Solipsism and other modern philosophies--why accepted?

[St_Francis]

Solipsism is the idea that only the mind exists, and there are various other philosophies which propose the non-existence of things.

Now, these philosophers continued to behave as if things were real. They continued to eat, for example. They did not live according to their philosoph.

So altho the philosophies made no sense, ran against people’s actual experience, and the philosphers themselves did not live according to them. people took these philosophies seriously and have incorporated parts of them into our social thinking.

Why?

Thanks

 

[dmar198]

Solipsism is the idea that only the mind exists, and there are various other philosophies which propose the non-existence of things.

Now, these philosophers continued to behave as if things were real. They continued to eat, for example. They did not live according to their philosoph.

So altho the philosophies made no sense, ran against people’s actual experience, and the philosphers themselves did not live according to them. people took these philosophies seriously and have incorporated parts of them into our social thinking.

Why?

Thanks

Perhaps it’s because many modern people want to believe a lie in order that they may try to escape having to think about the truth.

The Bible speaks several times of people who willfully ignore the truth and knowingly believe lies instead. Perhaps the inventors of solipsism and other modern silliness are among them.

“They willfully ignore this: Long ago the heavens and the earth were brought about from water and through water by the word of God.” 2 Pet. 3:5

“wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.” Romans 1:18.

“they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” 2 Thess. 2:10

“[they] did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thess. 2:12

“By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith.” 1 Tim. 1:19

 

[Zavius_Firerave]

They must know that their own philosophy is stupid but too proud to admit mistake.

 

[Partinobodycula]

They must know that their own philosophy is stupid but too proud to admit mistake.

I’ve no doubt that similar things were said about Christ.

Not that I’m equating myself with Christ, but simply pointing out that men often err who judge the hearts and minds of others.

 

[St_Francis]

Perhaps it’s because many modern people want to believe a lie in order that they may try to escape having to think about the truth.

The Bible speaks several times of people who willfully ignore the truth and knowingly believe lies instead. Perhaps the inventors of solipsism and other modern silliness are among them.

“They willfully ignore this: Long ago the heavens and the earth were brought about from water and through water by the word of God.” 2 Pet. 3:5

“wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.” Romans 1:18.

“they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” 2 Thess. 2:10

“[they] did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thess. 2:12

“By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith.” 1 Tim. 1:19

This seems like such a roundabout way to do this, but certainly your reasoning works.

I also think a lot of people are left in ignorance because of the harmful ideas and ways of thinking that are so endemic in our society. This bothers me a lot, too.

 

[inocente]

Solipsism is the idea that only the mind exists, and there are various other philosophies which propose the non-existence of things.

Now, these philosophers continued to behave as if things were real. They continued to eat, for example. They did not live according to their philosoph.

So altho the philosophies made no sense, ran against people’s actual experience, and the philosphers themselves did not live according to them. people took these philosophies seriously and have incorporated parts of them into our social thinking.

Why?

Thanks

In philosophy, there’s an issue known as the problem of minds: since you can only observe other peoples’ behavior, how can you know they have minds?

Philosophers probably all accept that other people do indeed have minds, the issue is whether it could ever be proven logically. For instance physicalists and dualists disagree even on what might be an acceptable proof, even though it seems such a basic question. Solipsism says that without any agreement even on the fundamentals, it’s pointless trying - you can be certain only of your own mind and have to take the rest on faith, if at all.

Perhaps it’s all a bit ethereal for the rest of us, but philosophers debate these fundamental questions, and it seems they always did. The Wikipedia article points out that the first known solipsist was Gorgias of Leontini, 483–375 BC, and its roots can be traced back to Taoism, Hinduism and Zen. Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

 

[You]

I’ve no doubt that similar things were said about Christ.

Not that I’m equating myself with Christ, but simply pointing out that men often err who judge the hearts and minds of others.

