Now the man whom we call a solipsist and who
says that only his
own experiences are real, on the
other || one hand does not thereby
disagree with us about any practical question of fact, he does not
say that we are simulating when we complain of pains, he pities us
as much as anyone else, and at the same time he wishes to restrict
the use of the epithet “real” to what we should
call his experiences; and perhaps he doesn't want to call
our experiences “experiences” at all (again
without disagreeing with us about any question of
fact). For he would say that it was
inconceivable that experiences other than his own were
real. He ought therefore to use a notation in which such
a phrase as “A has real toothache” (where
A is not he) is meaningless, a notation whose rules
exclude this phrase as the rules of chess exclude a pawn's
making a knight's move. The solipsist's
suggestion comes to using such a phrase as “there is real
toothache” instead of “Smith (the
solipsist) has toothache”. And why
shouldn't we grant him this notation. I
needn't say that in order to avoid confusion he had in
his case better not use the word “real” as
opposed to “simulated” at all; which just means
that we shall have to provide for the
100.
distinction
“real”, “simulated” in some other
way. The solipsist who says “only I feel
real pain”, “only I re
ally see
(or hear)” is not stating an opinion; and
that's why he is so sure of what he says. He
is irresistibl
y tempted to use a certain form of
expression; but we must yet find
why he is.