Is subjective idealism compatible with Catholic teaching?

[SimmieKay]

Hello

For many years I have been a believer in subjective idealism, roughly along the lines of George Berkeley (although my beliefs differ in some particulars from his).

While I’m sure we could spend many hours debating whether this philosophical belief of mine is true or false, I’d actually like to ask a different question - is it compatible with authoritative Catholic teaching? Has it been condemned as heretical by magisterium? If the answer to that question is yes, could someone please provide an authoritative reference to that effect.

I’ve intentionally avoided going into details of my precise beliefs in this post, because I want to stick to the question of heresy and not (in this thread) venture into whether my beliefs are right or wrong (I take it as a given that not all false beliefs are heretical). However, to the extent that those details are necessary to answer my question regarding heresy, I’d be happy to provide them upon request.

Thank you
Simon

 

[GEddie]

Hello

For many years I have been a believer in subjective idealism, roughly along the lines of George Berkeley (although my beliefs differ in some particulars from his).

While I’m sure we could spend many hours debating whether this philosophical belief of mine is true or false, I’d actually like to ask a different question - is it compatible with authoritative Catholic teaching? Has it been condemned as heretical by magisterium? If the answer to that question is yes, could someone please provide an authoritative reference to that effect.

I’ve intentionally avoided going into details of my precise beliefs in this post, because I want to stick to the question of heresy and not (in this thread) venture into whether my beliefs are right or wrong (I take it as a given that not all false beliefs are heretical). However, to the extent that those details are necessary to answer my question regarding heresy, I’d be happy to provide them upon request.

Thank you
Simon

Dear Simon,

Without knowing what you believe, in relation to Church teaching, there is no way to tell whether it is “heretical” or not.

To be heretical, a position has to conflict with Church teaching in a defined matter of faith. And correct, not all false beliefs are heresy. One may believe in pink unicorns or the Great Pumpkin and not be in a heretical position; whereas if one denies the human soul, that would be heretical, if one claimed to be Catholic.

ICXC NIKA

 

[SimmieKay]

Without knowing what you believe, in relation to Church teaching, there is no way to tell whether it is “heretical” or not.

Thank you GEddie. Basically what I believe is that all that exists are minds and their contents. I believe that many distinct minds exist, including the mind of God, but the sum of all those minds is all that there is, there is nothing beyond them. I don’t deny the existence or reality of matter, but rather than saying that it is something outside of mind, I instead say that material things are patterns which exist in the experiences of minds. Material things are not patterns in my mind alone, but patterns common to every mind which is aware of that thing. If two people are both looking at a particular tree, that particular tree is a pattern which exists in both their minds, it is not exclusive to either of them. And if yesterday another person saw that tree, then the same pattern was present in their mind then; and if they still remember it today, then the pattern is present in their mind today also, but in a different way.

So, if by “soul”, one means the existence of an immaterial aspect to humanity that survives death, then yes I believe in the “soul” - it can be identified with the concept of “mind” in my thought. If one means more specifically the philosophical concept of “soul” developed in the hylomorphism of Aristotelianism and Thomism, as the “form” (or “substantial form”) of “matter”, then I don’t think I believe in the “soul” in that sense.

Does this further detail assist in answering my question?

Simon

 

[ynotzap]

Thank you GEddie. Basically what I believe is that all that exists are minds and their contents. I believe that many distinct minds exist, including the mind of God, but the sum of all those minds is all that there is, there is nothing beyond them. I don’t deny the existence or reality of matter, but rather than saying that it is something outside of mind, I instead say that material things are patterns which exist in the experiences of minds. Material things are not patterns in my mind alone, but patterns common to every mind which is aware of that thing. If two people are both looking at a particular tree, that particular tree is a pattern which exists in both their minds, it is not exclusive to either of them. And if yesterday another person saw that tree, then the same pattern was present in their mind then; and if they still remember it today, then the pattern is present in their mind today also, but in a different way.

So, if by “soul”, one means the existence of an immaterial aspect to humanity that survives death, then yes I believe in the “soul” - it can be identified with the concept of “mind” in my thought. If one means more specifically the philosophical concept of “soul” developed in the hylomorphism of Aristotelianism and Thomism, as the “form” (or “substantial form”) of “matter”, then I don’t think I believe in the “soul” in that sense.

Does this further detail assist in answering my question?

Simon

Don’t have to much time to answer your question, so I’ll be brief. There is more than just minds and content. How do you account for the five senses, and what they sense. It is a known fact that if we didn’t have them our minds would be blank. Things are prior to our thoughts about them, and if they didn’t exist we would never know them or even have any idea of them, things are objective, and their existence is not subjected to our minds. You can’t separate human experience from external reality apart from the mind If all existed are minds and patterns, and all humans possess them, then we would also possess the minds of other humans and know exactly what those minds think. they are separate minds because they are separate, particular, objective entities that are autonomous, and self-directing physical and rational human beings and not just minds and patterns. Subjective idealism makes God a figment of one’s imagination which is completely false. It is a fact that we can not have a subjective imagination or idea of a thing if there was no objective reality, for even fiction is drawn from non-fiction for it’s existence. So the idea is drawn from objective reality, that is known first through the senses, and known through abstraction by the intellect (mind) Sounds like solipsism. If your thoughts lead you to believe that God’s existence is subjected to your idealism, and not to objective reality, then you deny His actual existence, and Jesus Christ is just an idea, or thought in your mind, and this would definitely be a heresy, for God is regarded as the Creator of the Material, and spiritual universe, the Creator of all things visible and invisible, material and spiritual. I believe there is the possibility of being an accidental heretic, not a real one

 

[SimmieKay]

Thank you for your reply.

