Solipsism

[tonyrey]

Thank you for replying!! I agree with all your points! I have to move past the fear!!

I usually find that prayer, particularly to St Anthony - unsurprisingly - solves my problems. There is a limit to how far reasoning can take us especially when emotion tends to dominate us.

Once I introduced philosophy to some students with a discussion about the mind. The next morning one of them came to me and said “I couldn’t sleep last night. I don’t know who I am any more!” That taught me to be more careful in the topics I selected…

 

[katesmom]

I usually find that prayer, particularly to St Anthony - unsurprisingly - solves my problems. There is a limit to how far reasoning can take us especially when emotion tends to dominate us.

Once I introduced philosophy to some students with a discussion about the mind. The next morning one of them came to me and said “I couldn’t sleep last night. I don’t know who I am any more!” That taught me to be more careful in the topics I selected…

Thank you again!! Do you teach philosophy?

Despite my anxiety towards many philosophical topics, I try to keep an open mind and do find philosophy enjoyable! I never thought I would be able to say that!

I listen to a podcast on iTunes called The Partially Examined Life. I’ve learned a great deal about different philosophies since my initial introduction through Descrates. Unfortunately for somone with anxiety, Descrates skepticism/uncertainty is not a good place to begin.

However I think my anxiety may be extreme with regards to solipsism? Im certain most indivduals handle it better then I did?

 

[Partinobodycula]

I think the most important thing for me at this point is to move past the fear!!

Kate, I don’t know what it is about my nature, but I just don’t fear things. I view everything as a potential adventure. I have this irrepressible, Doris Day, que sera sera, sort of attitude. Life is precious gift. It’s not good or bad, it’s life. It’s supposed to be hard sometimes.

I also agree with tonyrey’s points, they are quite insightful, especially point number 7, “Solipsism virtually implies that the solipsist is God.” I’m so glad that he put the word “virtually” in there. If everything truly does exist only in my mind. If I am some sort “God”, then God is not such an awe-inspiring term. It’s only me. If on the other hand I am the created, and not the creator, then I gladly acquiesce to His will. If He wishes for me to suffer, I will do it gladly. If He wishes for me to be acclaimed, I shall accept it humbly. These things are not important to me.

If there is somewhere that He wishes for me to go, then I have faith that He will lead me. If there is something that He wishes for me to know, then I have faith that He will teach me. In His own time, and in His own way. I have faith that life will play out the way it is meant to, it is life, it is what it is. We are born, we live, we grow old, and we die. That is life, it is a simple story, yet it is inspiring all the same.

This is what I know…I am alive…by what means, and for what purpose I do not know. This is all that I can know. Everything else I accept by faith.

 

[tonyrey]

Thank you again!! Do you teach philosophy?

Despite my anxiety towards many philosophical topics, I try to keep an open mind and do find philosophy enjoyable! I never thought I would be able to say that!

I listen to a podcast on iTunes called The Partially Examined Life. I’ve learned a great deal about different philosophies since my initial introduction through Descartes. Unfortunately for someone with anxiety, Descartes skepticism/uncertainty is not a good place to begin.

However I think my anxiety may be extreme with regards to solipsism? Im certain most indivduals handle it better then I did?

I used to teach but I’ve retired and now enjoy myself enormously on this forum! There’s nothing like philosophy to keep your mind active and make you appreciate the wonder and beauty of being alive. I’m fond of Descartes because he established the priority of the mind in our knowledge of reality and is one of the best antidotes to materialism there is. You could have done far worse if you had started with Schopenhauer’s pessimism -

 

[Equites_Christi]

If the solipsist allows himself the authority to assume that he exists, why then does he not have the authority to assume others exist?

What does he know himself through that he does not know others through?

 

[Partinobodycula]

If the solipsist allows himself the authority to assume that he exists, why then does he not have the authority to assume others exist?

What does he know himself through that he does not know others through?

