Why be a solipsist

[Aloysium]

. . . . For the truth means everything to me. . . .

And, the truth here and now is that we are in a dialogue and that your mind is deconstructing that most simple of realities into a Rubrik’s Cube of ideas trying to line them up in a way that looks intellectually pretty. Or, that is what I imagine. This mystery that is existence is all about the dialogue, relationships, Love. There is so much brokenness, so much disconnect and mistrust, as part of our human condition and as a consequence of sin. Through faith in the ultimate Truth that is Love, we can again enter into communion with one another.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Well, maybe that’s the point of your take on ‘soft’ solipsism, but really, the point of solipsism is to address the ‘problem of other minds’, and generally, the resolution is "I can’t say they’re there."

While this is indeed the position of soft solipsism, the fact that “I can’t say they’re there” doesn’t mean that I should presume that they’re not. All it means is that I don’t know. As I stated in my last post, solipsism isn’t a statement about the nature of you, it’s a statement about the nature of me. I don’t know the ultimate nature of you, but I do know that this ignorance is part of the nature of me. As an autonomous conscious being there are things that I simply cannot know.

This is true for me, and it’s true for you as well. Whether you choose to admit it or not.

Here’s the problem, though: it’s not possible, it seems to me, to claim to be both ‘solipsist’ and ‘Christian’.

Why not? One is a statement of fact, the other is a statement of faith. The world is full of people who confuse one with the other. Don’t be one of them.

The claim of being Christian is the claim of knowledge that Christ exists

You claim to have knowledge that Christ exists, then prove that He exists. If you can’t, then what you have is faith, not knowledge. But there’s nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a remarkable thing. Faith can strengthen the hearts of the weary, and give hope to the spirits of the oppressed. Faith can uplift the lives of men. But you should never forget that what you have, is faith. It should embolden your life, but temper your judgment, for you are the same as everyone else. You walk by faith.

I am a Christian Solipsist. I walk by faith. Not because of what I know, but because of what I aspire to. I aspire to be like Christ.

 

[Partinobodycula]

And, the truth here and now is that we are in a dialogue and that your mind is deconstructing that most simple of realities into a Rubrik’s Cube of ideas trying to line them up in a way that looks intellectually pretty. Or, that is what I imagine. This mystery that is existence is all about the dialogue, relationships, Love. There is so much brokenness, so much disconnect and mistrust, as part of our human condition and as a consequence of sin. Through faith in the ultimate Truth that is Love, we can again enter into communion with one another.

I very much agree with the sentiment of your post. I would however make one small change. I’m not so much concerned about what’s intellectually pretty, as I am about what’s intellectually honest.

But as I say, I do commend the sentiment of your post.

 

[davidv]

While this is indeed the position of soft solipsism, the fact that “I can’t say they’re there” doesn’t mean that I should presume that they’re not. All it means is that I don’t know. As I stated in my last post, solipsism isn’t a statement about the nature of you, it’s a statement about the nature of me. I don’t know the ultimate nature of you, but I do know that this ignorance is part of the nature of me. As an autonomous conscious being there are things that I simply cannot know.

This is true for me, and it’s true for you as well. Whether you choose to admit it or not.

Why not? One is a statement of fact, the other is a statement of faith. The world is full of people who confuse one with the other. Don’t be one of them.

You claim to have knowledge that Christ exists, then prove that He exists. If you can’t, then what you have is faith, not knowledge. But there’s nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a remarkable thing. Faith can strengthen the hearts of the weary, and give hope to the spirits of the oppressed. Faith can uplift the lives of men. But you should never forget that what you have, is faith. It should embolden your life, but temper your judgment, for you are the same as everyone else. You walk by faith.

I am a Christian Solipsist. I walk by faith. Not because of what I know, but because of what I aspire to. I aspire to be like Christ.

Where does Jesus declare Himself a solipsist? Many of His recorded statements indicate that He is not a solipsist. So if you intend on being like Him, you cannot be a solipsist.

 

[MPat]

Why not? It’s simply the truth.

Truth? Simply? So, you do not count that among the “beliefs” that are mistaken for truth? Why?