How do you account for the five senses, and what they sense.

The five senses constitute types of experiences that minds have. What do they sense? I would say that the direct objects of sensation are patterns which exist in the experiences of minds.

Things are prior to our thoughts about them,

I agree that things exist prior to my personal thoughts about them, because the patterns which these things are existed in other minds before they existed in my mind. I would deny however that anything exists prior to the thoughts of any mind, for nothing exists prior to the thoughts of the mind of God.

if they didn’t exist we would never know them or even have any idea of them, things are objective, and their existence is not subjected to our minds.

I agree that things exist independently of my mind. Even if my mind never existed, Mount Everest, for example, would still exist. But I deny that Mount Everest exists independently of all minds. Clearly, its existence is dependent on the mind of God, hence its existence is dependent on at least one mind, and if it did not exist in any minds (including that of God) then it would not exist at all.

If all existed are minds and patterns, and all humans possess them, then we would also possess the minds of other humans and know exactly what those minds think.

No, because the set of patterns in your mind is different from the patterns in mine - there are of course some patterns common to both our minds, but there are many patterns which exist in one mind but not the other. As a result, there are things that I know which you do not, and things which you know which I do not. But I would add, that any pattern which exists in any mind also exists in God’s mind, which is how God knows everything (omniscience).

they are separate minds because they are separate, particular, objective entities that are autonomous, and self-directing physical and rational human beings and not just minds and patterns.

I would say they are separate minds because they differ in their content - they differ in their particular experiences, and thus each mind participates in different patterns-in-experience.

Subjective idealism makes God a figment of one’s imagination which is completely false.

Subjective idealists believe in the existence of multiple minds. If multiple minds exist, there is no reason why the mind of God cannot be among them. Of course, some subjective idealists - such as John McTaggart - are atheists who deny the existence of God, and hence the existence of the mind of God. But it is perfectly possible to be a theistic subjective idealist, as I am. In fact, the most famous subjective idealist, the father of subjective idealism, George Berkeley, was an Anglican Bishop, and the mind of God plays a key role in his thought.

It is a fact that we can not have a subjective imagination or idea of a thing if there was no objective reality, for even fiction is drawn from non-fiction for it’s existence. So the idea is drawn from objective reality, that is known first through the senses, and known through abstraction by the intellect (mind)

In the name “subjective idealism”, “subjective” is not meant to refer to a denial of objective truth, but simply a denial of any truth which is not ultimately mental. Objective truths about minds and their contents exist; non-mental propositions can also constitute objective truth, insofar as they can be translated into true propositions about minds.

Sounds like solipsism.

I believe in the existence of many minds other than my own, including the mind of God. (Or, considering the Trinity, it might be more accurate to say minds of God. I will admit that the question of whether the Triune God constitutes “one mind” or “three minds” is a matter which confuses me somewhat, and to which I do not have a clear answer at present.)

If your thoughts lead you to believe that God’s existence is subjected to your idealism, and not to objective reality,

I believe that the existence of God is an objective fact. That is completely compatible with my belief that all objective facts are ultimately facts about minds, since God is a mind (or a trinity of minds, three minds acting in perfect harmony).

then you deny His actual existence, and Jesus Christ is just an idea, or thought in your mind,

I believe in the objective existence of many minds. Given a current global population of over 7 billion, that means there are over 7 billion living human minds right now. But, then there are also the minds of the people of past generations - in their lives on earth, they were minds, and they still are minds now, in the afterlife. So, as a real historical figure, of course I believe in the existence of Jesus, just as I believe in the existence of Plato or Hitler or Napoleon. But, in addition to that, Jesus’s mind possesses divinity as the Second Person of the Trinity, which is something that the minds of Plato and Hitler and Napoleon lack.

and this would definitely be a heresy, for God is regarded as the Creator of the Material, and spiritual universe, the Creator of all things visible and invisible, material and spiritual.

I don’t deny that God created matter and spirit. I simply deny that matter is ultimately non-mental.

I believe there is the possibility of being an accidental heretic, not a real one

I am unfamiliar with the distinction you here draw between “accidental” and “real”. Do you mean “material” and “formal”?