As a solipsist I do not assume that I exist. My existence is the only thing that I can know with certainty. I do not base this on the fact that I can “see” my physical body, for it too may be an illusion. I base it on the fact that I am self-aware. If I wanted, I could assume that others exist. I could assume that God exists. I could assume that a great many things exist, but the only thing that I can know with complete assurance is that I exist.

There is nothing wrong with people basing their lives on what they assume to be true. But to be a solipsist is to understand the difference between what one knows, and what one assumes.

This doesn’t mean that I think that I’m smarter than anyone else. In no way do I believe this to be true. I am perhaps a bit more introspective than most, that’s all. I will leave it to others to decide if this is to my benefit or detriment. I will happily leave your choices to you. I am simply here to help others better understand what solipsism means to me.

 

[tonyrey]

I believe the best test of any philosophy is not what we think we believe but how we live!
If we follow the teaching of Jesus to the best of our ability we shall inevitably be in command of the truth…

 

[In_Spiration]

For some reason the capitalization in my quotations has gotten messed up. I trust nobody will object to or be offended by this, so I’ll continue regardless.

as for proving that i am self-aware, that i’m afraid is impossible for me to do in a manner satisfactory to anyone other than myself. No more than you can prove to me that you exist, i cannot prove to you that i exist. But that of course is the fundamental basis of solipsism.

You’re simply begging the question against the denier of Solipsism. Plus, I wanted to know how you’ve managed to prove your existence to yourself, not to me – i.e., at least generally speaking; minimally, a brief outline of the process or logic.

But i can attempt to define my limitations, for there definitely are some, and they do raise many rather intriguing questions, some of which you have already pointed out.

There does appear to be very definite limits to my conscious control of the “world” around me. But that does not preclude the possibility that there is a subconscious element to my being of which i am unaware, which is itself in control. It also doesn’t preclude the possibility of an outside element, a god if you will, who is in fact in control of my reality. The problem is, that if there is such a “god”, he can never prove his existence to me, just as i cannot prove my existence to you.

Another petitio principii, unfortunately.

The amazing thing to me is, that if there is a god, he must be a solipsist. All he can know is what it says in essence in genesis, “i am”. (or, “i am that i am” or many such verses in he bible where god refers to himself in such a manner) god may be well aware that all of creation exists only in his mind. Or if he is not well aware of this, then he has no way of proving otherwise. Which would make him a solipsist.

Or else that’s not the case, and God made His creation apart from Himself, and thus not only in His Mind. Indeed I wonder: how might you be sure of whether such a state of affairs is a legitimate possibility? But, still, if He were to know only His own Mind, then He would of course thereby be perfectly aware of the objective, factual existence of all things He created.

it’s strange somehow, but there are times when i sit here and the words just won’t come, until all that i want to do is say i’m sorry. I wish that i could explain what i see and what i feel but i can’t, i’m not smart enough, or eloquent enough, or open enough. And so i just sit here. Until i come to the realization that it doesn’t matter. I don’t have to convince you. I don’t have to change you. It is enough that you know that i care. You are wise enough to decide for yourself. Sometimes it is sufficient just to know that someone trusts you enough to let you do that.

If there is someone who needs changing it’s me. In this vast universe i am but an insignificant fool, but i can change the most important thing of all, i can change myself.

All of that stands or falls depending on the ultimate truth or falsity of Solipsism. Therefore, neither you nor I can know any of it until you prove your theory. Also, humility stands directly at odds with calling oneself the most important thing of all – not to mention the utter triviality of such a rank in a world with a mere population of one!

Finally, I hope you haven’t overlooked the following part of my original post here, because it just may hold an important key for defeating/comprehending skepticism.
In Spiration:

Have you ever considered the fact that all varieties of skepticism and doubt are inherently parasitic upon knowledge and truth? Doubt requires force if it’s to lead unto any sort of result which somehow empowers skepticism; skepticism is impotent until it acquires rational justification, viz. by reasons founded on justified, prior knowledge. To ask, “Why doubt x?” is obviously to at once make an appeal to something bearing at least as much epistemic thrust as whatever potential doubt it’s supposed to inevitably entail.