After all, you write:

And the truth is, that what you believe, is born of faith, and so you should never forget, that "with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

Many is the man who has judged unjustly, because he mistook faith for truth.

Try applying that not to beliefs of “many men”, but to your own beliefs. Like belief that “The world is full of people who believe.”. Try to prove it or to demote it from “truth” to “belief”.

No, the point of solipsism isn’t to deny that other people exist.

Then it is not really solipsism. Even Wikipedia’s article says: “Solipsism (/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/; from Latin solus, meaning ‘alone’, and ipse, meaning ‘self’) is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.”.

It’s to understand that there are limits to what I as a conscious being can know.

Then I guess that it is not “solipsism”, but “scepticism”…

 

[MPat]

As I stated in my last post, solipsism isn’t a statement about the nature of you, it’s a statement about the nature of me.

Oh, is it? Let’s see…

I don’t know the ultimate nature of you, but I do know that this ignorance is part of the nature of me.

So far, so good… Yet:

This is true for me, and it’s true for you as well. Whether you choose to admit it or not.

So, a couple of sentences above you have claimed that you do not know “my” (our) ultimate nature and make no statements about anyone else, yet somehow now you do know so much about “me” (us) that you know what “I” (we) can know?

That doesn’t look very consistent…

As I have said, try applying “solipsism” to your own beliefs, not to beliefs of others (by the way, isn’t there a sense in which that might look even more “honest” and “humble”?). Yes, including the “solipsism” itself. Then we’ll see what will happen.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I’m not so much concerned about what’s intellectually pretty, as I am about what’s intellectually honest. . . .

What is intellectual honesty but a statement of what one believes to be true, what one has discerned from the depths of one’s relationship with the unfathomable mystery of existence?

 

[BobCatholic]

One cannot be a solipsist because the self is evil.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Then I guess that it is not “solipsism”, but “scepticism”…

MPat, you seem to be having a problem understanding the concept of solipsism, so let’s begin with the wikipedia article that you quoted, and see if it can clear things up a bit.

As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.

This is what is commonly referred to as “Hard” solipsism. It’s a philosophical idea to which neither I nor anyone that I know of has ever seriously subscribed. It’s irrational in that it counters one unprovable assertion, that reality objectively exists, with another unprovable assertion, that reality exists only in my mind. It’s basically the extremist view of solipsism.

As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.

This is what’s referred to as “soft” solipsism. It simply holds that nothing can be known to exist outside of one’s own mind. It doesn’t actually make any claims at all about the nature of reality. It makes no assertions as to whether reality does or doesn’t have an objective existence. Solipsism isn’t about the nature of reality, it’s about the nature of what I as a conscious being, can and cannot know. As I say, solipsism isn’t about the nature of you, it’s about the nature of me. It’s about what I can and cannot know.

MPat:

So, you do not count that among the “beliefs” that are mistaken for truth? Why?

You also seem to be having a problem understanding the difference between truths and beliefs, and this is why you perceive my statements to be inconsistent, but they’re not.

For instance: Do I know that you have an objective existence outside of my mind? No I don’t. There’s no way for me to know that. I may believe that you do, but simply believing it, doesn’t make it true.

On the other hand, I do know that you have an existence of some sort. Even if it’s only in my mind. Even if it’s only an illusion. Therefore it’s true for me to say that you exist, and it’s true for me to say that the world is full of people who believe. I can make any number of statements about what is true about the world around me, but what I can’t do is to say whether that world is objectively real or not.

Davidv:

Many of His recorded statements indicate that He is not a solipsist.

Quote one please.

Aloysium:

What is intellectual honesty but a statement of what one believes to be true

Intellectual honesty is about accepting that there’s a difference between what one believes to be true, and what one knows to be true. Far too often men convince themselves that they know, when in fact they only believe. In essence, they lie to themselves. Intellectual honesty is about having the courage to admit what you don’t know.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Intellectual honesty is about accepting that there’s a difference between what one believes to be true, and what one knows to be true. Far too often men convince themselves that they know, when in fact they only believe. In essence, they lie to themselves. Intellectual honesty is about having the courage to admit what you don’t know.