Simon

 

[Trident_H]

Thank you GEddie. Basically what I believe is that all that exists are minds and their contents. I believe that many distinct minds exist, including the mind of God, but the sum of all those minds is all that there is, there is nothing beyond them. I don’t deny the existence or reality of matter, but rather than saying that it is something outside of mind, I instead say that material things are patterns which exist in the experiences of minds. Material things are not patterns in my mind alone, but patterns common to every mind which is aware of that thing. If two people are both looking at a particular tree, that particular tree is a pattern which exists in both their minds, it is not exclusive to either of them. And if yesterday another person saw that tree, then the same pattern was present in their mind then; and if they still remember it today, then the pattern is present in their mind today also, but in a different way.

So, if by “soul”, one means the existence of an immaterial aspect to humanity that survives death, then yes I believe in the “soul” - it can be identified with the concept of “mind” in my thought. If one means more specifically the philosophical concept of “soul” developed in the hylomorphism of Aristotelianism and Thomism, as the “form” (or “substantial form”) of “matter”, then I don’t think I believe in the “soul” in that sense.

Does this further detail assist in answering my question?

Simon

Ok. Ok Simon. If this is what you think then who am I to argue? I mean we’re all just minds. Floating in a vat. Or something. Ok.

But then Simon. Tell me why. Tell me why God can invent minds, but He can’t invent bodies? Why is God busy making minds in a vat that imagine they have bodies instead of just making the bodies in the first place? I mean is God really just super lazy? Or is He just a mind fanatic? Or is it easier to build vats full of minds that are somehow wired together in this way? Somehow networked together so that their minds actually imagine talking to each other when they think about being close together?

And I mean if we are just this big jumble of minds. If we are all pulsating minds in just so many boxes. Whose in control of our details? Who’s deciding who looks fat? Who’s deciding who’s gonna be a model? I don’t get it. I mean if God is projecting all these details into our brains. And if God is always projecting these ideas. Then why can’t we just think our way out of these problems? Why can’t we come up with ways of looking the way we want? Why do we die when we fall off of our mental mountain construct?

I don’t think this makes a lot of sense. But it sure is neat to think about. I mean I just tried to walk through my wall. But in spite of trying to pretend it wasn’t there. It was.

I don’t know. I think you’re complicating the simple. Simon.

Peace.

-Trident

 

[SimmieKay]

I mean we’re all just minds. Floating in a vat. Or something.

There are a number of philosophical thought experiments which revolve around us being brains floating in vats. That’s not what I believe however.

Tell me why God can invent minds, but He can’t invent bodies?

I don’t deny the existence of our bodies. Of course we have bodies which God created. I just deny that our bodies are ultimately non-mental phenomena. I believe in the existence of matter - which God has created - I just believe that the material is ultimately reducible to the mental.

Why is God busy making minds in a vat that imagine they have bodies instead of just making the bodies in the first place?

I don’t believe that our bodies are imaginary. I believe that our bodies really exist. I just believe that bodies (and all other material things) are patterns in the experiences of minds.

Whose in control of our details? Who’s deciding who looks fat? Who’s deciding who’s gonna be a model?

God has established laws of nature. If, as I believe, material things are patterns in experience, then it would make sense that the laws of nature are also patterns in experience, albeit patterns of a different kind. So obviously, to a substantial extent, reality is determined by the will of God. Of course, we also have our own individual wills, and God allows our own wills to have some (name removed by moderator)ut into reality too, although the amount of (name removed by moderator)ut he allows us is much smaller than the (name removed by moderator)ut he has himself. I would say that God has the power to determine which patterns in experience exist, and he has delegated a small portion of that power to other minds (and each mind gets a slightly different portion), but reserved the greater part of that power to himself.

I don’t get it. I mean if God is projecting all these details into our brains. And if God is always projecting these ideas. Then why can’t we just think our way out of these problems? Why can’t we come up with ways of looking the way we want? Why do we die when we fall off of our mental mountain construct?

I myself would not use the language “God is projecting all these details into our brains” - putting the emphasis on the brain in that way is more of a materialist way of looking at things than an idealist one. But, I would say: God has the power to determine what experiences we have; in the general case, he does so by choosing which patterns exist, and our experiences are determined by the patterns he has established, rather than individually determining our every experience as a special case (although, of course, he has the power to make exceptions to the patterns he has established whenever he wishes to); he has delegated a small part of that power to other minds. So, I can choose to walk off a mountain, because that is part of the experience-pattern-making power which God has delegated to me; but I cannot stop myself from falling when I do, because that is in excess of my delegation.

I think you’re complicating the simple.

If this all seems like madness, there is a reason behind it. I was trying to find a philosophy of mind which justify belief in an afterlife, and do so as a matter of natural reason (rather than a sole reliance upon divine revelation). Looking at some of the main alternatives: materialism cannot do this, idealism can. So that was the basic motivation for me to investigate idealism. Why not one of the other alternatives, like dualism? Well, I think there are good arguments against substance dualism. Now, there are other forms of dualism, I cannot argue against so easily: such as property dualism, or hylemorphic dualism. However, I struggle to understand those views, whereas I feel I have a good understanding of materialism, idealism, and substance dualism. So, tentatively for now, I am an idealist (although I am not going to rule out property dualism or hylemorphic dualism until I have a better understanding of them.)