 

[In_Spiration]

can anyone offer suggestions for how one ever overcome solipsism. As i mentioned in this post and a few of my own posts i have struggled with this. I’ve certainly accepted it as a possibility because i seem to lack the thinking skills to know with 100% certainty that solipsism is false? For those of you who have never been bothered by this ~ what advice can you offer? Why doesnt it bother you? I’m just curious so i can overcome this fear?

Sacraments are a always good start. Faith, in God and the gifts He’s given you, is important, too. Also, stop listening to what self-professed Solipsists tell you, especially when they fail to follow Solipsism to its final conclusions, which they never do. Partinobodycula wouldn’t be nearly as comfortable or sane if he were willing to honestly embrace Solipsism as the truth. Take everything he says with a grain of salt, or, better yet, ignore his rambling altogether – no matter how purely his intentions sparkle and glisten.
kate(name removed by moderator):

when i initially learned of solipsism i was reading descartes. I’m in my mid 30s & never heard of solipsism, i never considered it, in fact i didn’t even read philosophy. So my initial reaction was one of fear, anxiety!!

I wont go into too much detail but after learning about solipsism, i was prescribed medication (antidepressants and anti anxiety) because i couldn’t let the fear go. Like i said before i’m better on medications but still struggle with solipsism & wish very much that i didn’t react to it in such a fearful way.

To escape solipsism, i considered descartes third meditation for the existence of god .
Even thought i believe in god & trust he would not deceive us - i now am struggling with my faith/trust as well!

Realize that there is and cannot truly be any solid case in favor of Solipsism. Once you highlight what’s causing your solipsistic thoughts, you’ll have the key to discovering how weak its merits must be compared to conventional wisdom (the common sense that it’s based upon). Consider all the reasons you have for your doubts, for your skepticism toward other minds/external world/common sense/etc., and then reflect upon the fact that all of these are based on the very foundation you’re simultaneously using to support that skepticism itself. Thus, radical skepticism will always turn on and defeat itself; it must inevitably destroy its very own power for destruction, which it only ever derived from something you must’ve known more firmly and certainly than it (since the cause must be greater than its effect). As soon as it harms common sense, it harms itself and thereby lessens the amount of damage it must’ve caused. Skepticism necessarily depends on prior knowledge. One can only authentically doubt what one already knows in the first place. I’m confident you’ll find shortly thereafter that you truly already know you why it can’t be the case that you’re the only existing self, or the ultimate god-like source of all your impressions.
kate(name removed by moderator):

despite my anxiety towards many philosophical topics, i try to keep an open mind and do find philosophy enjoyable! I never thought i would be able to say that!

I listen to a podcast on itunes called the partially examined life. I’ve learned a great deal about different philosophies since my initial introduction through descrates. Unfortunately for somone with anxiety, descrates skepticism/uncertainty is not a good place to begin.

However i think my anxiety may be extreme with regards to solipsism? Im certain most indivduals handle it better then i did?

Descartes didn’t hold himself up to his own ridiculously-high standard. Being so practically-oriented, I’m sure if he had, he would’ve abandoned the doomed project, or at least loosened it up a bit. The Ancients and Medievals were better philosophers.

 

[In_Spiration]

kate, i don’t know what it is about my nature, but i just don’t fear things. I view everything as a potential adventure. I have this irrepressible, doris day, que sera sera, sort of attitude. Life is precious gift. It’s not good or bad, it’s life. It’s supposed to be hard sometimes.

I also agree with tonyrey’s points, they are quite insightful, especially point number 7, “solipsism virtually implies that the solipsist is god.” i’m so glad that he put the word “virtually” in there. If everything truly does exist only in my mind. If i am some sort “god”, then god is not such an awe-inspiring term. It’s only me. If on the other hand i am the created, and not the creator, then i gladly acquiesce to his will. If he wishes for me to suffer, i will do it gladly. If he wishes for me to be acclaimed, i shall accept it humbly. These things are not important to me.