You’re talking to yourself…

 

[St_Francis]

In philosophy, there’s an issue known as the problem of minds: since you can only observe other peoples’ behavior, how can you know they have minds?

Philosophers probably all accept that other people do indeed have minds, the issue is whether it could ever be proven logically. For instance physicalists and dualists disagree even on what might be an acceptable proof, even though it seems such a basic question. Solipsism says that without any agreement even on the fundamentals, it’s pointless trying - you can be certain only of your own mind and have to take the rest on faith, if at all.

Perhaps it’s all a bit ethereal for the rest of us, but philosophers debate these fundamental questions, and it seems they always did. The Wikipedia article points out that the first known solipsist was Gorgias of Leontini, 483–375 BC, and its roots can be traced back to Taoism, Hinduism and Zen. Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

But it seems that the past iterations of solipsism were not really accepted, and it seems to me that we could accept certain ideas (like everyone has a brain) as a priori ideas that way we accept certain geometrical ideas as a priori. This idea of dashing reality down to the ground as a first step seems counter-productive, doesn’t it? I mean, they rendered philosophy useless by this.

And also, they still continued to live as if things and other minds existed, so they didn’t even believe what they were proposing!

 

[inocente]

But it seems that the past iterations of solipsism were not really accepted, and it seems to me that we could accept certain ideas (like everyone has a brain) as a priori ideas that way we accept certain geometrical ideas as a priori. This idea of dashing reality down to the ground as a first step seems counter-productive, doesn’t it? I mean, they rendered philosophy useless by this.

And also, they still continued to live as if things and other minds existed, so they didn’t even believe what they were proposing!

You say “everyone has a brain”, but many dualists on CAF who follow Aristotle, Aquinas or Descartes say possessing a brain has nothing to do with having a mind. I don’t agree with them, nor with the (fewer) solipsists here. The solipsists and dualists have different realities, but to me neither is any more real than the other.

Listening to Obama yesterday, after the latest campus mass murder, you could hear his frustration and anger and outrage with the gun lobby. Nowhere else in the world is the freedom to carry weapons more important than the freedom to have your kids come home from school. Do you not agree there are many ideas far more dangerous than solipsism?

 

[St_Francis]

You say “everyone has a brain”,

You are right; I should have said mind.

but many dualists on CAF who follow Aristotle, Aquinas or Descartes say possessing a brain has nothing to do with having a mind.

I think my error stemmed from the fact that all persons have minds, but only living humans have brains.

I don’t agree with them, nor with the (fewer) solipsists here. The solipsists and dualists have different realities, but to me neither is any more real than the other.

Well, to me neither is any more real than the other because they are all unreal

And to say that solipsists and dualist “have different realities” is a huge error. We all have the same reality. We may have different ideas about reality, but we have the same actual reality.

Listening to Obama yesterday, after the latest campus mass murder, you could hear his frustration and anger and outrage with the gun lobby. Nowhere else in the world is the freedom to carry weapons more important than the freedom to have your kids come home from school. Do you not agree there are many ideas far more dangerous than solipsism?

Even tho I consider the removal of our right to self-defense to be a very dangerous idea, I think bad philosophy, overall, is much more dangerous and an underlying cause of this bad idea.

 

[Rhubarb]

I don’t know if Solipsism is really ‘accepted’. It was the joke theory around my department. The draw of solipsism is that it provides a neat and tidy solution to problems in philosophy of mind, epistemology and metaphysics. There are huge puzzles in these areas.

As for other theories that deny the existence of things, you’d have to look at them at a case-by-case basis and the arguments pro and con. There’s good reason to limit one’s ontology. That’s what Ockham’s Razor is all about.

 

[inocente]

And to say that solipsists and dualist “have different realities” is a huge error. We all have the same reality. We may have different ideas about reality, but we have the same actual reality.

Even tho I consider the removal of our right to self-defense to be a very dangerous idea, I think bad philosophy, overall, is much more dangerous and an underlying cause of this bad idea.