Simon

 

[Lucretius]

I think many posters are unfamiliar with Berkeley: one of his main “themes” is that empiricalism at the very least can be interpreted with idealism, and at the very greatest argues that empiricalists must necessarily be idealists.

To put it simply, there is no scientific experimental data, or sensory experience that the realist and idealist will disagree with.

My question to the OP: how do you interpret the Incarnation? It seems to me that the point of the Incarnation is that God became flesh: that is, he left the airy Heavens that we have little knowledge of and became apart of this word. In my opinion, idealism might be logically compatible with the Incarnation, but seems to downplay its important at least (we experience God’s ideas all the time: what difference is the Word then?), or at the very worse makes the Incarnation an experience like every other.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Partinobodycula]

SimmieKay, I can appreciate your position, but I hope that if you think about it carefully enough you’ll come to the same conclusion that I have, that the only mind that exists in this world, is yours. Now if you’re like the vast majority of people you’ll be immediately repulsed by such an idea. It’s the epitome of egotism, denial, and withdrawal. Of course the world is real, the solipsist, for whatever reason, simply finds comfort in denying that it is. People find all manner of ways of coping with the difficulties of life, and solipsism is simply testimony to the lengths to which the human mind will go to find peace.

But consider for a moment the idea that the world is simply a reflection of you. It’s not something that you consciously create, for why would anyone create a world in which men do that which their heart beseeches them not to do. No, the world isn’t a creation of your mind, it’s simply a reflection of it. It’s a reflection, not of hate, but of doubt, and fear, and ignorance. It’s the reflection of a mind trying to understand the existence of itself. Struggling to understand what it is, and where it came from. So look around you, the world may simply be the reflection of a struggle going on within yourself.

So how does one overcome that struggle, how does one change the world? Perhaps it simply takes time, perhaps it takes faith, or perhaps it takes a combination of the two. But the key thing is, that in order to change the world you have to change yourself. As a solipsist it isn’t that the world is unimportant, it’s that the world is inconceivably important, for every last bit of it is a reflection of me.

But what of God? Alas, one thing is certain, that whatever I am, and wherever I came from, I didn’t give rise to myself. There’s something else out there. I may not know what it is, but I know that it’s there, and all the faiths of the world may simply be an expression of an internal struggle to understand what it is.

But another thing is true, that if something gave rise to me, then perhaps it could give rise to others. Each going through the same internal struggle that I’m going through. Oddly enough science postulates the existence of a multiverse, an untold number of universes existing in isolation from each other. But what if those universes aren’t universes at all, but consciousnesses. And what if given enough time, and enough faith, someone could overcome that isolation? What would happen then? And maybe, somebody already did. And just maybe, if I look close enough I can see evidence of that somebody. Hmmm…it does say Christian solipsist in the heading of this post.

As I say, the world may simply be the mind trying to understand the existence of itself. You may think that I’m crazy, but that’s okay. I’m not really trying to change you, I’m trying to change me.

 

[ynotzap]

Thank you for your reply.

The five senses constitute types of experiences that minds have. What do they sense? I would say that the direct objects of sensation are patterns which exist in the experiences of minds.

The five senses are physical properties of the body, and not of the mind, they react to physical stimulation, not mental stimulation. They sense objects that exist apart from the mind, before the mind experiences them, they are prior, first, and not a result of mental experience which is second

SimmieKay:

I agree that things exist prior to my personal thoughts about them, because the patterns which these things are existed in other minds before they existed in my mind. I would deny however that anything exists prior to the thoughts of any mind, for nothing exists prior to the thoughts of the mind of God.

Human experience tell us that the patterns that exist about things in other minds are not the same patterns that exist in our minds necessarily But human experience tells also that we can agree on what we sense. If it depended on the patterns of what other people think, then there would be no universal agreement on what is, and what isn’t, reality. You contradict yourself. The Mind of God, can not be compared to the mind of man. God is Intelligence, it is one of His attributes, and God is His attributes. In man intelligence is a power or faculty of the soul, and man is not his attributes. We are the result of Divine Intelligence, and we are not pure intelligence or thought, but matter and spirit, we are composed. This is Church teaching, in explaining Christ’s human nature, and this is what I mean that you can be an “accidental heretic” for lack of understanding, not intentional on your part.

SimmieKay:

I agree that things exist independently of my mind. Even if my mind never existed, Mount Everest, for example, would still exist. But I deny that Mount Everest exists independently of all minds. Clearly, its existence is dependent on the mind of God, hence its existence is dependent on at least one mind, and if it did not exist in any minds (including that of God) then it would not exist at all.

I do agree with you, but do not equate the mind of God with the mind of men, they are not the same.

SimmieKay:

No, because the set of patterns in your mind is different from the patterns in mine - there are of course some patterns common to both our minds, but there are many patterns which exist in one mind but not the other. As a result, there are things that I know which you do not, and things which you know which I do not. But I would add, that any pattern which exists in any mind also exists in God’s mind, which is how God knows everything (omniscience).

