Le solipsisme a été thématisé comme un préalable pour fonder la connaissance au dix-septième siècle. Cette doctrine suggérait, qu’en vue de la certitude, il fallait admettre transitoirement la concevabilité d'un doute portant sur l'existence du monde extérieur en totalité et des autres esprits. L'existence du monde extérieur a pu ainsi être tenue pour établie à l'occasion de preuves de l'existence d'un créateur unique ou tenue pour assurée à l’aide d'une déduction transcendantale. En comparaison, rien ne semble pouvoir prouver l'existence des autres. D'une part, rien ne semble compter comme une preuve a posteriori de l'existence d’autrui, puisque ce doute ne peut s'appuyer sur l'expérience. D'autre part, une preuve permettant de lever ce doute ne peut être produite a priori, puisque l'absence empirique généralisée des autres est concevable a posteriori. Ainsi, rien ne semble exclure la possibilité d'une découverte a priori de son unicité. Cette thèse entreprend de mettre au jour le traitement de cette difficulté par Sartre et Wittgenstein. Les deux philosophes se sont confrontés à l'illusion de confinement qui est le corollaire de l’admission, à titre de possibilité pertinente, de l'absence généralisée des autres esprits. Sartre propose dans L'être et le néant une preuve conceptuelle de l'existence d'autrui pour montrer que ledit problème théorique de l'existence d'autrui est un faux-problème, tandis que Wittgenstein propose dans le Tractatus de dissoudre les problèmes philosophiques de l'existence du monde extérieur et des autres esprits par le biais d'une réflexion sur les conditions d'intelligibilité de l'expression. Dans les deux cas, il s'agit de dissiper l’apparence d’un doute portant sur le monde en totalité et du même coup sur les autres esprits. Non seulement une preuve de l'existence d'autrui est impossible, mais elle est en plus superflue. Ainsi, requérir une telle preuve ne peut que conduire à manquer l’obviété de nos engagements envers les autres, et par là au déni de leurs existences. / Solipsism was conceived as a preliminary to grounding knowledge in the seventeenth century. This doctrine suggested that, in order to achieve certainty, one had to temporarily admit the conceivability of doubt about the existence of other minds and the external world as a whole. The existence of the external world was then taken to be established by means of proofs of the existence of a unique creator, or assured by means of transcendental deduction. By comparison, nothing seems to prove the existence of others. On the one hand, nothing seems to count as proof a posteriori of the existence of others, for the doubt it would dispel cannot be grounded in experience. On the other hand, nor can a proof which would dispel such doubt be produced a priori, for the empirical and generalized absence of others is conceivable a posteriori. Thus, nothing seems to exclude the possibility of an a priori discovery of one’s unicity. This thesis endeavours to bring out the similarity of the treatment of this difficulty by Sartre and Wittgenstein. Each of these philosophers confronted the illusion of confinement that presupposes admitting the generalized absence of others. In Being and Nothingness, Sartre proposes a conceptual means to establish that the theoretical problem of the existence of other minds is a pseudo-problem. In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein proposes to dissolve the philosophical problems of the existence of the external world and the existence of other minds via reflexion on the intelligibility conditions of expression. Both cases involve dispelling the appearance that doubt about the world and other minds is possible and required. Not only that proof of the existence of other minds is impossible, it is also superfluous. To require such a proof therefore can lead to nothing but missing the obviousness of our commitments to others, and thereby to denying their existence.

