatic oxygen of human civilization, social cohesion, and scientific advancement. In the natural sciences, realism functions as a necessary operational axiom. One cannot construct an astronomical observatory, engineer a cancer therapeutic, or analyze gravitational waves without operating under the profound conviction that the physical cosmos, biological cellular structures, and cosmic events possess an objective existence that can be discovered, measured, and modified. The entire enterprise of experimental science depends on the assumption of an external realm that does not alter its fundamental physical laws simply because an observer’s emotional state or cognitive paradigm shifts.

In legal jurisprudence and ethical governance, realism is equally non-negotiable. The modern legal system is predicated entirely on the realist premise that real individuals commit real actions that cause real harm to real victims within a shared, objective world. If solipsism were legally permitted as an ontological defense, concepts of culpability, murder, theft, and human rights would instantly dissolve; a defendant could argue that their victim was merely an internal cognitive projection devoid of sentience, rendering moral and legal accountability meaningless. Furthermore, in clinical psychiatry and neuropsychology, the unyielding boundary of realism is vital for mental health. When an individual genuinely begins to experience reality through an ontological solipsistic lens—convinced that their family members are empty automatons (Capgras delusion), that they themselves are dead and physical reality has vanished (Cotard’s syndrome), or that the external world is entirely a simulated illusion (severe depersonalization-derealization disorder)—clinical medicine treats these states not as profound metaphysical insights, but as severe, debilitating neurological and psychological pathologies requiring immediate pharmacological and psychotherapeutic intervention to restore connection with the shared, objective world.

6.3 Emerging Technologies: Virtual Realities and Artificial Worlds

The dawn of advanced digital environments, generative synthetic realities, and immersive extended reality (XR) hardware has created an unprecedented technological crucible where solipsism and realism intersect in real-time engineering. In high-fidelity virtual reality, systems deploy dynamic rendering engines that practice an operational form of solipsism. In modern gaming engines utilizing techniques like occlusion culling and foveated rendering, the virtual universe does not exist in an all-at-once physical state; the digital world is rendered dynamically only where the user’s eye tracking indicates their focus is directed. If the user turns their head away, the virtual landscape behind them ceases to be computationally rendered. For the immersed user, reality in the headset behaves according to solipsistic principles: the perceptual environment is completely co-extensive with their immediate sensory engagement.

Simultaneously, however, the successful realization of these virtual architectures requires the most rigorous application of physical realism by software and hardware engineers. To make a virtual reality feel convincing, engineers must write complex software algorithms that model real-world, mind-independent physical laws: ray tracing to simulate physical photon bounces, kinematic engines to calculate gravitational acceleration and mass collisions, and spatialized acoustic algorithms that mimic the physical reflection of sound waves off physical surfaces. Furthermore, multi-user shared virtual metaverses require centralized, objective server states that maintain an objective database of the virtual world’s parameters, ensuring that multiple distinct, real users can interact within the same synthetic landscape without spatial discrepancies. The philosophy of virtual reality thus synthesizes both poles: the user navigates a phenomenologically solipsistic, dynamically rendered sensory envelope that is entirely generated and sustained by an objective, realist infrastructure of silicon chips, copper wires, and complex mathematical algorithms.

7. Frequently Asked Questions

7.1 Can Solipsism Be Strictly Refuted by Logic or Empirical Evidence?

Pure metaphysical solipsism cannot be strictly refuted by deductive logic or empirical evidence, a reality that has frustrated philosophers for centuries. The reason for its empirical unassailability lies in its structure: solipsism is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. If a realist attempts to refute solipsism by pointing to an intricate scientific measurement, hitting a stone with their foot (as Samuel Johnson famously did to “refute” Berkeley), or presenting the physiological complexity of the human brain, the solipsist effortlessly incorporates all such “evidence” into their mental domain. The solipsist simply replies: “The sensation of the stone striking your foot, the visual image of the scientific meter, and the complex diagrams of neuroscience are all, at this very moment, nothing more than ideas and experiences occurring inside my own conscious mind.” Because every conceivable empirical test must be experienced through consciousness to be known, empirical data can never break through the circular boundary of the mind to prove something outside of consciousness exists.

Logical refutations fare slightly better by targeting the structural coherence of solipsism itself. As demonstrated by Wittgenstein’s Private Language Argument, the concepts, vocabulary, and grammar required to even formulate the solipsist hypothesis (“I,” “mind,” “exist,” “reality”) depend entirely on linguistic rules that require a public, intersubjective community to establish standards of correctness. To claim that one’s mind generated these concepts in absolute isolation renders the words themselves meaningless. Therefore, contemporary philosophers do not reject solipsism because it has been definitively crushed by a formal mathematical proof; they reject it because it is an unfalsifiable, cognitively sterile, and performatively self-contradictory doctrine that yields zero explanatory progress, provides no predictive capability, and is fundamentally impossible to practice in genuine human existence.