Yes, God knows of our fallible thinking, and that’s the reason He gave the Church the gift of infallibility through the Pope teaching from “The Chair”

SimmieKay:

Subjective idealists believe in the existence of multiple minds. If multiple minds exist, there is no reason why the mind of God cannot be among them.

Yes there is reason, because God is above His creation, and not part of it. He IS Intelligence, and humans HAVE intelligence, if we associate God with His creation, we fall into Pantheism, a heresy (there you go again- not guilty though)

SimmieKay:

Of course, some subjective idealists - such as John McTaggart - are atheists who deny the existence of God, and hence the existence of the mind of God. But it is perfectly possible to be a theistic subjective idealist, as I am. In fact, the most famous subjective idealist, the father of subjective idealism, George Berkeley, was an Anglican Bishop, and the mind of God plays a key role in his thought.

One can be right in his beliefs about God, and still be wrong in his thinking and logic. And I thank God for that. A metaphysical subjective idealist, to him ,self is the only reality. The external world is a representation of self- has no independent existence-egocentric presentism. Simmie, I have hopes for you, you can get it right, just need a little more trust in other, and some objective evaluations of your thought process.
,

 

[ynotzap]

SimmieKay, I can appreciate your position, but I hope that if you think about it carefully enough you’ll come to the same conclusion that I have, that the only mind that exists in this world, is yours. Now if you’re like the vast majority of people you’ll be immediately repulsed by such an idea. It’s the epitome of egotism, denial, and withdrawal.

Now if the only mind that exists is yours, evidently, you are acknowledging the existence of another mind, if not, then you are talking to your self, do you see the lack of logic in this kind of thinking. And who are you applying the egotism, denial and withdrawal to, others or your self?

Partinobodycula:

As I say, the world may simply be the mind trying to understand the existence of itself. You may think that I’m crazy, but that’s okay. I’m not really trying to change you, I’m trying to change me.

As a Christian, we know that we can’t change ourselves because we can’t give what we don’t have. And as a Christian we know someone who can, Jesus Christ, but we must acknowledge Him for who He is, and go out of ourselves and reach for Him. That is something you must ask for, and ask Him to cause you to do this. Step out in your Christian faith

 

[SimmieKay]

I think many posters are unfamiliar with Berkeley: one of his main “themes” is that empiricalism at the very least can be interpreted with idealism, and at the very greatest argues that empiricalists must necessarily be idealists.

To put it simply, there is no scientific experimental data, or sensory experience that the realist and idealist will disagree with.

Thanks for your response. I agree with you. But, as an idealist I am used to it. It’s a difficult viewpoint for many people to understand; in many cases, because they already have deeply ingrained materialist or dualist thoughts, but they don’t realise that, nor can they see that there are other ways of interpreting the world than the one they are used to.

My question to the OP: how do you interpret the Incarnation? It seems to me that the point of the Incarnation is that God became flesh: that is, he left the airy Heavens that we have little knowledge of and became apart of this word. In my opinion, idealism might be logically compatible with the Incarnation, but seems to downplay its important at least (we experience God’s ideas all the time: what difference is the Word then?), or at the very worse makes the Incarnation an experience like every other.

A very good question. I don’t claim to have a complete answer to this question, but I’ll do my best to sketch my current understanding.

What is a body? The body is a physical object, and I believe that physical objects are patterns in the experiences of minds, so the body also is a pattern in the experiences of minds. Now, we know bodies in different ways - there is one experience of having a particular body, of being in a particular body - and there is a somewhat different experience of knowing the body of another. We know the bodies of others in a different way than we know our own. If I feel a pain in my foot, that is an experience which I have of my body, but which is absent from the experiences others have of my body (at least directly - they can’t feel my pain, but they can hear me complain about it.) So my body is not a single pattern in experience, but rather a collection of related patterns in experience, spread across multiple minds.

The body performs two basic functions: first of all, it is the focus of a limitation upon our knowledge and power. The immediate direct knowledge and power extends no further than our body and its immediate surrounds. We can of course, know and alter things on the other side of the planet, but that requires the mediation of technology, or the cooperation of other people, or both. So the body is a direct limitation on knowledge and will. Secondly, it conveys and represents our minds to others.

Now, does God the Father have a body? He certainly cannot have a body in the first sense - his knowledge and power are never limited. However, I believe that God the Father does from time to time have a body in the second sense - that is, a visual sign by which he appears to others - the Old Testament theophanies are examples of this. The burning bush, the pillar of cloud and fire, these are bodies of God the Father, in the second sense but not the first. Furthermore, in this life, we mortals are limited to only one body - we cannot change bodies, nor can we have multiple bodies simultaneously, etc. However, God can have as many or as few bodies simultaneously as he wishes - in one instant he might choose to have no body at all, in the next he might choose to have ten bodies simultaneously.