Thesis (MPhil (Philosophy))--University of Stellenbosch, 2005. / This study seeks to give a philosophical account of, and justification for the intuition that subjectivity is not a stable “Archimedean point” on the basis of which an intersubjective relation can be founded, but is instead profoundly affected by each different “Other” with which it enters into a relation. As a preliminary to the positive philosophical account of how this might work in Part II of the thesis, there is an attempt to critique certain of the classical accounts of intersubjectivity found in phenomenology, in order to show that these positions cannot give a satisfactory account of the type of intersubjective relation which gives rise to the abovementioned intuition. The thesis therefore starts off by examining the account of intersubjectivity in Husserl’s Cartesian Meditations (especially the Fifth Meditation). Husserl is there engaged in an attempt to overcome the charge of solipsism that might be levelled at phenomenology, since phenomenology is concerned with experience as, by definition, the experience of the subject. We try to show that Husserl cannot give a satisfactory account of the Other because he tries to derive it from the Subject, and hence reduces the Other to the Same. We then turn to two other phenomenological thinkers – Merleau-Ponty and Levinas, both of whom are themselves critical of Husserl – to examine whether they provide a better account, but conclude that (although each represents a certain advance over Husserl), neither are able to provide a decisively better account, since each is still too caught up in phenomenology and its focus on consciousness. In Part II of the thesis, we then turn to a non- (or even anti-) phenomenological thinker, namely Gilles Deleuze, to try and find an alternative theory that would be able to provide the account we seek. Our contention is that Deleuze, by seeking to give an account of the constitution of the subject itself, simultaneously provides an account of the constitution of the Other as arising at the same time as the Subject. Crucial to this account is the inversion of priority between the poles of a relation and the relation itself. Deleuze argues that a relation is “external to its terms”, and precedes these terms. Hence, by returning to a level which precedes consciousness and the order of knowledge – that is, by returning to the level of the virtual multiplicities and singular events that underlie and precede the actualization of these events and multiplicities in distinct subjects and objects – we argue that Deleuze shows that, contra phenomenology, there is in fact no primordial separation between subject and Other. The contention is therefore that the problem of intersubjectivity as posed by phenomenology is a false one that can be eluded by means of Deleuze’s philosophy. This philosophy is not based on the subject, but instead shows the subject to be the product of an underlying network of relations. Finally, we turn to Deleuze’s appropriation of Nietzsche to trace out the transformation of “ethics” that result from adopting a position like that of Deleuze.

The present dissertation has the intention to establish how measured Sartre obtains to surpass the solipsism of the conscience, interpreting the registers that compose the phenomenological concept of Looking at, in The Being and the Nothing. After to define the concept of solipsism, will be in evidence the problem that it implies and that, according to Sartre, is originated from the notion of Cartesian Cogito. It is manifested the construction of conceptual-description of the notion of Looking at and the paper that this concept plays in the measure that offers a not cognitive evidence of the Other s existence. There are evaluated the contributions and obstacles of the concept s use of Looking at in the Sartrean attempt of overcoming the solipsism. Concluding, it is verified the reach of this Cogito extended , as Sartre calls to the experience of Looking at. From a phenomenological point of view, it results evident that the solipsism is a false problem and that the Other exists without no doubt. Ontologically, is more difficult to have this certainty, therefore Sartre does not resign to the starting point of Cogito. / O texto discute em que medida Sartre consegue superar o solipsismo da consciência, interpretando os registros que compõem o conceito fenomenológico de Olhar, em O Ser e o Nada. Após definir o conceito de solipsismo, ficará em evidência a problemática que este implica e que, segundo Sartre, origina-se da noção de Cogito cartesiano. Mostra-se a construção histórico-conceitual da noção de Olhar e o papel que este conceito joga na medida que oferece uma evidência não cognitiva da existência do Outro. Avaliam-se as contribuições e malogros do uso do conceito de Olhar na tentativa sartreana de superação do solipsismo. Em conclusão, indica-se o alcance desse Cogito ampliado , como Sartre chama à experiência do Olhar. Fenomenologicamente, a existência do Outro resulta evidente. Porém, não se dá a mesma certeza no nível ontológico. Isso exigiria sair do Cogito, como ponto de partida do filosofar, mas Sartre não abre mão dessa perspectiva.

In line with Wittgenstein's axiom that "what the solipsist means is quite correct; only it cannot be said, but makes itself manifest," this thesis aims to demonstrate how the gulf between analytic and continental philosophy can best be bridged through the mediation of art. The present thesis brings attention to Markson's work, lauded in the tradition of Faulkner, Joyce, and Lowry, as exemplary of the shift from modernity to postmodernity, wherein the human heart is not only in conflict with itself, but with the language out of which it is necessarily constituted. Markson limns the paradoxical condition of the subject severed from intersubjectivity, and affected not only by the grief of bereavement, which can be defined in Heideggarian terms as anxiety for the ontic negation of a being (i.e., death), but by loss, which I assert is the ontological ground for how Dasein encounters the nothing in anxiety proper.