If there is somewhere that he wishes for me to go, then i have faith that he will lead me. If there is something that he wishes for me to know, then i have faith that he will teach me. In his own time, and in his own way. I have faith that life will play out the way it is meant to, it is life, it is what it is. We are born, we live, we grow old, and we die. That is life, it is a simple story, yet it is inspiring all the same.

This is what i know…i am alive…by what means, and for what purpose i do not know. This is all that i can know. Everything else i accept by faith.

Your posts are all over the place. You need to be less open-minded and more rationally consistent. Seriously, I never know what you’re basing any particular assertion on, or whether it’s supposed to be offered with or without our/your assuming Solipsism’s falsity. Or should we, instead, actually go ahead and assume you’re always taking the falsity of Solipsism for granted; or else, maybe, just strictly in those cases when you, say, presume to address another, or affirm something, or do anything at all?

Equites Christi:

if the solipsist allows himself the authority to assume that he exists, why then does he not have the authority to assume others exist?

What does he know himself through that he does not know others through?

as a solipsist i do not assume that i exist. My existence is the only thing that i can know with certainty. I do not base this on the fact that i can “see” my physical body, for it too may be an illusion. I base it on the fact that i am self-aware. If i wanted, i could assume that others exist. I could assume that god exists. I could assume that a great many things exist, but the only thing that i can know with complete assurance is that i exist.

There is nothing wrong with people basing their lives on what they assume to be true. But to be a solipsist is to understand the difference between what one knows, and what one assumes.

Considering your failure to sufficiently define yourself/your self, I’d say you don’t have the foundation you desperately must rely on to be making any of these bold claims with justification. Now, because you apparently believe the self-proof is inaccessible to us (that is, at least in its ability to bear/spread knowledge), I’ve got a new idea to try. Simply type a proof to yourself, for yourself alone, only, be sure to place it in a quite public post. Then the rest of us may see it and perhaps get an idea of what character this hidden self-evidence really possesses.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

As a solipsist I do not assume that I exist. My existence is the only thing that I can know with certainty. I do not base this on the fact that I can “see” my physical body, for it too may be an illusion. I base it on the fact that I am self-aware. If I wanted, I could assume that others exist. I could assume that God exists. I could assume that a great many things exist, but the only thing that I can know with complete assurance is that I exist.

There is nothing wrong with people basing their lives on what they assume to be true. But to be a solipsist is to understand the difference between what one knows, and what one assumes.

This doesn’t mean that I think that I’m smarter than anyone else. In no way do I believe this to be true. I am perhaps a bit more introspective than most, that’s all. I will leave it to others to decide if this is to my benefit or detriment. I will happily leave your choices to you. I am simply here to help others better understand what solipsism means to me.

Could you answer my questions I presented to you in post 12 (page 1) in this thread, thanks.

 

[Partinobodycula]

1. “I think, therefore I am”, this is where it stops for Solipsists. But, where do you spatially exist if you are?

In order to place myself spatially I must do so relative to something else. Interestingly enough this may be one of the reasons behind the entire illusion. The illusion may simply be the mind’s attempt to place itself in a spatial frame of reference. I of course don’t know. I am merely speculating.

(See the answer to question 2)

1. The world you observe outside your mind, where did the idea of it originate if it’s all in your mind? It would seem, at least, that this illusion is subjective to an already existing objective reality.

Perhaps the illusion formed in much the same way that our own image of reality forms. We look at the way things are and then ask why. As a simple example, we look at a rock and ask what is it made of? We then break it down and find that it’s made of compounds. Then we ask, well what are the compunds made of? We break those down and find that they’re made of molecules. We break those down and find that they’re made of atoms. We break those down and find that they’re made of particles. We break those down and find…ad infinitum. Our vision of reality changes and becomes more and more intricate and detailed with each question and answer. How we envision our reality increases one small piece at a time.