As to the Incarnation: as I mentioned, I believe that God may from time to time have bodies in the second sense (as a means of representing himself to other minds) but not a body in the first sense (as a limitation of knowledge and power). However, for the Second Person of the Trinity, it is different - he voluntarily chose to assume a human nature, including the human limitations of knowledge and power (see e.g. Matthew 24:36). So, Jesus, during his life on earth, had a body in the first sense, as a body which limited the extent of his knowledge and power. But, prior to and subsequent to his time on earth, he lacks a body in that first sense, although, just like the Father and the Holy Spirit, he may have however as many bodies in the second sense as he wills to.

Simon

 

[SimmieKay]

SimmieKay, I can appreciate your position, but I hope that if you think about it carefully enough you’ll come to the same conclusion that I have, that the only mind that exists in this world, is yours.

To be honest, Partinobodycula, I am somewhat amazed at your response. I am well aware of solipsism as a theoretical possibility, but I’ve never before in my life encountered someone who actually claimed to believe in it.

If you really are a solipsist - and I am struggling to believe that you really are - I cannot see how that can be compatible with Christianity. In my view, “Christian solipsism” is a contradiction in terms (up there with “Christian atheism” and similar ideas). If you are the only person who exists, then Jesus does not exist. If Jesus does not exist, then Christianity is a gigantic delusion. If you are the only person who exists, then Abraham and Moses and David and Peter and Paul do not exist - the Bible is an enormous fiction. If you are the only person who exists, then Jesus’ message of loving others (“love one another as I have loved you”) is nonsense, for there are no others to love. If you believe in God, then you believe in at least one another person (God), so you are not a solipsist anymore; and if your belief in God is more specifically Christian, you have to accept God’s divine revelation, which includes revelation of the fact of the existence of other people. (If the Bible is God’s Word, surely one of the things God says in it is that the various people it mentions exist; and when Jesus told you to “love one another”, he was declaring that the others he was calling on you to love exist too.)

Can’t you see the contradiction in trying to convince me to share your belief that solipsism is true? If your solipsism is true, then there is no me for you to convince. And, even if I did come to believe in solipsism, I’d still be believing something you’d consider wrong, since surely if I became a solipsist I’d believe that I was the only person who existed, which contradicts your belief that you are the only person who exists.

I believe that solipsism is false, and that many minds other than my own exist. The challenge of solipsism is usually presented, not as something anyone actually believes, but as a sceptical possibility - how can we know it is false? I have a few answers to that question. One is that we can simply treat the existence of other people as self-evident, as axiomatic - we cannot prove it, but it is in no need of proof, any more than we need to prove that “1+1=2”, or that “I exist”, or that “time exists”. Another is, if solipsism were true, its truth would be such a soul-destroying insane nightmare, that a good God could not possibly permit that to be true. (The existence of a good God is compatible with many evils, but not with every conceivable evil.) Finally, I would argue (through the convertibility of the transcendentals, or through the relationship between ethics and rationality), that even apart from God, some propositions are too evil to be true, and solipsism is among them.

Simon

 

[SimmieKay]

The five senses are physical properties of the body, and not of the mind, they react to physical stimulation, not mental stimulation.

We simply disagree on what the “senses” are. That’s fine, we don’t have to agree. I would say that the five senses are five different types of qualia. I would say that all physical objects and their properties are ultimately mental, so the statement “The five senses are physical properties of the body, and not of the mind” is self-contradictory given my assumptions (although not given yours).

They sense objects that exist apart from the mind, before the mind experiences them, they are prior, first, and not a result of mental experience which is second

I disagree with that. The patterns-in-experience which determine my individual experiences exist prior to those individual experiences, yes, but they do not exist prior to all minds (they do not exist prior to the divine mind), and I don’t believe that they are extra-mental. We just have opposite ideas of the fundamental nature of reality.

Human experience tell us that the patterns that exist about things in other minds are not the same patterns that exist in our minds necessarily But human experience tells also that we can agree on what we sense. If it depended on the patterns of what other people think, then there would be no universal agreement on what is, and what isn’t, reality. You contradict yourself.

Everyone agrees that the sun exists, for the pattern of the sun is present in everyone’s experiences. When the same pattern, or a collection of related and similar patterns, are present in many or all minds, the experiences of those minds will be (to that extent) in agreement. There is nothing in my view which implies that widespread, or even universal, partial agreements between the experiences of different human beings cannot exist.

The Mind of God, can not be compared to the mind of man. God is Intelligence, it is one of His attributes, and God is His attributes. In man intelligence is a power or faculty of the soul, and man is not his attributes. We are the result of Divine Intelligence, and we are not pure intelligence or thought, but matter and spirit, we are composed. This is Church teaching, in explaining Christ’s human nature, and this is what I mean that you can be an “accidental heretic” for lack of understanding, not intentional on your part. I do agree with you, but do not equate the mind of God with the mind of men, they are not the same.

I say that we are minds, and that God is also a mind (or maybe three minds). But that is not to say that there are not radical differences between our minds and God’s. When I say that we and God are both minds, I am not saying that our minds and his are even remotely similar in function or capabilities or principles. Obviously, God’s mind is omniscient and omnipotent and omnibenevolent, our minds are far from being so. Our minds depend on God’s mind for their existence, whereas God’s mind does not depend on ours. God’s mind likely differs from our minds in many other ways which we cannot even begin to imagine. So, I don’t see how I am equating the divine mind with human mind, or contradicting the Church’s teachings on the divine mind.