Everything we know is based on our relationship with what is, within the context of our societal environment that includes transmitted knowledge and language, itself.

Following in the Catholic tradition, one will find that teachings of the Church become ever-more comprehensive in their ability to elucidate what this all is and is about.
God, as He has revealed Himself in history and through His individual guidance and blessings, brings us to the Truth, which is He Himself.

Accepting your definition, I would assert that most, if not all, atheists lack intellectual honesty.

 

[davidv]

{snip}
Quote one please.
{snip}

John.14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

The Counselor, the Father and His audience (“you”) are all consider real, known, by Jesus.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Everything we know is based on our relationship with what is,

I completely agree with this statement. It had been suggested earlier that I was a skeptic, but this simply isn’t true. There are a great number of things that I can know to be true, but everything other than the fact that I am, is true only with certain caveats. For instance, I can know that you exist, because I’m exchanging thoughts and ideas with you. Thus in the very least you exist as a concept in my mind. But what I can’t know is whether you have an objective existence independent of me. This ignorance is simply a consequence of my nature as a conscious being, it’s not a statement at all about the nature of you. It’s just that I can’t be certain of the objectivity of anything outside of myself. This is an inevitable consequence of the nature of what I am, not of the nature of what you are.

Following in the Catholic tradition, one will find that teachings of the Church become ever-more comprehensive in their ability to elucidate what this all is and is about.
God, as He has revealed Himself in history and through His individual guidance and blessings, brings us to the Truth, which is He Himself.

Again, this might be true, but just as I have no way of proving that you exist outside of my own mind, I have no way of proving that God exists outside of it either. So in addition to the question of whether the evidence supports the Catholic version of God, you have the fact that I can never know if God actually exists at all. This is true for me, but it’s also true for you. You can never know if God actually exists. His existence will always be a matter of faith. This is something that people should never forget. You’ll never know if your version of God is any more correct than someone else’s version of God. It may seem more reasonable, more credible, and more natural, but you’ll still never know if it’s true.

Reality may be all in your mind, and you’ll never be able to prove that it isn’t.

Accepting your definition, I would assert that most, if not all, atheists lack intellectual honesty.

I would concur, but I would also point out that anyone who claims to know that God exists is likewise being intellectually dishonest.

 

[davidv]

I completely agree with this statement. It had been suggested earlier that I was a skeptic, but this simply isn’t true. There are a great number of things that I can know to be true, but everything other than the fact that I am, is true only with certain caveats. For instance, I can know that you exist, because I’m exchanging thoughts and ideas with you. Thus in the very least you exist as a concept in my mind. But what I can’t know is whether you have an objective existence independent of me. This ignorance is simply a consequence of my nature as a conscious being, it’s not a statement at all about the nature of you. It’s just that I can’t be certain of the objectivity of anything outside of myself. This is an inevitable consequence of the nature of what I am, not of the nature of what you are.

Again, this might be true, but just as I have no way of proving that you exist outside of my own mind, I have no way of proving that God exists outside of it either. So in addition to the question of whether the evidence supports the Catholic version of God, you have the fact that I can never know if God actually exists at all. This is true for me, but it’s also true for you. You can never know if God actually exists. His existence will always be a matter of faith. This is something that people should never forget. You’ll never know if your version of God is any more correct than someone else’s version of God. It may seem more reasonable, more credible, and more natural, but you’ll still never know if it’s true.

Reality may be all in your mind, and you’ll never be able to prove that it isn’t.

I would concur, but I would also point out that anyone who claims to know that God exists is likewise being intellectually dishonest.

Jesus said He knew God. Was He being dishonest?

 

[MPat]

MPat, you seem to be having a problem understanding the concept of solipsism, so let’s begin with the wikipedia article that you quoted, and see if it can clear things up a bit.

This is what is commonly referred to as “Hard” solipsism. It’s a philosophical idea to which neither I nor anyone that I know of has ever seriously subscribed. It’s irrational in that it counters one unprovable assertion, that reality objectively exists, with another unprovable assertion, that reality exists only in my mind. It’s basically the extremist view of solipsism.

