Is subjective idealism compatible with Catholic teaching?

[Partinobodycula]

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).

SimmieKay, no, I don’t have a wife or children. I’ve never really felt a need for such intimate personal relationships. I don’t know why. Indeed there are a great many things about the behavior of others that I’ve always found quite puzzling. Why do people do the things that they do? That question fascinates me. But I assume that everyone asks that question about the behavior of others from time to time. I’m quite certain that it’s this inability to associate with the behavior of others that allows me to accept solipsism where others find it abhorrent. But it wasn’t solipsism that caused me to be as I am, it’s the way I am that allowed me to be a solipsist.

As for your wife and children, I find your reaction to the notion of solipsism to be quite understandable given your perspective. It’s just that you and I have a different understanding of what the term “real” means in this context. To me people are still real. To me people are an expression of myself. So if you love your wife and children, that emotion is real. It comes from within you and is embodied in them. They’re no less real than the emotion is, than the need for them is, than the love for them is. So it’s not that I believe that people aren’t real. It’s that I believe that they’re an expression of myself. Your wife and children may not simply be a part of you, they may be the most precious part of you. Everyone, everywhere is the embodiment of that which exists in me. They’re no less real than I am, for they’re not simply created by me, they are me. Which is why I believe that in order to change the world, one must change themselves. And in order to change themselves one must attempt to change the world. And that’s why I’m here.

Now when I say such things I have a fear that it makes me sound like God, but I’m not God. My consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. It’s born of something else. I don’t know what that thing is, but I know that it isn’t me. Although it may in a sense, be a part of me.

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.

I think that if you could understand that the world, with all of it’s hate, indifference, and suffering isn’t an expression of God, it’s an expression of you, then you would be more inclined to try and change you. You’d be more inclined to be merciful, compassionate, and forgiving, for as these things abide in you, they abide in the world.

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.

As I say, my journey to solipsism is in many ways unique to me. It may not be possible for anyone else to get there. But I believe that if I could instill within others the idea that in order to change the world they must change themselves, then indeed perhaps I could change the world. But some might question that if solipsism is true then why do I need to change others, won’t it suffice to simply change myself? I would answer that the effort to change others IS an effort to change myself. For if others truly are an expression of one’s self, then the mission to change one’s self is by its very nature an apostolic one.

I worry however, that I may not be up to the task.

 

[Beircheart]

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

I am a bit confused regarding your distinction between perception and existence. It is the old tree falling in a wood with no one being within earshot. Does it make a sound? That would depend greatly on whether you view sound as being the physics of sound waves or the actual hearing of it (perception).

I agree with the idea that each experience, your example of two individuals perceiving a tree, will be unique to each but the truth regarding the existence of the tree could never be in doubt, yet it has no mind of its own and exists in imperfect form in the two minds. Its true existence is still present without any of these three minds (the two people imperfectly perceiving and its own lack of mind).

Regardless, the question of heresy would hinge on if your belief is an outright rejection of church teaching or an attempt to make sense of it in a manner in which you can grasp the concept of it (such as the total denial of a soul as opposed to striving to understand what the soul is).

 

[Partinobodycula]

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.

As I see it the two things, solipsism and Christianity aren’t contradictory. If the world is simply an expression of me, then Christ is in the world because the essence of Christ, the potential for Christ, exists in me. Now some might argue that this proves that I believe that I’m God, for I think that I gave rise to Christ, but they would be mistaken.

Consider for example the snowflake. They say that every snowflake is different, and yet within every snowflake there are some very striking commonalities. These commonalities aren’t due to the properties of the snowflake itself, but rather they’re due to the properties and the process that gives rise to the snowflake. Every snowflake has the same properties because they have the same source. Or consider evolution. There’s a process in evolution known as convergence, that states that the same properties will always emerge because they’re uniquely and universally beneficial to survival. Things will always tend to evolve with two eyes instead of one or three because two eyes are the most evolutionarily advantageous. And thus things that emerge from something else will very often tend to have properties in common, not of their own volition, but because they’re a product of the properties and the process that gives rise to them.