Yes there is reason, because God is above His creation, and not part of it. He IS Intelligence, and humans HAVE intelligence, if we associate God with His creation, we fall into Pantheism, a heresy (there you go again- not guilty though)

I never said that God is part of his creation. God is a mind (or three), creation is a vast number of further minds (human, angelic, demonic, maybe even animal). The former mind(s) are God, the later mind(s) are not God and not part of God. Since God knows everything, everything about us, everything about this universe, is knowledge in God’s omniscient mind(s), but being a subject of God’s knowledge does not make one a part of God or divine.

One can be right in his beliefs about God, and still be wrong in his thinking and logic. And I thank God for that.

Obviously, you and I disagree on a lot of fundamental philosophical questions. I’m not (in this thread at least) trying to convince you that I am right and you are wrong, just laying out what I believe, and asking whether my beliefs contradict Church teaching. Thus far, no clear (as opposed to debatable) contradictions have been presented to me.

A metaphysical subjective idealist, to him ,self is the only reality. The external world is a representation of self- has no independent existence-egocentric presentism.

That is a description of solipsism, and I am not a solipsist. I believe in the existence of minds other than my own, both now, and in the past, and in the future. A thousand years before my birth, minds existed, and (assuming the world doesn’t end before then) people will be born a thousand years after my death, and those minds will exist too. The only thing I deny, is the existence of anything which is not ultimately mental (either a mind or the contents of some mind). I don’t even deny the existence of physical objects, I simply deny that they are irreducibly non-mental.

Simon

 

[Partinobodycula]

Now if the only mind that exists is yours, evidently, you are acknowledging the existence of another mind, if not, then you are talking to your self,

In a manner of speaking, yes I’m talking to myself. You and everyone else are personifications of the struggle going on within my own mind about questions that I cannot answer. Namely, what am I, and where did I come from? That struggle plays out as what I perceive of as reality. In a sense, I’m dreaming and you’re simply a player within that dream. But in another sense you’re more than that, you’re me.

do you see the lack of logic in this kind of thinking.

I’m sorry, but no I don’t see the lack of logic in such thinking. The thinking is fairly simple and straight forward. Within myself there’s a struggle going on to understand what I am, and where I came from. That struggle is expressed in the world around me. The world is the way it is, with all of its turmoil and conflict, because it’s a reflection of the turmoil and conflict that exists within me.

And who are you applying the egotism, denial and withdrawal to, others or your self?

I apply them to myself. Or at least people seem to think that such attributes should apply to a solipsist. Surely the solipsist must be egotistical. Believing themselves to be God. They must be in denial. Questioning that which is obvious. And they must be in withdrawal. For who would engage with what they believe to be an illusion. But I would argue that they’re wrong. I would argue that the struggles of the world give witness to the fact that I’m far, far less than a God. Nor do I believe that I’m in denial. I simply believe that all that any of us can know for certain, is that “I am”. And to dismiss that fact, that’s denial. And lastly, I don’t believe that I’m in withdrawal. For withdrawing gains me nothing. If I’m to reconcile this struggle then I need to utilize the only tool that I have, and that’s you.

As a Christian, we know that we can’t change ourselves because we can’t give what we don’t have. And as a Christian we know someone who can, Jesus Christ, but we must acknowledge Him for who He is, and go out of ourselves and reach for Him. That is something you must ask for, and ask Him to cause you to do this. Step out in your Christian faith

I can’t say what being a Christian means to you, but I can say what it means to me. To me it represents an ideal to which I aspire. If the world is simply the personification of myself, then there are within it those things which represent the worst of me, and those things which represent the best of me. I aspire to be more like those things that represent the best of me, and less like those things that represent the worst of me. As such I will proudly identify with His name, and gladly suffer whatever hardships that may come, hopefully with the same grace as He did. I have no doubt that this doesn’t fit in with your definition of a Christian, but then again, very little about me fits in with someone else’s definition.

 

[Partinobodycula]

The five senses constitute types of experiences that minds have. What do they sense? I would say that the direct objects of sensation are patterns which exist in the experiences of minds.

SimmieKay, I can understand your disdain for solipsism, as such I’ll try to avoid the subject, although it may be essential to some of the objections that I have with your stated philosophy. You’ve no doubt given a great deal of time and thought to your philosophical position, and I admire the lucidity and reasoning with which you present it, but I have one glaring objection…why with such clarity of reasoning do you begin with an assumption? You assume that other minds exist. What I can’t understand, is why.

That singular assumption clouds everything that comes after it. If in your philosophy everything is about patterns of experience then how are you to determine whether the patterns of experience that constitute other minds have an objective existence independent of your own patterns of experience?

 

[ynotzap]

. The only thing I deny, is the existence of anything which is not ultimately mental (either a mind or the contents of some mind). I don’t even deny the existence of physical objects, I simply deny that they are irreducibly non-mental.

