Is Solipsism a Sin?

[antroji]

Given that there is one Source of Creation, it becomes important to consider what “mind” we are refering to when we say about solipsism that “it is in the mind” or “a dream” or such things, even the basic “I alone am.” Is solipsism refering to each appearantly discreet individual’s brain “mind,” or to Divine Mind?

It is crucial as well to understand that in other systems of thought, particularly those that do not have engrained certain dualistic assumptions as we do in English, the word “I” can have a distinctively non-personal denotation as pointed to by the phrase “I AM who AM” That phrase can easily be slanted in interpretation by declining to remember that it was recorded in a place, at a time, and in a culture that had access and incorporated perhaps radically different denotations of certain words that we use today.

 

[tonyrey]

It would still be true that God created everything regardless of whether or not the universe has an extension beyond the “mind”. For all we know the universe is really just a mathematical equation (in Gods mind) which becomes actualised as something which apparently has extension and sensation when presented to the created mind. The sensational appearance is generated much like virtual reality or a computer game; but more realistic.

The consequences of saying that the universe doesn’t exist outside of the mind doesn’t require one to to think that the universe is imagined or efficiently caused by the created mind.

Also; while one might except realism in principle, nobody can have certain knowledge about contingent particulars. You can only have certain knowledge about general facts. For example, while I cannot know for certain that there is a universe, I can know for certain that I have knowledge of what appears to be an extended universe. I cannot know that you exist in particular, but I know that there is such a thing as existence in general. This is metaphysical knowledge; which is different from the probabilistic nature of scientific knowledge.

I see nothing in the bible which claims or suggests that the creation must be entirely objective or extended beyond the realm of the mind.

I think what Neil is getting at is the belief that his is the only mind that exists!

 

[tonyrey]

Given that there is one Source of Creation, it becomes important to consider what “mind” we are refering to when we say about solipsism that “it is in the mind” or “a dream” or such things, even the basic “I alone am.” Is solipsism refering to each appearantly discreet individual’s brain “mind,” or to Divine Mind?

It is crucial as well to understand that in other systems of thought, particularly those that do not have engrained certain dualistic assumptions as we do in English, the word “I” can have a distinctively non-personal denotation as pointed to by the phrase “I AM who AM” That phrase can easily be slanted in interpretation by declining to remember that it was recorded in a place, at a time, and in a culture that had access and incorporated perhaps radically different denotations of certain words that we use today.

Neil specifically stated:

“I believe in God though, and I believe God must have made my mind. So it’s not complete solipsism. Also since God chose to let me interact with these other people as if they were real, I generally just assume they are real. But I don’t know with absolute proof that they are real. Whatever ‘real’ means.”

So it looks as if he means solipsism with regard to God and himself! I can’t see how it can be a sin because there is no absolute proof that other minds are real - or the universe for that matter. The only thing we cannot doubt is that we (as individuals) are thinking because if we doubt that we are thinking what is doing the thinking? And if we doubt that thinking occurs then all statements are meaningless!

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

A hallucination is a defect of the thought process, not a message from God. Because it is a defect - an evil - a hallucination cannot come from God. A dream, yes. A hallucination, no.

God created people who have hallucinations and by the transitive property also indirectly creates hallucinations. I’ve been around sick people who were having hallucinations and believed that those hallucinations were real. I assumed that they also believed that other people could see their own hallucinations. I have no proof that the sick person’s hallucination wasn’t some sort of spiritual reality and my own thought process defective because I was unable to see the same things they were. Why should be assume that schizophrenics have “defective” minds and it is not our minds that are defective? What proof?

What about the hallucinations in scripture, the angel that appeared to Daniel or the Virgin Mary? The Apostle Paul’s vision? If any of these figures were alive today, they would be prescribed anti-psychotic medication.

 

[antroji]

From many of the answers here, including Chesterton’s glib definition which doesn’t appear to agree with even the dictionary entries, it seems we might more clearly define some of the ideas in play here. Even Neil’s *“My mind is the only thing that I know exists.” * doesn’t seem to be quite on, though the latin derivation it is accurate.

Solipsism is the cognitive position that asserts that all that one can know as Reality is that one’s self is. This position does not exclude that there may or may not be something else, it pertains tonly to what can be fundamentally known and usquestioned. Indeed, the most fundamental thing any of us, even claiming to be discreet individuals can say before any qualifications or modifications as signs of personality ans circumstance is “I am.” All else is contents of the mind and is acquired, whether refering to things common to an external world or completely imaginary.