This is what’s referred to as “soft” solipsism. It simply holds that nothing can be known to exist outside of one’s own mind. It doesn’t actually make any claims at all about the nature of reality. It makes no assertions as to whether reality does or doesn’t have an objective existence. Solipsism isn’t about the nature of reality, it’s about the nature of what I as a conscious being, can and cannot know. As I say, solipsism isn’t about the nature of you, it’s about the nature of me. It’s about what I can and cannot know.

You also seem to be having a problem understanding the difference between truths and beliefs, and this is why you perceive my statements to be inconsistent, but they’re not.

I do happen to think I understand all that… Perhaps it is not clear what changes I expect to be made in order to make your position consistent… I’ll try to clarify.

For instance: Do I know that you have an objective existence outside of my mind? No I don’t. There’s no way for me to know that. I may believe that you do, but simply believing it, doesn’t make it true.

On the other hand, I do know that you have an existence of some sort. Even if it’s only in my mind. Even if it’s only an illusion. Therefore it’s true for me to say that you exist, and it’s true for me to say that the world is full of people who believe. I can make any number of statements about what is true about the world around me, but what I can’t do is to say whether that world is objectively real or not.

The problem is that you are saying “The world is full of people who believe.”. Are you sure that illusions can believe? I am not…

But, on the other hand, if you would say “The world appears to be full of people who believe.”, that would be far more consistent with your other claims. Wouldn’t you agree?

Likewise, all kinds of “This is true for me, and it’s true for you as well.” are not available to you, unless you accept that you know something certain about others. “This is true for me and it appears to be true for you as well.” is the most you can say.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Jesus said He knew God. Was He being dishonest?

I would submit that Christ knew God, in the same manner that you know Christ. In the same manner that Christ lives in you. Not in a physical sense, but in a spiritual one. Thus to know God is one thing, but to know that God exists is quite another. For the first is a visceral thing, and the second is a cerebral one. The heart “knows”, what the mind can’t.

Your heart can tell you that God exists, but your mind can never be certain of it. And the world is full of people whose hearts have convinced their minds that they’re right. It’s not my intention to prove any of them wrong. It’s simply my hope that they’ll temper their convictions with the humility that comes with knowing that they might be wrong.

MPat:

The problem is that you are saying “The world is full of people who believe.”. Are you sure that illusions can believe? I am not…

But, on the other hand, if you would say “The world appears to be full of people who believe.”, that would be far more consistent with your other claims. Wouldn’t you agree?

No, I wouldn’t. The world doesn’t appear to be filled with people who believe. Rather, the world IS filled with people who believe. If the people are real, then believing is something that they’re doing. It’s a conscious act. On the other hand if they’re simply an illusion, then believing is an attribute that they have. It’s a characteristic that they possess.

MPat:

Likewise, all kinds of “This is true for me, and it’s true for you as well.” are not available to you, unless you accept that you know something certain about others. “This is true for me and it appears to be true for you as well.” is the most you can say.

Actually this is a classic case of Catch-22, if you’re a conscious being like I am, then you can’t be certain that God exists. On the other hand if you’re not a conscious being, then you still can’t be certain that God exists. Thus what applies to me, applies to you as well.

Also, if you’re an illusion, then I’m basically arguing with myself, in which case it’s quite obvious, that if I can’t know something, then you can’t possibly know it either.

But even if you are a conscious being like me, then you face the exact same dilemma that I face, namely that you can’t be certain of the objective existence of anything outside of your own mind. In which case the argument still applies.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I would submit that Christ knew God, in the same manner that you know Christ. In the same manner that Christ lives in you. Not in a physical sense, but in a spiritual one. Thus to know God is one thing, but to know that God exists is quite another. For the first is a visceral thing, and the second is a cerebral one. The heart “knows”, what the mind can’t.

Your heart can tell you that God exists, but your mind can never be certain of it. And the world is full of people whose hearts have convinced their minds that they’re right. It’s not my intention to prove any of them wrong. It’s simply my hope that they’ll temper their convictions with the humility that comes with knowing that they might be wrong.