Perhaps the solipsist’s illusion forms in much the same way. You begin by imagining something simple, maybe something as simple as posited by your first question, where am I? The mind then imagines an answer, which leads to another question and another answer, and before you know it the mind has created an extremely intricate, yet in its own mind, perfectly rational reality. It might appear that there must be some objective reality, upon which this subjective reality is formed, but in truth it is all built one small question and answer at a time. The mind asks why, and then creates whatever is necessary to perpetuate the illusion, and retain its grip on sanity.

A simple process leading to a complicated outcome.

Of course you do realize that the same question could be asked of God. (Just pointing this out. Not trying to imply anything.)

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

First let me say hello to everyone. Although I was raised a Catholic, I have not been to church in over forty years, and I would never have thought that I would find my way to a Catholic forum.

But I do enjoy sound reasoning, and so I often search for websites that have an interest in philosophy. I seldom interact or participate in the discussions, for I am one of those people who are quite content with silence. I have no pearls of wisdom to offer, and no great intellectual knowledge to impart. I’m an uneducated, unread, simple lover of logic and reason.

I stumbled upon this site while doing a search on the subject of Solipsism. A subject of particular interest to me, because I am a firm supporter of the irrefutability of Solipsism. There was a thread in this forum a while back that dealt with this subject, and it appeared that although many argued against it, there are few who truly understand it.

Although I don’t feel any need to vigorously defend my views, I thought that I might take a moment to explain Solipsism, and answer any questions other members might have.

As with most belief systems and philosophies, there is no one definition that holds true for all adherents, but in a general sense, Solipsism is the belief that nothing can be known to exist outside of one’s own mind. It’s not that a Solipsist knows without a doubt, that nothing exists outside of themselves, it’s just that there is no way to know for sure. Everything that one sees, or hears, or feels, or tastes, or smells, may simply be an illusion. A Solipsist does accept the possibilty that everything that they see is real, they simply recognize the fact that they can never know for sure. All that a Solipsist knows for sure, is that I am. Everything beyond this one simple truth must be accepted on faith.

Solipsism does not preclude a belief in God. A Solipsist can be a Christian, a Jew, or a member of any faith. After all, if everything truly is an illusion, then that illusion suggests a creator, and a purpose. If one can accept all of reality on faith, as Solipsists do, then is faith in God really so much of a stretch.

People who do not understand Solipsism mistakenly argue that it is irrational for a Solipsist to interact with a world that they believe may be only an illusion. Is it irrational for a Christian to pray to God? If it is rational to pray to that which you cannot see, is it no less rational to interact with that which you can see? Regardless of its origin or nature, “reality” is all that a Solipsist has, and thus it is perfectly rational to interact with it.

Let me reiterate, the Solipsist does not believe with certainty that reality exists only in their mind, they simply admit that it is impossible to prove otherwise. Beyond this simple assertion, all Solipsists, just like the believers of any doctrine, are free to interpret their beliefs as it suits them.

If anyone here has any questions or thoughts on the subject I will gladly do my best to address them. If not I will return to the silence from which I came.

It is the senses that make the world “known” to you. If you cannot accept the reality of your senses then that is ignorance to truth. Just because you don’t know everything that exists outside of you doesn’t mean that you can’t know anything. And surely you can know the truth about something apart from you, without a doubt. You do know that I am a person through the form a person, don’t you? You do know the color blue? or the number one? You do know God through his Son, don’t you?

The philosophy that you adhere to is not Truth but an illusion of the mind.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Your posts are all over the place.

In Spiration, I hope that you don’t mind if I try to address all of your concerns in just a couple of simple answers. If I miss something important, or if I fail to give a reasonable answer I’m sorry. I’m doing the best that I can. I, perhaps more so even then you, am trying to reason this out.

As for how I define my “self”, I have indeed given this some thought. On the one hand all that I know about myself is that I think, I wonder, I reason. These are the most essential aspects of my “self”. They are what I mean when I say that “I am”. I can contemplate my own existence, therefore I am. When I boil it all down to what I really, truly, honestly know, that’s it, that’s all, I am. I’m not some omnipotent, onmiscient, creator of all the universe, just a simple, inconsequential, I am. Alone. Unfeeling, and unloved.