So “I am” can be said to pertain to the Soul factor, while the mind and its contents refer to the cloud of experience called “me.” It is simple to gather a bunch of “me’s” who each claim “I am” who also claim that their particular view of things constiutes or has a 1/1 correspondence to reality. If this is true, then why is each oe’s descripotion of even a si(name removed by moderator)le object so different? It may be because while Being, or “am” is experience is from a perspective that is limited. Tha kind of goes with the equipment of the body suit our mind wears while traipsing around in these dimensions, whatever our orientation and perspectives from whatever time, place, culture, or belief system.

So solepsism refers only to the part of us that we can call “self” as being certain and Real, while postulating that the objects of perception, including “me,” are incomplete and best, and therefore unknown as to their actual Reality, as distinct from their percieved existence relative to our person.

So while we can agree that a, b, or c exist, we cannot say that our private perception of what that thing is is Real in an absolute sense. Thus what we see as a sense object or experience as a happening is actual to our mind as a private perception but that is not necessarily equal to the full dynamics, content, or context of the actual event as an abstract outside our own perception. Just ask any gorp of witnesses what they saw at an event, or read some critiques of witnessing as a human abiltiy. Heck, look at these fora.

The further implication of solipsism is the question of who or what exactly that “self” that is known to be is. Mistakenly, it is usually understood by English speakers as equivalent to “me,” the aforementioned private mind. This is not the case in the philosophy of solipsism. The self there refered to is a generalized non-differentiated 'self" equivalent perhaps to consciousness as a principle as distininct from awareness as a private experience. No one who is a solipsist is denying private experience or an objective existance or the appearance of discreet individuals. They are only looking at where that existence is both in appearance and in fact.

This allows the consideration of some perspectives relative to the understanding of God that neither English nor current Christianity afford, and appearently do not have the tools to use in a proper examinatin, as evidenced by much of the reactivity on here. And yet, we are dealing with an age old world view that is reflected in today’s common understanding of how our mind works. We just get reactive because it has emotioallly loaded components.

But is it a sin to think about such things? Is it a sin to do pathologiical analysis or non-destructive testing to see how things work? What about ourselves? Does questioning our more-subtle-than-obvious and consensus structure constitute a breach of faith? Or is it the right use of our faculty of inquiry? Myself? I’d shy away from a “fides sola” approach. Life and God are not that superficial in manifestation, and knowledge increases the senes of wonder and miracle.

 

[hazcompat]

I kind of think solipsistically. I believe there’s no way to know for sure that the other ‘people’ and ‘things’ I see are not just figments of my imagination.

I believe in God though, and I believe God must have made my mind. So it’s not complete solipsism. Also since God chose to let me interact with these other people as if they were real, I generally just assume they are real. But I don’t know with absolute proof that they are real. Whatever ‘real’ means.

So am I a solipsism heretic?

find your birth announcement. then your ancestors. Look at those who have sired you. they pre-exist your imagination. if something exists prior to your imagination they cannot be figments of that which does not exist.

peace

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I kind of think solipsistically. I believe there’s no way to know for sure that the other ‘people’ and ‘things’ I see are not just figments of my imagination.

On what basis do you come to this belief?

We all come to our beliefs, it seems, through (1) reason, (2) experience, and (3) testimony. This is true of all beliefs, whether religious, scientific, economic, socio-policital, philosophical, etc. What you seem to be saying is that only “reason” is trustworthy evidence, yet nobody actually lives like that. In other words, solipsism does not exists in practice. You couldn’t function in the objective world by denying the trustworthiness of experience and testimony, clinging only to reason alone.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Do any of us have a certain belief in Jesus? It’s faith, not certainty.

I think you mistake “certainty” with absolute certainty. I think those who tend toward solipsism make this common error. Even if my eyesight is not perfect, I can see some things, and therefore draw morally certain conclusions based upon the preponderance of evidence according to what I do see, hear, touch, etc. and think through the exercise of reason.

There’s no basis for elevating one’s subjective reason as the only sure evidence for which we can draw certain (even if not absolutely certain) conclusions.

Moreover, your understanding of “faith” is contrary to Catholic teaching. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “faith is certain.” (CCC 157).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I basically go on the assumption that you are probably a real person like me, and that the world is probably real and not a figment of my imagination. But I don’t feel like I know for sure. Maybe this is a dream and I’ll wake up from it some day and think “wow, that was a long weird dream!”

I don’t think I’ve ever met any sane and thinking person who could not distinguish their dreams from reality. Even those dreams which “seem” real, people normally say, “wow, that dream seemed real.” Yet, to even make such a statement, you have to know the distinction between what is “dream” and what is “real.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

That makes you pretty special I suppose.

Ontologically speaking, it would make him the “necessary being”, in other words, a being which cannot NOT exist, and contains within itself the reason for his own existence. If he was not a “necessary being” then he would be what is called a “contingent” being, a being caused by something outside himself and can only continue to exist due to something outside of himself. A contingent being has a “cause” and a real possibility of not existing.