Simon

ultimately mental, could you be more specific in what you mean by “ultimately mental” Do you mean" ultimately spiritual" Do you mean" ultimately an idea" Do you mean " ultimately part of God’s mind" Mental to me means “of the mind” and of the mind is the "concept or idea of things perceived. In an analogous way when speaking of the Mind of God, we are speaking of God’s creation, not just an idea, The idea to me is a spiritual reality, it can not be sensed, but is only “understood” It is the abstraction of the sensible species. What is the exact meaning of the word “mental” in your mind, could you clarify it more? Is it used as a synonym for mind, or the contents of some mind,?

 

[ynotzap]

SimmieKay: Mental is an adjective describing a noun (mind), it is not the noun. It means “of the mind”, not the mind itself. You are using the word “mental” meaning "a mind or the contents of a mind which are nouns. You might use the words " I deny the existence of anything which is not “mind” rather than mental. And if you do, then I must disagree with you because everything is not mind, or the contents of a mind. The human body is not mind, mind is the intellectual faculty of the soul which is not matter, but is part of human nature and the soul is spiritual. Man is body and soul. Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God. The Word made flesh (physical) God does not have a mind, which is a faculty, metaphycally it is proven that God is Intelligence, He is all of His attributes. they are one in Him. Human intellect is the power to know, God is Omniscient, God is all knowing, and is His power.not a separate faculty as in man. We were given existence by the will of God we didn’t exist as an idea of God, by some mental process.

 

[Norway]

I’ll admit I haven’t read through all the posts here so I apologize if I am repeating something. From what I read it seems like people are discussing the merits of idealism of Berkeley’s kind and not so much your original question of whether or not it is heresy. I very much doubt the Catholic Church would consider Berkeley’s idealism heresy. The church is rather lenient when it comes to these sorts of things, certainly more lenient than people assume.

Even though Berkeley wasn’t Catholic he was pretty close. He was a bishop afterall. And his basic answer to the objection often voiced of “Well if you are right Berkely, what accounts for the continuity of experience if ‘Esse et Pecepi’? How come when I turn around everything is still the way it was before if it is sort of blinking in and out of existence? And how come reality can kind o smack me over the head if I walk into traffic?” was that everything we see does actually exist independently of our minds because it is constantly being perceived by the mind of God. This view is not really drastically different from Aquinas’s idea that God is constantly holding the universe n existence. Berkeley’s arguments make perfect sense in their own way and he isn’t really saying anything all that drastic. He is just trying to draw boundaries around what can be spoken of sensibly. He was claiming we can’t speak of “the thing in itself” only our perception of the thing. It’s mostly about language and perception and not really ontological stuff about existence. He would say that everything we see around us actually exists. He would just add the caveat that it all exists because it is being perceived by the mind of God, so he’d say “I’m still right about esse et percepi.”

Either way, he doesn’t really say anything heretical. He just has a different description of God’s agency.

One more edit to the point of whether or not such a view is heresy. In pope John Paul II’s talks about the human body that we call now Theology of the body" he starts from a position that is very much in line with the views you are espousing. He starts with a subjective phenomenology that owes a lot to the existentialists who in turn owe a lot to Berkeley. If you haven’t read theology of the body, check it out. you’d have to find the right sections about our initial experience of the world. I bet if you google Pope JP II and Phenomenology" you’ll get all types of stuff.

 

[SimmieKay]

SimmieKay, I can understand your disdain for solipsism, as such I’ll try to avoid the subject, although it may be essential to some of the objections that I have with your stated philosophy. You’ve no doubt given a great deal of time and thought to your philosophical position, and I admire the lucidity and reasoning with which you present it, but I have one glaring objection…why with such clarity of reasoning do you begin with an assumption? You assume that other minds exist. What I can’t understand, is why.

That singular assumption clouds everything that comes after it. If in your philosophy everything is about patterns of experience then how are you to determine whether the patterns of experience that constitute other minds have an objective existence independent of your own patterns of experience?

Partinobodycula, dare I ask you a personal question? Do you have a spouse or partner, do you have any children? For me, I cannot look my son in the eyes and deny that he exists and is a different person from me. If my son is just a figment of my imagination, then my life is a meaningless nightmare. If I told my wife that I was a solipsist, she’d first ask me what that meant - once I’d explained it to her, she’d call a psychiatrist (or else a divorce lawyer). If I actually started believing in solipsism, I have no doubt that I would go so mad that I’d soon end up in a psychiatric institution as result.

Quite apart from the theoretical reasons to accept or reject a belief, there are practical concerns. Some beliefs are simply psychologically impossible for most people to hold (you may be a rare exception to that general rule.) If a belief is psychologically impossible, inevitably one will reject it - most people won’t even go looking for a reason to justify their rejection - but a minority of the more philosophically inclined, will search for justifications. But we have to remember, that the rejection comes first, the search for rational justification is an (optional) afterthought.

We are human beings, after all, human beings with lives and with loves, not abstract perfectly rational thinking machines.

Simon