本文試圖討論的問題乃是在胡塞爾現象學中，「客觀世界」是如何構成的。其問題意識乃是來自於其自身現象學方法的操作後果。在其著作《笛卡爾式的沈思》中，表明了其現象學被批評為「獨我論」的可能，故進而在此《沈思》的第五章中，透過一系列在其現象學中對「他人」的討論，試圖突破自身陷入獨我論框架。其進行的方式主要有兩個步驟：「特殊的主題性懸擱」以及「移情」。而具有「客觀性」的世界便是在「移情」的諸階序上漸次構成的「主體際」世界。而在此諸步驟的討論中，我關注的是「現象學式的獨我自我」到「他人構成」的「初步」關係如何可能。 而對此步驟的可能性討論及解讀，在本文中以舒茲 (A. Schutz)、呂格爾 (P. Ricoeur) 以及李南麟 (Lee Nam-In) 的三篇文獻做為主要對談者。通過舒茲的強力批判、呂格爾往肉身存有的解讀方式，以及李南麟以靜態、發生現象學的途徑試圖解釋胡塞爾被批判的困境，我們可以發現，雖然胡塞爾通過上述兩個步驟所進行的客觀世界構成可能，是無法成功的，但一般稱為「意識哲學」的胡塞爾現象學，其哲學意圖、深度及可能的發展，即已有後續哲學家往「世俗 (mundane)」、「存有論」發展的走向，進而給予我們不管在對胡塞爾自身或後來的哲學發展有更深刻的理解。

The main aspiration of this thesis is to illustrate on several selected examples (or almost "cases" of clinical kind) from French, Russian, Polish, Italian (and in the second plan also German or English) writtings of the 19th and early 20th century the methods of application and presentation of the Withdrawnnes-motif in literature. And on the basis of them (after attempting to mapping out the network of their possible mutual influences, consequences, concurrency or filiations, in the interpretative part of the thesis, so on the II. to VI. chapter) try to define its final characteristics, periodisation, classification and his general definition. … and, moreover, or on the way to this purpose, perhaps to provide the reader a few other - perhaps more useful, or more interesting - information. Keywords: Autostylisation, Confusion of the dream and the reality, Decadence, Dreaming, Extreme mental states of mind, fin de siècle, Individualism, Literary motives, Modernism, Psychologism, Psychic naturalism, Solipsism, Transposition of identity, Withdrawnnes

La presente tesi ha come oggetto due problemi della filosofia di John Searle, entrambi definibili come problemi del fondamento. Il primo è il problema del fondamento vero e proprio, e cioè il problema del tentativo di Searle di ancorare la mente umana (con la sua irriducibilità ontologica) alla realtà fisica e naturale, attraverso un’inedita soluzione del problema mente-corpo che prende il nome di naturalismo biologico. Il secondo è, invece, il problema del fondamento della realtà sociale, e cioè il problema del tentativo di Searle di collocare tanto l’origine ontologica quanto il principio esplicativo della realtà sociale e istituzionale dentro la coscienza (ogni singola coscienza) e, in particolare, nell’intenzionalità collettiva. In questo senso, la presente tesi ha lo scopo di mostrare che i tentativi di Searle non sembrano essere andati del tutto a buon fine. Per quanto riguarda il primo – e cioè il problema del fondamento vero e proprio – si cercherà di mostrare che a) il naturalismo biologico sembra essere fondato su una metafisica a livelli non adeguatamente sviluppata per sorreggerlo e giustificarlo, e che, di conseguenza, b) il naturalismo biologico non sembra essere quella soluzione semplice al problema mente-corpo che pretende di essere. Per quanto riguarda il secondo – e cioè il problema del fondamento della realtà sociale – si cercherà di mostrare che a) il costruttivismo sociale di Searle sembra sfociare in una forma di solipsismo apparentemente incompatibile con qualsiasi concetto di intenzionalità collettiva, ma che, ciononostante, b) sembra esserci una soluzione per questo problema non solo interna alla filosofia della mente di Searle, ma anche in grado di svilupparne le potenzialità inespresse.