Apparently there’s a gun for every man, woman and child in America. If gun culture had anything to do with philosophers, it wouldn’t be confined only to America. Yet nowhere else on the planet does anyone think it even remotely sane.

Reality is “the state of things as they actually exist”. There might indeed be one single state of things in terms of physics, but I’d suggest many people wouldn’t agree that their reality is confined to physics alone. A rich white America male, a poor black American female, and a Moroccan Berber subsistence farmer walk into a bar. I doubt they could agree on their realities. Perhaps there’s a pinch of solipsism in everyone, as we all tend to think our own reality is more real than others.

 

[St_Francis]

Apparently there’s a gun for every man, woman and child in America. If gun culture had anything to do with philosophers, it wouldn’t be confined only to America. Yet nowhere else on the planet does anyone think it even remotely sane.

Reality is “the state of things as they actually exist”. There might indeed be one single state of things in terms of physics, but I’d suggest many people wouldn’t agree that their reality is confined to physics alone. A rich white America male, a poor black American female, and a Moroccan Berber subsistence farmer walk into a bar. I doubt they could agree on their realities. Perhaps there’s a pinch of solipsism in everyone, as we all tend to think our own reality is more real than others.

I totally agree that the three have had different experiences and seen different aspects of the world, but I think that your using this word “reality” in this way here is colloquial and differs from your use of the word when discussing the beliefs of different kinds of philosophers.

The three people you describe are faced with many aspects of the same thing–the rich man can get a lot of credit; the poor women only a small amount of credit; and the Berber has onky heard of credit on a tv he watched through a store window, but credit exists; it is obtainable under similar circumstances; it operates under rules which exist as the result of the nature od credit.

 

[St_Francis]

Apparently there’s a gun for every man, woman and child in America. If gun culture had anything to do with philosophers, it wouldn’t be confined only to America. Yet nowhere else on the planet does anyone think it even remotely sane.

Reality is “the state of things as they actually exist”. There might indeed be one single state of things in terms of physics, but I’d suggest many people wouldn’t agree that their reality is confined to physics alone. A rich white America male, a poor black American female, and a Moroccan Berber subsistence farmer walk into a bar. I doubt they could agree on their realities. Perhaps there’s a pinch of solipsism in everyone, as we all tend to think our own reality is more real than others.

I totally agree that the three have had different experiences and seen different aspects of the world, but I think that your using this word “reality” in this way here is colloquial and differs from your use of the word when discussing the beliefs of different kinds of philosophers.

The three people you describe are faced with many aspects of the same thing–the rich man experiences credit as a way to make money; the poor women experiences credit as a way to pay a lot more for cheap furniture; and the Berber has only heard of credit on a tv he watched through a store window.

But credit exists as an independent thing in itself; it is obtainable under similar circumstances; it operates under rules which exist as the result of the nature of credit. The fact that these people have only experienced narrow slivers of the whole does not change the nature of the whole.

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t know if Solipsism is really ‘accepted’. It was the joke theory around my department. The draw of solipsism is that it provides a neat and tidy solution to problems in philosophy of mind, epistemology and metaphysics. There are huge puzzles in these areas.

Doesn’t it seem to solve those problems by denying aspects of reality?

As for other theories that deny the existence of things, you’d have to look at them at a case-by-case basis and the arguments pro and con.

It seems like all these different philosophies go hand-in-hand and everyday people kind of pick and choose from this cornucopia of ideas. So one hears about people “having different realities” in a very accepting way, or people saying “my G/god” wouldn’t do this or that.

There’s good reason to limit one’s ontology. That’s what Ockham’s Razor is all about.

I like the sound of the phrase “to limit one’s ontology.” It sounds like a good thing to say in an argument! But I am not sure what you mean here–are you suggesting people simply accept reality a priori? Or that those who accept these ideas are trying to get some problems out of the way?

 

[Rhubarb]

Doesn’t it seem to solve those problems by denying aspects of reality?