On the other hand I am an insignificant human, on an insignificant speck of dust, trying to cope with the everyday struggles of life, and insecurity, and love, and hatred, and indifference, and injustice, and the inhumanity of man. I love. I hate. I fear. I hope. I remember. These things are just as much a part of who I am as some philosophical “I am”. These things give meaning, and context, and purpose to some imagined, grand, illusory “self”. I feel. I experience. I care. I persevere. I am alive.

And therein lies the dichotomy. For on the one hand I am honest enough to accept that this may only be an “illusion”, but on the other hand I know that it is only because of this “illusion” that I love, and hope, and dream, and cry. I claim that it is only an illusion, but I act, and hope as if it is not. I am either a hypocrite, a fool, or both.

Or perhaps it is simpler than this. Perhaps the solipsist in me speaks of my spirit, and the humanity in me speaks of my soul. Of such things I do not know. I leave it to you to decide.

You asked how I define my “self”. I am both hypocrite and fool. Solipsist in spirit, but human in soul. That, for now, is all I can give. If it changes I will humbly let you know.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

As for how I define my “self”, I have indeed given this some thought. On the one hand all that I know about myself is that I think, I wonder, I reason. These are the most essential aspects of my “self”. They are what I mean when I say that “I am”. I can contemplate my own existence, therefore I am. When I boil it all down to what I really, truly, honestly know, that’s it, that’s all, I am. I’m not some omnipotent, onmiscient, creator of all the universe, just a simple, inconsequential, I am. Alone. Unfeeling, and unloved.

On the other hand I am an insignificant human, on an insignificant speck of dust, trying to cope with the everyday struggles of life, and insecurity, and love, and hatred, and indifference, and injustice, and the inhumanity of man. I love. I hate. I fear. I hope. I remember. These things are just as much a part of who I am as some philosophical “I am”. These things give meaning, and context, and purpose to some imagined, grand, illusory “self”. I feel. I experience. I care. I persevere. I am alive.

And therein lies the dichotomy. For on the one hand I am honest enough to accept that this may only be an “illusion”, but on the other hand I know that it is only because of this “illusion” that I love, and hope, and dream, and cry. I claim that it is only an illusion, but I act, and hope as if it is not. I am either a hypocrite, a fool, or both.

Or perhaps it is simpler than this. Perhaps the solipsist in me speaks of my spirit, and the humanity in me speaks of my soul. Of such things I do not know. I leave it to you to decide.

I really hated the Descartes section of my philosophy studies. He is catagorized as a “Realist.” I’m sure you know that.

I’ve perused this thread but haven’t read all of the entries, but I believe I’ve read enough. It sounds like, based just on what you’ve written here, that you have plenty of compelling evidence that others are not an illusion, but you’ve just talked yourself out of making a judgment based on this evidence. You say “I leave it to you to decide.” That’s essentially a cop-out. Your entire argument is fallacious thinking. You’ve created an open-ended syllogism, premise upon premise, and it is evident that you just refuse to draw a conclusion. That either makes you guilty of the mortal sin of laziness (perhaps pride?), or you might be a victim of mental illness (I am no psychologist and I’m not attempting to diagnose you). I hope I have not committed an offense worthy of making me “banned” but you yourself admit that you don’t accept what your senses offer you which constitutes a break with reality (a *willful *break with reality), but then you deny reality which only causes a vicious circle. Very convenient. Can I ask were you a victim of a serious crime? More than one?

I say this with all of the charity I can muster, but it must be hard to be you.

 

[tonyrey]

1. We are indeed in the “egocentric predicament”.
2. We cannot know **directly **what others are thinking and feeling unless we are telepathic!
3. We know persons and things exist only by inference from our perceptions.
4. The only **direct **knowledge we have is of our mental experiences.
5. We have overwhelming evidence that we are not the sole reality.
6. We cannot interpret the knowledge we have of ourselves **correctly **unless we are taught about the world by those who bring us up from babyhood.
7. The concept of solipsism is obtained by information received from others when we are old enough to understand abstract concepts!
8. If we really believed nothing exists beyond ourselves we would act as if nothing exists beyond ourselves.
9. The fact that we are constantly avoiding danger proves we are convinced of the reality of the outside world.
10. Solipsism is similar to having a dream because dreams don’t correspond to reality!