Solipsists can prove their beliefs, if they dare, by taking away “oxygen” from themselves to see if “oxygen” is merely a figment of their imagination. I don’t suppose any solipsist would be so certain of their flawed philosophical proposition to attempt such a thing.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Solipsists can prove their beliefs, if they dare, by taking away “oxygen” from themselves to see if “oxygen” is merely a figment of their imagination. I don’t suppose any solipsist would be so certain of their flawed philosophical proposition to attempt such a thing.

I would be surprised to find that there are any real Solipsists alive, if by that you mean a person who does not believe in the objective existence of the universe, so much so that they would kill themselves without a second thought or doubt. But there is a real possibility that the universe is not objective, at least not in the way we think it is. That one is compelled to partake in the act of breathing in order to live is not certain proof that there is an objective entity or quantity called “oxygen”. It is merely evidence that one suffers, possibly to death, if they refuse to do certain things such as that which we call breathing.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… But there is a real possibility that the universe is not objective, at least not in the way we think it is.

As soon as you append “in the way we think it is” to your sentence, you are no longer describing the objective universe, but instead are referencing our subjective beliefs about the objective universe. What we as subject believe about the object called the universe does indeed vary from person to person (i.e. is subjective). However, by definition “truth” is “that which corresponds to reality” (Webster’s). “Reality” is “the body or set of all real things.” “Real” is that which is not “illusory, false.”

So it seems, according to our language and the ideas they respresent, that “truth” is “that which corresponds to reality” and it is indeed *objective , *meaning it does not vary from person to person as does “belief”.

For example, if I’m color blind and due to a genetic defect cannot properly distinguish the wavelength of light which reflects off objects, that doesn’t mean that the “real” or “true” wavelength of light reflecting off objects has indeed changed from objective reality. It merely means that as subject I am less capable of sensing the truth about that which is objective (reality). We have other means apart from our eyes to detect the wavelength of light reflecting off of surfaces, so in this instance, we can scientifically verify that what I sense subjectively is not true according to objective reality. Simply put, if I close my eyes, it doesn’t mean that all the light stopped reflecting off of everything in the room.

It would be linguistic confusion to use the word “belief” as though it was the same thing as “truth”. They have different meanings for a reason, which allows us to better distinguish and express what it is we are talking about. From their very definitions, truth is objective, belief is subjective.

That one is compelled to partake in the act of breathing in order to live is not certain proof…

All of our subjective beliefs derive from (1) reason, (2) experience, and (3) the testimony of others. This is true of every belief in every field of study. The one breathing, in your example, can only form his intellect using these three kinds of evidence. Nonetheless, his beliefs are always *subjective, *as they necessarily vary from person to person. They have a real possibility of being either true or false. This is because the ability to reason, the personal experience, and the varying testimony each has been exposed to varies from person to person. I suspect those with poor ability to reason, not much experience, and without having much trustworthy testimony tend to be easily deceived, tending toward beliefs which may not be true.

Yet, it seems all of us have this innate urge to subjectively believe that which is objectively true. In other words, we don’t want to be deceived. We don’t want to assent to that which is not true. All ought to seek to form their intellect such that we are less likely to be decieved, tending toward assent to what is objectively true (real), not to that which is not real, illusary, false, deceptive.

…quantity called “oxygen”. It is merely evidence…

Yes, objective evidence (i.e. does not vary from person to person). The fact that all of our beliefs are subjective, all seeking to assent to that which is objectively real, does not mean that reality is therefore not objective.

In other words, just because my eyesight is not perfect (or perhaps reason, experience, and testimony are imperfect), doesn’t mean I do not see some things well enough to make certain rational judgments sufficient to remove doubt. We all must reason through or examine the preponderance of evidence before us, the various testimony and experiences we’ve gained, in order to determine for ourselves that which we believe to be true.

“Absolute certainty” is an impractical standard for assent. We all make decisions based upon incomplete or imperfect information. To do otherwise would impair progress, growth in all human endeavors. While some may stubbornly insist upon such an narrow epistimology in theory, that’s not their real human experience. In real life, people are constantly deciding matters based upon less-than-perfect information, based upon less-than-absolute certainty in every field of study including science, economics, sociology, politics, military studies, social relationship, etc. For one to apply such a epistemological standard for everything in real life, while at the same time theoretically demanding a more rigid standard for other things, such as religion or philosophy, is to live inconsistently, which is to say, without integrity.

It seems odd to need to defend such self-evident propositions that reality is “real” and the truth is “true”, but our modern tendency to confuse these terms and use them contrary to their customary useage makes such a thing necessary.