It seems like all these different philosophies go hand-in-hand and everyday people kind of pick and choose from this cornucopia of ideas. So one hears about people “having different realities” in a very accepting way, or people saying “my G/god” wouldn’t do this or that.

I like the sound of the phrase “to limit one’s ontology.” It sounds like a good thing to say in an argument! But I am not sure what you mean here–are you suggesting people simply accept reality a priori? Or that those who accept these ideas are trying to get some problems out of the way?

So, first, yeah, that’s a bullet the solipsist has to bite. I agree completely. But there are other bullets that it solves. That’s the nature of philosophy - choosing which consequences are acceptable or not. You have to remember that solipsism doesn’t come about arbitrarily. There are arguments behind them. It’s not just ‘pick and choose’ philosophy like you here sometimes. I mean, in my opinion, something as bonkers as solipsism NEEDS to have good argumentation to try and assert that something so obvious, like the outside world, doesn’t exist.

I guess when I think of philosophies that discuss denying the existence of stuff, I take it back to ontology. Building an ontology is a tricky thing. Does number exist? Does force exist? Does emotion exist? There’s arguments both ways. Good arguments, too. We might think it’s crazy for someone to say “gold necklaces don’t exist”. But when they explain their theory of mereology, and say that ‘things’ with proper parts (necklaces) aren’t ‘objects’, they’re just collections of smaller mereological atoms (in this case, gold atoms) that do exist, it doesn’t sound as crazy. See, necklaces don’t exist. Gold exists and the gold is arranged in a certain shape. (Maybe you still think that’s strange to say, but, I think it’s less crazy to assert than just ‘necklaces don’t exist’)

We can assert that, say, Aristotelian cosmology is true. In doing so we need to posit astronomical spheres. We can get a fairly consistent view of reality doing so, but, it includes a BUNCH of weird and strange processes and ‘things’ that, if we limit our ontology by cutting them out, makes for a simpler and more ‘true’ picture of our reality. Perhaps that’s what solipsists are trying to do - cut away all the metaphyical and epistemological baggage we need to justify an external world. This simpler and more elegant ontology solves problems. But, like I said, it raises some big bullets to bite.

I don’t know if any of that helped… I haven’t slept. I’ll try again after some rest.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Solipsism is the idea that only the mind exists, and there are various other philosophies which propose the non-existence of things.

Now, these philosophers continued to behave as if things were real. They continued to eat, for example. They did not live according to their philosoph.

So altho the philosophies made no sense, ran against people’s actual experience, and the philosphers themselves did not live according to them. people took these philosophies seriously and have incorporated parts of them into our social thinking.

Why?

I think that there are some very logical reasons why people today are more willing to consider philosophies such as solipsism. A thousand years ago you could make a philosophical argument for solipsism, but it became very difficult to defend when faced with the obvious tangible nature of the world around you. In those days the prospect of reality as an illusion was indeed absurd, and so rather easily dismissed.

The seeds for change however, were planted in the early 1900’s when a young patent clerk named Albert Einstein introduced the theory of relativity. This theory inaugurated a subtle yet profound change, because it altered our concepts of space and time. They were no longer as absolute as we had perceived them to be. The problem got even more pronounced with the introduction of quantum mechanics, and the notion that things don’t really “exist” until they’re observed. This provided the means to defend the idea of a mind dependent reality on scientific grounds and not merely philosophical ones. But the problem for realists got even worse. The quantized nature of reality meant that reality was computable. It’s reducible to algorithms. Which means that it can be simulated. And it’s not just that it can be simulated, but it’s to the point that one of the most respected physics laboratories in the world, Fermilab, is currently running an experiment to determine whether reality actually could be a hologram.