7.2 How Does Indirect Realism Differ From Subjective Idealism and Solipsism?

The crucial distinction between indirect realism, subjective idealism, and solipsism revolves around the causal origin and ontological status of what we perceive. Indirect realism, pioneered by John Locke and widely accepted in contemporary perceptual psychology, affirms a tripartite model of perception: there is (1) the conscious subject, (2) the internal mental representation (the sense-datum or perceptual image), and (3) the mind-independent physical object existing out in the real world. The indirect realist acknowledges that we only directly perceive the internal representation, but insists that this representation is causally generated by light waves, acoustic signals, or mechanical forces emanating from an actual, mind-independent physical substance. The physical universe is real, material, and autonomous.

Subjective idealism, famously formulated by George Berkeley, collapses this tripartite model by eliminating the third component: the mind-independent physical object. For Berkeley, there is no physical matter hiding behind our perceptions; physical objects are the collections of sensory ideas themselves. However, subjective idealism remains distinct from solipsism because it affirms the existence of a vast plurality of other minds. Berkeley explicitly argued that there are many finite human minds and one infinite mind (God), who coordinates our sensory experiences so that we inhabit a shared, consistent, and predictable reality. Solipsism takes the final, radical step: it eliminates both the physical object and all other minds. Under solipsism, there is only one entity in existence—the solitary experiencing subject—and the entire universe, including all other supposed human beings and divine entities, is nothing more than the solitary subject’s private, unshared cognitive daydream.

7.3 Why Is Solipsism Considered a Philosophical Dead End?

Solipsism is universally classified across academic philosophy as a philosophical dead end because it lacks generative capacity, cognitive fruitfulness, and explanatory utility. In the philosophy of science, a viable research program must produce progressive problem shifts, generate testable hypotheses, explain anomalies, and open up new avenues of intellectual discovery. Solipsism achieves the exact opposite: it provides a universal, trivial explanation for everything while explaining nothing. If an investigator asks, “Why do viruses mutate?” or “Why does gravity curve spacetime?”, the solipsist answers: “Because that is simply how your sovereign mind arbitrarily decided to dream the experience.” By reducing all phenomena to an inscrutable, solitary mental fabrication, solipsism halts all scientific, mathematical, and historical inquiry in its tracks.

Furthermore, solipsism completely paralyzes ethics, human relationships, and social life. If one sincerely embraces the solipsistic premise that other people have no interior consciousness, then love, empathy, justice, compassion, and moral responsibility become meaningless, absurd delusions. Grief over a deceased friend becomes identical to mourning the erasure of an imaginary video game character. Finally, solipsism is inherently unlivable; its proponents must continually perform what philosophers call “epistemic bad faith.” The very individuals who argue for solipsism in philosophical seminars still look both ways before crossing a busy street, step out of the way of speeding vehicles, and seek out food when hungry, thereby demonstrating that their physical actions are consistently guided by an inescapable, instinctual commitment to realism.

7.4 Does Quantum Mechanics Support Solipsism Over Realism?

Despite sensationalized pop-science claims, mainstream quantum mechanics does not support solipsism over realism. The misconception arises primarily from early formulations of the measurement problem in quantum theory, particularly the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, which proposed that the collapse of the quantum wave function from a state of probability into a definite physical outcome requires an act of conscious observation. Figures like Eugene Wigner once speculated that consciousness possesses a unique physical agency capable of resolving quantum indeterminacy. Popular culture and esoteric writers rapidly seized upon this speculation to assert that quantum physics proves that “the human mind creates reality,” an assertion that leans heavily toward subjective idealism and solipsism.

However, modern theoretical and experimental physics has decisively moved away from subjective, consciousness-driven interpretations. Contemporary physics overwhelmingly favors objective mechanisms like quantum decoherence to explain how quantum probabilities transform into the classical, macro-level reality we observe. Decoherence demonstrates that an “observation” or “measurement” does not require a human soul, brain, or conscious ego; it requires only a physical interaction between a quantum system and its surrounding macroscopic environment (such as air molecules, thermal radiation, or a mechanical detector). When a quantum particle collides with an environmental particle, its quantum coherence is destroyed, producing definite classical states purely through mechanical, mind-independent physical interactions. While quantum mechanics unquestionably challenges naive, deterministic, local realism (as proven by tests of Bell’s theorem), it aligns smoothly with sophisticated contemporary variants of physical realism—such as Objective Collapse theories, the Many-Worlds interpretation, and Bohmian mechanics—none of which grant the human conscious ego the status of cosmic creator.

