Solipsism is the belief that external reality is an illusive manifestation of one's mind and that, consequentially, one's mind is the only affirmable reality. While it should be evident to the reader why no philosopher has publically defended reality as solipsistic throughout the course of his or her career, it should be equally evident that no philosopher has proved or disproved the veracity of this belief.

Or not? Approaching the 20th century and even crawling into it, a number of 'idealists' used solipsistic arguments to confront what they interepreted to be the utter audacity of 'empiricists' in suggesting the polar opposite of the heavy-handed idealistic mantra. And in strutted Wittgenstein, helmet in hand. LW provided in his usual fashion a relatively succinct and casual offensive strategy. In essense, LW pointed out that, given that one's consciousness and sense of identity develop with the development of language and given that language is the sole facility by which one expresses his or her experience of reality, it necessarily follows that consciousness is indebted to the development of language and that, because of this, it is impossible that one's language capacity could have developed by the act of a single consciousness.

Another offensive strategy to be considered is a refutation of the God Complex. In short, if I am all, then I am God. And if I am God, why is all not good? In assigning one's consciousness as a container for entirety of reality, one is inevitably struck by one's inability to create change and to perfect one's creations, and one must come to terms with his or her unconscious (where the action happens) willingness to permit suffering. Moreover, one must also resolve a small paradox of acausality. Not much stress for the 'idealist' I'm sure.