No, I wouldn’t. The world doesn’t appear to be filled with people who believe. Rather, the world IS filled with people who believe. If the people are real, then believing is something that they’re doing. It’s a conscious act. On the other hand if they’re simply an illusion, then believing is an attribute that they have. It’s a characteristic that they possess.

Actually this is a classic case of Catch-22, if you’re a conscious being like I am, then you can’t be certain that God exists. On the other hand if you’re not a conscious being, then you still can’t be certain that God exists. Thus what applies to me, applies to you as well.

Also, if you’re an illusion, then I’m basically arguing with myself, in which case it’s quite obvious, that if I can’t know something, then you can’t possibly know it either.

But even if you are a conscious being like me, then you face the exact same dilemma that I face, namely that you can’t be certain of the objective existence of anything outside of your own mind. In which case the argument still applies.

You certainly seem to have a love affair with your own mind, that’s for sure. But as solipsist, what makes you think you can trust the reality of you own mind, but nobody else’s?

 

[Partinobodycula]

You certainly seem to have a love affair with your own mind, that’s for sure.

What I have is an obsession with reason and logic. The world is full of people who believe in things for which the justification isn’t self-evident to all. Now I’m fine with this, people can believe whatever they choose to believe. Not everyone should, or can, be like me. And I’m not asking them to be. Faith can be a very admirable quality, and I wouldn’t want to belittle it or discourage it. All that I want is for people to understand that their beliefs are ultimately based on faith, and as such they can be wrong. Your human propensity for misjudgment means that you should temper the fervency of your beliefs, with an equal measure of humility. At least accept the possibility that you might be wrong. If everyone in the world would do this one simple thing, then the world would be a much more peaceful place. Simply accept that you might be wrong.

But as solipsist, what makes you think you can trust the reality of you own mind, but nobody else’s?

Because mine is the only mind to which I have direct access. I can empathize with you, and relate my experiences to yours, but I can’t directly know you. I can know my pain and joy directly, but yours I can know only vicariously. Thus there’ll always be an unbridgeable divide between you and I. You’ll always be an enigma to me. Something which I can believe to be, but never be certain of.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Because mine is the only mind to which I have direct access. . . .

We seem to experience the world in different ways.
Consider the fact that these words are not something you created; that language is part of a shared humanity, which is not solitary, but exists as a self-other relatedness.
What is the sound of one hand clapping?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

What I have is an obsession with reason and logic. The world is full of people who believe in things for which the justification isn’t self-evident to all. Now I’m fine with this, people can believe whatever they choose to believe. Not everyone should, or can, be like me. And I’m not asking them to be. Faith can be a very admirable quality, and I wouldn’t want to belittle it or discourage it. All that I want is for people to understand that their beliefs are ultimately based on faith, and as such they can be wrong. Your human propensity for misjudgment means that you should temper the fervency of your beliefs, with an equal measure of humility. At least accept the possibility that you might be wrong. If everyone in the world would do this one simple thing, then the world would be a much more peaceful place. Simply accept that you might be wrong.

Because mine is the only mind to which I have direct access. I can empathize with you, and relate my experiences to yours, but I can’t directly know you. I can know my pain and joy directly, but yours I can know only vicariously. Thus there’ll always be an unbridgeable divide between you and I. You’ll always be an enigma to me. Something which I can believe to be, but never be certain of.

Have you ever watched Brain Games? Believe me, your mind can play tricks on you. Also everything you know is a result of reading or hearing other people’s thoughts. No man is an island. We are all interconnected, and anything you might believe to be a unique thought of yours has been thought by many many people over and over throughout history. You didn’t make up the idea of being a solipsist. You just liked the idea of it, that someone thought of.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

We seem to experience the world in different ways.
Consider the fact that these words are not something you created; that language is part of a shared humanity, which is not solitary, but exists as a self-other relatedness.
What is the sound of one hand clapping?

It is impossible to be a solipsist in real life. It’s just philosophical contruct.