8. Conclusion: Balancing Radical Skepticism and Pragmatic Reality

8.1 Synthesis of the Metaphysical Conflict

The enduring conflict between solipsism and realism represents one of the most profound intellectual journeys the human mind can undertake. When we strip away our everyday practical assumptions, solipsism stands as an unassailable monument to radical epistemic modesty. It demonstrates with brutal clarity that our conscious awareness is the single indubitable baseline of reality—the bedrock datum upon which all other knowledge is precariously erected. It exposes the intellectual fragility of naive realism, reminding us that we never touch the physical universe in an unmediated state; we dwell within a phenomenal world constructed, filtered, and presented through the biological wetware of the brain. Solipsism’s value is not found in its truth as a lifestyle, but in its efficacy as a philosophical crucible, burning away unearned dogmatism and exposing the profound mystery of first-person consciousness.

Yet, while solipsism remains an impregnable theoretical bunker, it is an uninhabitable and claustrophobic tomb. Realism, by contrast, represents the heroic, non-negotiable metaphysical leap that transforms bare, isolated consciousness into an expansive, collaborative, and intelligible world. Realism acknowledges that while we cannot achieve absolute, Cartesian mathematical certainty regarding the external world, we possess overwhelming, rationally coherent, and empirically fruitful grounds for asserting that a mind-independent cosmos exists. The dialectic between the two positions demonstrates that absolute epistemic certainty and practical, expansive knowledge exist in a permanent inverse relationship: to demand total, infallible certainty is to be locked forever in the solitary confinement of solipsism; to step out into the rich, breathtaking expanse of science, love, ethics, and human achievement requires the courageous, rational adoption of realism.

8.2 The Epistemic Horizon

Ultimately, a sophisticated, mature philosophical worldview does not simply choose one of these frameworks while blindly discarding the other; instead, it integrates the critical lessons of both into a balanced, pragmatic realism. From solipsism and critical skepticism, we must retain a deep humility regarding our perceptual and cognitive limitations. We must acknowledge that our scientific models, sensory perceptions, and linguistic descriptions are not the universe itself, but human-mediated maps designed to navigate an infinitely complex reality. This methodological caution safeguards humanity against scientific arrogance, dogmatic fundamentalism, and the uncritical assumption that our cognitive representations represent the final, exhaustive truth of nature.

At the same time, we must plant our ontological feet firmly in the soil of realism. We must recognize that the earth we walk upon, the stars that light the night sky, and the billions of fellow human beings who journey alongside us are not the phantom figments of our own lonely psychology, but genuine, independent realities possessing their own profound intrinsic value, agency, and history. Pragmatic realism allows us to build particle accelerators that pierce the fundamental fabric of spacetime, develop life-saving medical interventions, protect delicate ecological systems, and build just legal and social institutions grounded in mutual moral obligation. Solipsism may linger as an unprovable, ghost-like riddle at the absolute edge of epistemology, but it is realism that provides the ground upon which human civilization, human empathy, and the eternal search for truth can flourish.

References

• Aristotle. (1984). The complete works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford translation (J. Barnes, Ed.). Princeton University Press.
• Berkeley, G. (1998). A treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge (J. Dancy, Ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1710).
• Bostrom, N. (2003). Are you living in a computer simulation? The Philosophical Quarterly, 53(211), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0378.00181
• Chalmers, D. J. (2022). Reality+: Virtual worlds and the problems of philosophy. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Descartes, R. (1996). Meditations on first philosophy: With selections from the Objections and Replies (J. Cottingham, Trans. & Ed.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1641).
• Fodor, J. A. (1980). Methodological solipsism considered as a research strategy in cognitive psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00001771
• Husserl, E. (2014). Ideas for a pure phenomenology and phenomenological philosophy: First book (D. O. Dahlstrom, Trans.). Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published 1913).
• Laudan, L. (1981). A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science, 48(1), 19–49. https://doi.org/10.1086/288975
• Locke, J. (1975). An essay concerning human understanding (P. H. Nidditch, Ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1689).
• Putnam, H. (1975). Mathematics, matter and method: Philosophical papers (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625268
• Putnam, H. (1981). Reason, truth and history. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625398
• Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophical investigations (P. M. S. Hacker & J. Schulte, Eds.; G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker, & J. Schulte, Trans.; 4th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. (Original work published 1953).