I believe that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, and as such every consciousness that arises will have properties in common, will be molded by the same process. As the bible says, “no temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man”. Every consciousness will know pain, and sorrow, and sin, and joy, and exultation, and mercy. And each of them in like measure. Just as each consciousness possesses the potential for good and evil, they possess the potential for a savior, for Christ. What they choose may differ, but the choice may always be there. The world may be an expression of me, but I’m the product of something else.

Solipsism doesn’t mean that Christ isn’t real, for He may be common to all men. Nor does it mean that I’m God, for I don’t give rise to myself. It simply means that in this world the only one suffering, is me. And the choices I have, are the same choices that everyone has. God is still there, Christ is still the savior, and I still have to choose.

 

[ynotzap]

There

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

Here are some truths to justify belief in the “after life” based on reason. I know that I know, I can reflect on my own thinking, and be aware of others at the same time This phenomenon is not possible to material things, a self-awareness. I am also aware of external things at the same time, I am present to them and they to me. I can be autonomous self directing, think and act for myself. No material thing can do this, no even robots that must be planned by an intelligent programmer.

What do I know, I know immaterial things, truth, love, beauty, knowledge, law, math, science. How did I get this knowledge? From material things by abstracting the ideas, the sensible species of things. Not only that but I can abstract from the abstraction by moving from the idea, to the quantitative, and the qualitative knowledge. The power to abstract an immaterial thing, is done by an immaterial power source called the immaterial soul (spiritual) To move from ignorance to knowledge is call immaterial or spiritual motion. In humans this source of immaterial motion, and physical motion is called a non-material soul, which causes life in the body and activity in the intellect and will, they are it’s powers.

The body suffers degeneration because of physical limitations. It wears out. Because the soul is non-material (spiritual-like God) it can not be destroyed by physical limitations. The soul experiences limitations because it is united to the body is this life, and because they co-exist, it is understood that the soul is extrinsically dependent on the body for it’s limited knowledge. Extrinsically means the soul does not depend on the body for it’s existence, but because of it’s union with the body it is limited in it’s activity eg. the brain gets tired, so the mind is hindered in it’s activity

The union of body and soul is called the "hylomorphic union the soul makes up the essential nature of man “a rational( a non-material-spiritual) animal” It is the combination of both that is the nature of man and makes him different from animals He is not complete without either. Even in Heaven. The soul is the noblilst and spiritual part. It is indestructible by matter and continues to exist after physical death.

 

[ynotzap]

Correction the idea is abstracted FROM the sensible species.

 

[SimmieKay]

As for your wife and children, I find your reaction to the notion of solipsism to be quite understandable given your perspective. It’s just that you and I have a different understanding of what the term “real” means in this context. To me people are still real. To me people are an expression of myself. So if you love your wife and children, that emotion is real. It comes from within you and is embodied in them. They’re no less real than the emotion is, than the need for them is, than the love for them is. So it’s not that I believe that people aren’t real. It’s that I believe that they’re an expression of myself. Your wife and children may not simply be a part of you, they may be the most precious part of you. Everyone, everywhere is the embodiment of that which exists in me. They’re no less real than I am, for they’re not simply created by me, they are me. Which is why I believe that in order to change the world, one must change themselves. And in order to change themselves one must attempt to change the world. And that’s why I’m here.

So, are you familiar with the “open individualism” of Daniel Kolak? He claims that every person is one and the same person, that only one person exists and each of us is that single existent person. Now, personally, I think Kolak’s views are a bit crazy. But, how does your “solipsism” compare to Kolak’s open individualism? Is your “solipsism” entirely solipsistic in the classic sense of the word? If you admit that - in some sense - other people exist, then you are not entirely a solipsist. You seem to believe that the boundaries of self between you and others are lacking, which is rather similar to what Kolak believes. Or to the Advaita Vedanta view that we are all identical to the Absolute Oneness, we’ve just been deluded (self-deluded?) into ignorance of this fact. From the viewpoint of the Catholic Church (and most of the rest of Christianity too), this is getting into the territory of pantheistic heresy.

Simon

 

[SimmieKay]

As I see it the two things, solipsism and Christianity aren’t contradictory. If the world is simply an expression of me, then Christ is in the world because the essence of Christ, the potential for Christ, exists in me. Now some might argue that this proves that I believe that I’m God, for I think that I gave rise to Christ, but they would be mistaken.

If “Christ is risen” means nothing more than “the essence of Christ, the potential for Christ, exists in me” - then according to the judgement of the Catholic Church, and according to the judgement of the other major Christian traditions (Protestant or Eastern Orthodox), that is heresy. Most Christians would judge your views as being way outside the bounds of historic Christianity. Christianity and solipsism are only “compatible” when you’ve reinterpreted “Christianity” in such a way that few would still recognise it. This is moving in the direction of the “Cosmic Christ” of New Age fancy, in which Jesus ceases to be a real human being and is reduced to some sort of abstract principle, or vague personification of human potential.

Simon

 

[SimmieKay]

I am a bit confused regarding your distinction between perception and existence. It is the old tree falling in a wood with no one being within earshot. Does it make a sound? That would depend greatly on whether you view sound as being the physics of sound waves or the actual hearing of it (perception).

I would deny that physics is ultimately separate from the perception. All scientific theories are ultimately rules used to predict future observations on the basis of past observations. In other words, scientific theories are predictions of what experiences we will have in the future, given various experiences we have in the present and past. They are patterns in experience. So I don’t believe that physics talks about a reality beyond our experience - “atoms”, “molecules”, “particles”, etc, are just an abstraction of our experiences, and have no reality beyond those experiences.

I agree with the idea that each experience, your example of two individuals perceiving a tree, will be unique to each but the truth regarding the existence of the tree could never be in doubt, yet it has no mind of its own and exists in imperfect form in the two minds. Its true existence is still present without any of these three minds (the two people imperfectly perceiving and its own lack of mind).

I would simply deny that the tree exists unless some mind, at some point, observes it. It continues to exist when no mind is observing it so long as some mind at some point does. Even if no human mind ever observes it, the mind of God, the minds of angels, etc., can observe it, and thus ensure its existence. But if no mind ever observes it, not even the mind of God, then it simply never exists. So existence depends on observation by some mind.

Regardless, the question of heresy would hinge on if your belief is an outright rejection of church teaching or an attempt to make sense of it in a manner in which you can grasp the concept of it (such as the total denial of a soul as opposed to striving to understand what the soul is).

I don’t deny the “soul”, if the “soul” is understood as being “consciousness which survives death”. Some technical philosophical definitions of the soul I would not agree with.

Simon

 

[SimmieKay]

ultimately mental, could you be more specific in what you mean by “ultimately mental”

What I mean by “ultimately mental”, is that everything either is (1) a mind (2) something which exists internal to a mind (such as an idea, belief, experience, perception, mental image, emotion, etc) or (3) something which is reducible to some combination of (1) and (2). What “reducible” here means: A is reducible to B, if all true statements about A can in principle be translated into true statements about B, without any loss of meaning. So, for example, “there is a tree in my backyard” is not on the surface a statement about minds or their contents, but I claim it can in principle be translated into a set of such statements - such as, if I was to have any member of the set of experiences which is described by the statement “I walk into my backyard”, I would then have the experiences described by the statement “I see the tree in my backyard”. Of course, in all practical cases, such a reduction is too complex for our limited human minds to carry out in practice, but what is impossible in practice can be entirely possible in theory, and all (3) requires is a theoretical possibility. (In other words, the reduction is valid if any mind is capable of doing it, even if the only mind that actually can is God.)

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.

I don’t want to get bogged down in arguments over grammar

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,

As I said, I simply disagree here. In my view, the “body” is nothing other than a family of patterns in the experiences of minds.

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.

Although you will often catch me out saying that we “have a mind”, I don’t think this is the best language (just a difficult habit for me to break). I would rather say that we are minds. So, in the same sense, I don’t claim that God has a mind, but rather that God is a divine mind, or that each person of the Trinity is a divine mind. (A divine mind being a rather different thing from a non-divine mind, although both are still in some sense minds.)

Simon

 

[SimmieKay]

Here are some truths to justify belief in the “after life” based on reason. I know that I know, I can reflect on my own thinking, and be aware of others at the same time This phenomenon is not possible to material things, a self-awareness. I am also aware of external things at the same time, I am present to them and they to me. I can be autonomous self directing, think and act for myself. No material thing can do this, no even robots that must be planned by an intelligent programmer.

What do I know, I know immaterial things, truth, love, beauty, knowledge, law, math, science. How did I get this knowledge? From material things by abstracting the ideas, the sensible species of things. Not only that but I can abstract from the abstraction by moving from the idea, to the quantitative, and the qualitative knowledge. The power to abstract an immaterial thing, is done by an immaterial power source called the immaterial soul (spiritual) To move from ignorance to knowledge is call immaterial or spiritual motion. In humans this source of immaterial motion, and physical motion is called a non-material soul, which causes life in the body and activity in the intellect and will, they are it’s powers.

The body suffers degeneration because of physical limitations. It wears out. Because the soul is non-material (spiritual-like God) it can not be destroyed by physical limitations. The soul experiences limitations because it is united to the body is this life, and because they co-exist, it is understood that the soul is extrinsically dependent on the body for it’s limited knowledge. Extrinsically means the soul does not depend on the body for it’s existence, but because of it’s union with the body it is limited in it’s activity eg. the brain gets tired, so the mind is hindered in it’s activity

The union of body and soul is called the "hylomorphic union the soul makes up the essential nature of man “a rational( a non-material-spiritual) animal” It is the combination of both that is the nature of man and makes him different from animals He is not complete without either. Even in Heaven. The soul is the noblilst and spiritual part. It is indestructible by matter and continues to exist after physical death.

I appreciate where you are coming from. What you have stated here is basically a standard hylomorphic dualist account of a rational argument for the afterlife. The problem for me, is quite simply, that the language of Aristotelianism-Thomism is alien to my mind. I try to understand it, but have thus far not succeeded. This in itself doesn’t prove that it is wrong, but it does make it impossible for me at the present time to believe in it.

For a number of years I was a materialist atheist, and the broader intellectual culture in which I was raised is very materialist. In some sense, idealism is only a short distance away from materialism - take reductionist materialism, and invert the arrow of reduction between mind and matter, and you have idealism. It is also easy to reach Cartesian substance dualism - if materialists argue that A is reducible to B, and idealists argue that B is reducible to A, then Cartesian dualists claim that A and B are two fundamentally distinct and independently existing categories such that neither is reducible to the other. So all three views (reductionist materialism, reductionist idealism, substance dualism) make sense to me, and of those three options reducitionist idealism makes the most sense. But Aristotelian-Thomist hylomorphic dualism is about as intelligible to me as Chinese or Korean.

Simon

 

[ynotzap]

SimmieKay: I can readily understand your position on understanding the teachings of Aquinas, and Aristotle, it becomes very abstractive, and requires a lot of mental discipline, it is a difficult study. the Church has adopted the hylomorphic theory in her explanation of the “transubstantiation” in the Eucharist. It is not necessary that you or I understand hylomorphicism, just as long as you accept the teaching that there is an actual transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, this is an infallible doctrine, and at the very center of our Faith. If you deny this, then you are not conforming to these truths, and if you believe otherwise you have fallen into heresy. Of course I don’t believe you have, so if you are still concerned, you seem capable of handling it, keep plugging. God Bless you in your efforts.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Simon, you appear to be using an unusual definition of “mind” and not distinguishing the mind of God from the minds of human individuals.

If creatures and creations “condense” from God’s mind (though endowed with material substance) - not dissimilar in a way, in my opinion to saying that creatures are a product of “Intelligent Design” - and if Berkeley (whom I haven’t read) was going the same way, then your statements can come over, on the surface, as making a sort of approximate, poetic sense. Does Berkeley give much support to the meaning and destiny of individuality?

If the solipsists and Advaita Vedanta have apparently important differences of detail, that doesn’t resolve the most important questions.