So the argument against solipsism is much, much weaker than it was a thousand years ago. We actually ARE living in an observer created reality, the only question is, what constitutes an observer? So the situation isn’t the same as it was all those years ago. Solipsism isn’t confined to merely a philosophical debate. Evidence in its favor has been mounting for a hundred years and shows no signs of abating. It may not be a question of if solipsism gains mainstream acceptance, but when.

 

[St_Francis]

I think that there are some very logical reasons why people today are more willing to consider philosophies such as solipsism. A thousand years ago you could make a philosophical argument for solipsism, but it became very difficult to defend when faced with the obvious tangible nature of the world around you. In those days the prospect of reality as an illusion was indeed absurd, and so rather easily dismissed.

The seeds for change however, were planted in the early 1900’s when a young patent clerk named Albert Einstein introduced the theory of relativity. This theory inaugurated a subtle yet profound change, because it altered our concepts of space and time. They were no longer as absolute as we had perceived them to be. The problem got even more pronounced with the introduction of quantum mechanics, and the notion that things don’t really “exist” until they’re observed. This provided the means to defend the idea of a mind dependent reality on scientific grounds and not merely philosophical ones. But the problem for realists got even worse. The quantized nature of reality meant that reality was computable. It’s reducible to algorithms. Which means that it can be simulated. And it’s not just that it can be simulated, but it’s to the point that one of the most respected physics laboratories in the world, Fermilab, is currently running an experiment to determine whether reality actually could be a hologram.

So the argument against solipsism is much, much weaker than it was a thousand years ago. We actually ARE living in an observer created reality, the only question is, what constitutes an observer? So the situation isn’t the same as it was all those years ago. Solipsism isn’t confined to merely a philosophical debate. Evidence in its favor has been mounting for a hundred years and shows no signs of abating. It may not be a question of if solipsism gains mainstream acceptance, but when.

You say you are a solipsist in your profile… what does that mean to you? Do you eat? If so, why? How do you account for the congruity between what people observe, to the point that I could describe to you how to get to a particular place, and you would arrive there?

 

[You]

The problem got even more pronounced with the introduction of quantum mechanics, and the notion that things don’t really “exist” until they’re observed. This provided the means to defend the idea of a mind dependent reality on scientific grounds

I don’t think thats what it means.

So the argument against solipsism is much, much weaker than it was a thousand years ago. We actually ARE living in an observer created reality, the only question is, what constitutes an observer?

According to Christianity and maybe Judaism the Creator maintains us in existence, we ‘live and move and have our being in him’, so you are in a way living in someone.

 

[Partinobodycula]

You say you are a solipsist in your profile… what does that mean to you?

I’m a soft solipsist, which is generally understood as someone who believes that nothing can be known to exist outside of one’s own mind. But, as is the case with most beliefs, I have a few caveats. The most significant of which in my case is that I believe that it can be strongly inferred from the complex nature of consciousness that it has a source outside of itself. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon and as such isn’t the first cause. This leaves open the possibility of “God”, although it hinders somewhat the implied properties of God.

Do you eat? If so, why? How do you account for the congruity between what people observe, to the point that I could describe to you how to get to a particular place, and you would arrive there?

When you look at the world around you it makes fairly reasonable sense. Cause and effect assures that today is consistent with yesterday, which is consistent with the day before, which is consistent with the day before that, all the way back to the supposed Big Bang. Reality is built upon this process of cause and effect. It creates a world that’s consistent and coherent across yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It’s this very consistency that makes consciousness possible. Without it, all that you have is chaos. So consciousness will always see a world that’s consistent and coherent. A logical, rational world that explains what it is, and where it came from.

So if I don’t eat, I’ll get hungry. For anything else to happen would be inconsistent. And if what I saw differed from what you saw, that too would be inconsistent. Consciousness is built upon coherency, which is built upon a consistency that exists across past, present, and future.

Perhaps the misunderstanding arises due to the fact that I believe that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, and it’s the process by which it emerges that guarantees that it will always be coherent. Just as for you the world is logically consistent, so it is for me, and for the very same reason. Because I wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t.