Please tell me why solipsism and cartesian skepticism are considered self refuti

Question:

Please tell me why solipsism and cartesian skepticism are considered self refuting and not to be taken seriou?

in addition to that what about wittgenstein?

i want philisophical facts based on logic. i dont want to hear any biased opinionated answers who never even read up or studies on it. i want universaly or at least generaly accepted philisophical arguments against solipsism and skepticism

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: How many times are you planning on asking this question?

Solipsism is considered self-refuting because if there are no other minds, who are you arguing with? As has been pointed out before, Wittgenstein's "Private Language Argument" is generally considered decisive here, although no one really tooks solipsism that seriously before that, either.

As for Cartesian skepticism, it's worth remembering that Descartes used "hyperbolic doubt" as a tool, not as an end in itself. He wasn't seriously suggesting that there was an evil genius manipulating your perceptions in toto. However--- even if there was (and this is the key point), we still can't deny that you exist (via the cogito), but also, that the evil genius exists. In other words, Cartesian skepticism is itself a refutation of solipsism, since it guarantees the existence of at least two minds (yours and "the other").

The serious question, then: in what sense would it be possible for philosophy as a discipline (or any individual philosopher) to take solipsism seriously? If the world around us is an illusion, the illusion is complete. Therefore: what difference could it possibly make if the world is an illusion or not? How could we possibly know the difference? By definition, the question is a non-starter.

Now: if the preceding is not a sufficient answer, could you at least rephrase the question, or add some additional information, so we don't have to attempt to answer the same thing over and over?