If we are an expression of God - with “expression” in a surprising meaning - then that is not sentimental. It is a very hard challenge. We are us and God desired to call us to be distinct and yet have the opportunity for fellowship with Him. How can He fellowship with His toenail clippings?

If the material is concrete, then God’s mind is even more concrete. Since when in Catholic teaching was God’s mind, overall, much describable? Revelation tells us though some things about His values.

It’s God’s intention that we be very distinct individuals. This shows that these views are in this important respect not compatible with Christian faith.

God’s “expression” will always surprise and shock us.

 

[Richca]

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

Well, the Bible begins with “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” It proceeds to show that in the six days that follow, God created all the things we find in the heavens and the earth such as the stars, the sun and moon, the plants and animals on earth. And lastly, God created human beings, male and female he created them. All these things we find in the heavens and the earth have objective existence outside our minds for God created them even before he created mankind who has a mind or intellect. The stars and sun, the animals and plants, earth and water, are not minds but stars, suns, animals and plants etc. Accordingly, what I think common sense tells us about the things we see to have existence outside our minds, according to divine revelation and the word of God, actually do have objective existence because God created them.

 

[SimmieKay]

Simon, you appear to be using an unusual definition of “mind” and not distinguishing the mind of God from the minds of human individuals.

Maybe my definition is “unusual” (I’m not sure what the “usual” definition would be.) But I don’t think I am failing to distinguish God’s mind from human minds. Obviously God’s mind is vastly greater than our minds, our minds are but pale imitations compared to his. But, nonetheless, they must have something in common, however small that commonality may be, or else we would not be justified in calling them both by the same word “mind”.

If creatures and creations “condense” from God’s mind (though endowed with material substance) - not dissimilar in a way, in my opinion to saying that creatures are a product of “Intelligent Design” - and if Berkeley (whom I haven’t read) was going the same way, then your statements can come over, on the surface, as making a sort of approximate, poetic sense. Does Berkeley give much support to the meaning and destiny of individuality?

If the solipsists and Advaita Vedanta have apparently important differences of detail, that doesn’t resolve the most important questions.

If we are an expression of God - with “expression” in a surprising meaning - then that is not sentimental. It is a very hard challenge. We are us and God desired to call us to be distinct and yet have the opportunity for fellowship with Him. How can He fellowship with His toenail clippings?

If the material is concrete, then God’s mind is even more concrete. Since when in Catholic teaching was God’s mind, overall, much describable? Revelation tells us though some things about His values.

It’s God’s intention that we be very distinct individuals. This shows that these views are in this important respect not compatible with Christian faith.

God’s “expression” will always surprise and shock us.

I’m not sure I follow your point. I agree that denying human individuality is in conflict with the Catholic faith, but I don’t believe Berkeley ever denied human individuality, nor do I feel I do so. I insist on the existence of many distinct minds, which is perfectly compatible with the existence of many distinct individuals - if I insisted there was only one mind, or that everyone had the same mind (e.g. “we are all the same person, but are deluded into believing we are separate persons”), then certainly that would be contrary to Catholic teaching, but I don’t believe I’ve said or implied that.

Simon

 

[SimmieKay]

Well, the Bible begins with “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” It proceeds to show that in the six days that follow, God created all the things we find in the heavens and the earth such as the stars, the sun and moon, the plants and animals on earth. And lastly, God created human beings, male and female he created them. All these things we find in the heavens and the earth have objective existence outside our minds for God created them even before he created mankind who has a mind or intellect. The stars and sun, the animals and plants, earth and water, are not minds but stars, suns, animals and plants etc. Accordingly, what I think common sense tells us about the things we see to have existence outside our minds, according to divine revelation and the word of God, actually do have objective existence because God created them.

When I say there is nothing beyond mind, I don’t mean to say that there is nothing beyond human minds, I mean there is nothing beyond minds, taking that term in the broadest sense to include not only human minds, but also the divine mind, and also other kinds of minds such as angelic minds or demonic minds. When Scripture says that God created certain things before human minds, it never says those things existed before any mind. Obviously his own mind precedes the creation of those things, and quite possibly he created angelic minds before creating these things, so we cannot say that any created thing in Scripture exists prior to all minds.

Simon