 

[Partinobodycula]

I really hated the Descartes section of my philosophy studies. He is catagorized as a “Realist.” I’m sure you know that.

“I think therefore I am.” That’s as far as my knowledge of Descartes goes.

It sounds like, based just on what you’ve written here, that you have plenty of compelling evidence that others are not an illusion, but you’ve just talked yourself out of making a judgment based on this evidence.

Compelling to you perhaps, not compelling to me. I have plenty of reasons to accept them as real, but insufficient evidence to prove that “They are” in the same way as “I am”. If that makes sense.

You say “I leave it to you to decide.” That’s essentially a cop-out. Your entire argument is fallacious thinking. You’ve created an open-ended syllogism, premise upon premise, and it is evident that you just refuse to draw a conclusion. That either makes you guilty of the mortal sin of laziness(perhaps pride?),

I admit that I’m not up on my Catholic doctrine, but I’m surprised that laziness is a mortal sin, but in any case I plead guilty. Pride, not so much. (Oh by the way, the first part, the words are too big so I ignored it.)

or you might be a victim of mental illness (I am no psychologist and I’m not attempting to diagnose you). I hope I have not committed an offense worthy of making me “banned” but you yourself admit that you don’t accept what your senses offer you which constitutes a break with reality (a *willful *break with reality), but then you deny reality which only causes a vicious circle. Very convenient.

I’d be surprised if any of the others here hadn’t questioned my mental state. You have simply had the forthrightness to ask. But to answer the question, I do believe that my mind is clinically sound.

Can I ask were you a victim of a serious crime? More than one?

Does life count?

I say this with all of the charity I can muster, but it must be hard to be you.

Well it should be, but surprisingly it’s not.

Thank you Norm the Wise for a delightful, and from my perspective at least, nonconfrontational post.

 

[Partinobodycula]

1. We are indeed in the “egocentric predicament”.
2. We cannot know **directly **what others are thinking and feeling unless we are telepathic!
3. We know persons and things exist only by inference from our perceptions.
4. The only **direct **knowledge we have is of our mental experiences.

On these four I concur wholeheartedly.

1. We have overwhelming evidence that we are not the sole reality.

Here I must respectfully disagree.

1. We cannot interpret the knowledge we have of ourselves **correctly **unless we are taught about the world by those who bring us up from babyhood.

For the most part I agree with this statement, but I have a touch of a problem with the word correctly, we interpret ourselves based upon how we are taught, be we do not necessarilly interpret ourselves correctly.

1. The concept of solipsism is obtained by information received from others when we are old enough to understand abstract concepts!

Actually I am a self taught solipsist, coming to know the term only after having developed the concept independantly.

1. If we really believed nothing exists beyond ourselves we would act as if nothing exists beyond ourselves.

I believe that if you carefully consider the implications of solipsism you would find that it is actually better to live as if reality does exist, rather than reject it and live as if it doesn’t

1. The fact that we are constantly avoiding danger proves we are convinced of the reality of the outside world.

This proves only that I understand the concept of cause and effect. I hit my thumb with a hammer, it hurts. To think that a self created illusion is incapable of connecting cause with effect is illogical.

1. Solipsism is similar to having a dream because dreams don’t correspond to reality!

Unless of course the dream is reality.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

Does life count? Indeed, it does.

Thank you Norm the Wise for a delightful, and from my perspective at least, nonconfrontational post.

Nobody in particular. I get it now. (You said earlier that you thought your screen name needed another letter = r).

I’m going to go out on a limb. I feel comfortable saying that you know what you’re talking about and you’re quite intelligent and well educated. Welcome to CAF.

Have fun with it. :tiphat: