Why be a solipsist

[LHJOHNSON]

After sitting here for the last few days observing a number of the ongoing discussions on this forum, I cannot help but feel further justified in being a solipsist. There are just so many questions to which I simply have no way of knowing the answers. I don’t know if the order in the universe is proof of a Creator, or simply proof of the fortuitous nature of physics. I don’t know if I ultimately have free will, or if that too is an illusion, or even if it matters. I don’t know how much of what men believe is wisdom, how much is foolishness, and how much is simply the result of men’s insatiable need to explain the unexplainable.

Solipsism is just about being honest. It’s about me, in my heart of hearts, accepting the fact that there are things that I simply cannot know. It’s not the denial of truth, it’s the acceptance of truth. We can argue about whether this is true, or that is true, but in the end we’re arguing out of our own foolish pride, because none of us really knows. Once you can accept this one simple truth, then it becomes much, much easier to do that which the bible implores you to do…do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God. You can do this because you realize that you’re no wiser, no smarter, and no more enlightened than anyone else. We’re only human. We believe what we choose to believe. And so in the end it’s not the inerrancy of our beliefs that matters, nor the fervency with which we defend them, but rather it’s about the humility with which we live them.

Live as if you’re to be judged by your compassion, and not by your wisdom. For in truth, you probably have very little of the latter. So little in fact, that you too might be a solipsist.

Very good,I understand the way you feel,at times I feel the same way except I never heard of solipsism. One time I wrote up this disclaimer I thought I would use with my posts.

Disclaimer: This comment is written by a person who has very little or no education or practical experience in the matters discussed. The comments are based solely on very limited personal observation and personal reading and motivated by a selfish and prideful desire to share their opinion. The comments are constructed on what may be and probably is a confused and misguided concept of common sense and logic. Taking these things into consideration it may be advisable for the reader to invest his or her time elsewhere. The writer takes no responsibility for any anger that may arise from the comments but will be accepting and even expectant of any laughter or ridicule that may result. There is no time limit on this offer it does not vary based upon locality and no state or local taxes will apply.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Why should you presuppose that you aren’t deceiving yourself, that your reason works at all? There’s no way to prove that the world is rational, for that would be begging the question.

You can say that it’s self-evident…well, it’s also self-evident that there is an external world outside of my own mind (for but one example of this, see G.E Moore’s “Here is one hand” argument). And so we can calmly–and correctly–move on to realism.

My two cents.

 

[MPat]

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.

In other words, you are equivocating, using “believing” in two completely different ways?

But anyway, the next example is even more clear.

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.

And here we have a hidden assumption: “‘I’ am either an unconscious being or a conscious being like ‘you’.”. How do you, as a solipsist, know those are the only two options? Can you prove someone on this thread is not, let’s say, an angel in disguise? Thus, “a conscious being”, but not “a conscious being like ‘you’”? And how are you supposed to know what angels can know? I am not so sure of that without being a solipsist, and you claim you can? And you claim that it is an example of “humility”, while claiming that not knowing that external world exists is also an example of “humility”?

 

[Partinobodycula]

Aloysium:

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.

I would agree that reality entails a self-other relationship, but it may simply be that consciousness requires just such a relationship in order to give its existence context. It may be impossible to form the concept of “I” without the contrasting concept of “You”. It may be that consciousness only arises when it can differentiate itself, from something else. Thus “I” may simply have no meaning without “You”. However, it may not be necessary for an objective “You”, or even an objective “I”, to exist at all, but only for the concept of “You” and “I” to exist. This might inevitably lead to the formation of the concept of what “You” are, and correspondingly, to the concept of what "I" am. Through this process of conceptualizing “You” and “I”, consciousness may create everything that I see around me.

But I have no way of knowing if any of this is true. Just as I have no way of knowing if you’re objectively real or not.

As for the argument from language, this is an argument that I have encountered many times, and it’s easily explained. Just as consciousness may evolve the concept of you and I, it may also evolve the concept of language as well. Looking at the world around us, most people have no problem with the idea that language evolved. But there’s no difference in this process of evolution, between the evolution of an objective world, and the evolution of a merely conscious world. The process may work in exactly the same manner, whether the world is objectively real or not.

Consciousness may simply require the concept of “You” and “I”, and in the process of conceptualizing “You” and “I” it may create everything that I see around me.

CHRISTINE77:

Have you ever watched Brain Games? Believe me, your mind can play tricks on you.

No, I’ve never watched Brain Games, but the susceptibility of the mind to deception has long intrigued me. Why do people do what they do, and why do they believe what they believe?

CHRISTINE77:

You didn’t make up the idea of being a solipsist. You just liked the idea of it, that someone thought of.

Actually, the idea of solipsism came to me long before I knew that there was any such thing. Definitely more than forty years ago. But it wasn’t until the last fifteen years or so that I discovered that there was an actual name for it. And of course my understanding of it has matured over time. Doubtless influenced by others. I’m not saying that it was an unique idea, simply that it wasn’t an idea that I consciously gathered from someone else.

CHRISTINE77:

It is impossible to be a solipsist in real life.

Are you saying that my life isn’t real? Just kidding.

LHJOHNSON:

Disclaimer: This comment is written by a person who has very little or no education or practical experience in the matters discussed. The comments are based solely on very limited personal observation and personal reading and motivated by a selfish and prideful desire to share their opinion. The comments are constructed on what may be and probably is a confused and misguided concept of common sense and logic. Taking these things into consideration it may be advisable for the reader to invest his or her time elsewhere. The writer takes no responsibility for any anger that may arise from the comments but will be accepting and even expectant of any laughter or ridicule that may result. There is no time limit on this offer it does not vary based upon locality and no state or local taxes will apply.

I like it.

CrossofChrist:

Why should you presuppose that you aren’t deceiving yourself, that your reason works at all?

I shouldn’t. And in a sense that’s my point, we should all be willing to admit that we might be wrong.

 

[MPat]

I shouldn’t. And in a sense that’s my point, we should all be willing to admit that we might be wrong.

And what happens when you admit you might be wrong in admitting that you might be wrong…?

For that’s the point: solipsism must lead to doubting solipsism.

For example, why should you trust your reason or memory more than your senses? But if you cannot trust you reason or memory, why trust a proof that you exist? And if there is no trustworthy proof of that (and if you demand a proof for all knowledge), why should you even believe that you exist? And if you can doubt if you exist, then it is not solipsism any more…

 

[Aloysium]

I would agree that reality entails a self-other relationship, but it may simply be that consciousness requires just such a relationship in order to give its existence context. It may be impossible to form the concept of “I” without the contrasting concept of “You”. It may be that consciousness only arises when it can differentiate itself, from something else. Thus “I” may simply have no meaning without “You”. However, it may not be necessary for an objective “You”, or even an objective “I”, to exist at all, but only for the concept of “You” and “I” to exist. This might inevitably lead to the formation of the concept of what “You” are, and correspondingly, to the concept of what "I" am. Through this process of conceptualizing “You” and “I”, consciousness may create everything that I see around me.

But I have no way of knowing if any of this is true. Just as I have no way of knowing if you’re objectively real or not.

As for the argument from language, this is an argument that I have encountered many times, and it’s easily explained. Just as consciousness may evolve the concept of you and I, it may also evolve the concept of language as well. Looking at the world around us, most people have no problem with the idea that language evolved. But there’s no difference in this process of evolution, between the evolution of an objective world, and the evolution of a merely conscious world. The process may work in exactly the same manner, whether the world is objectively real or not.

Consciousness may simply require the concept of “You” and “I”, and in the process of conceptualizing “You” and “I” it may create everything that I see around me. . . .

You know I am real.

However, you know only the surface of the mystery that constitutes our relationship.
That surface includes imaginings of my existence outside the fragments of this moment.
You then go on to consider its nonexistence, labelling the entire relationship as being you.

One can only know what is within the relationship.
It is in loving that we give ourselves to what is other and, entering in communion, truly begin to know.

You have to sort out your understanding of language.
It is quite a mystery! And, undeserving of facile explanations.

 

[Partinobodycula]

And here we have a hidden assumption: “‘I’ am either an unconscious being or a conscious being like ‘you’.”. How do you, as a solipsist, know those are the only two options? Can you prove someone on this thread is not, let’s say, an angel in disguise?

I don’t assume that these are the only two options. There are probably more options than I can think of. For instance, you might still be conscious even if you’re an illusion. Who’s to say that an illusion can’t be conscious? And no, I can’t prove that someone here isn’t an angel in disguise. They might very well be. They might be able to perform miracles and wonders, and perhaps even rise from the dead, but this wouldn’t prove that they exist anywhere but in my mind. As I say, solipsism isn’t a statement about the nature of the world. Because I can’t be certain about the nature of the world. Rather it’s a statement about the nature of me. About my inability to know the nature of that which lies around me.

And if you’re like me, then you can’t be certain either. You and I are each walking by faith. If there’s any difference between us, it’s that I realize just how deeply this is true.

For that’s the point: solipsism must lead to doubting solipsism.

Solipsism leads to the understanding that men must be judged by what they do, and not by what they believe. Because we’re all walking by faith. In the end, it’s what that faith gives a man the courage to do, that truly gives witness to the heart of the man. Is he willing to sacrifice himself, or is he willing to sacrifice others?

You know I am real.

Yes, to me you’re real. To me, I’m nothing, without you.

However, you know only the surface of the mystery that constitutes our relationship.
That surface includes imaginings of my existence outside the fragments of this moment.
You then go on to consider its nonexistence, labelling the entire relationship as being you.

There will always be a “we”. For what am I without you? In truth, is there an I, without you?

One can only know what is within the relationship.
It is in loving that we give ourselves to what is other and, entering in communion, truly begin to know.

And that is why I say that there will always be a “we”. For it’s the relationship of the “we”, that truly defines the “me”. We, may be, me.

You have to sort out your understanding of language.
It is quite a mystery! And, undeserving of facile explanations

It is indeed a mystery. There are a great many things in life that are mysteries, for both you and I. Let us simply agree that neither of us can be certain that we have found the answers.

P.S. I will be without internet access for a while, so you can take your time responding. You all deserve a break from my silliness anyway.

 

[MPat]

I don’t assume that these are the only two options. There are probably more options than I can think of. For instance, you might still be conscious even if you’re an illusion. Who’s to say that an illusion can’t be conscious? And no, I can’t prove that someone here isn’t an angel in disguise. They might very well be. They might be able to perform miracles and wonders, and perhaps even rise from the dead, but this wouldn’t prove that they exist anywhere but in my mind.

Good, I see we agree that it is the only option for you.

As I say, solipsism isn’t a statement about the nature of the world. Because I can’t be certain about the nature of the world. Rather it’s a statement about the nature of me. About my inability to know the nature of that which lies around me.

If it is, why are you telling us what we can know? It is not even certain that you can know what you can know, how can you know what anyone else can know?

And if you’re like me, then you can’t be certain either. You and I are each walking by faith. If there’s any difference between us, it’s that I realize just how deeply this is true.

Yes, that is much better. You can’t afford to leave out that qualification “if you’re like me”.

That is why I think you cannot afford to say things like “The world is full of people who believe.” or “This is true for me, and it’s true for you as well.” - they leave out those qualifications.

Solipsism leads to the understanding that men must be judged by what they do, and not by what they believe.

I don’t see how you can support that. You claim you can hardly know how things are - how are you going to find out how they are supposed to be? I don’t see how you can derive Golden rule or any other statement about morality while staying a solipsist and “importing” them from somewhere else is not an option for you either…

Or are you really saying something closer to “Solipsism leads to the guess that…”?

 

[StrawberryJam]

I believe that we have to do far more than that. I believe that we have to test, and question, and examine, not only the beliefs of others, but with far greater diligence, we must examine our own. If you’re just as servile in accepting your beliefs, as others are in accepting theirs, then what difference is there between you and them? Of what greater merit is your faith?

In the words of Macbeth:

“It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.”

The unquestioned belief is of little value, save only to mollify oneself.

Is there room in all of your grandstanding to give a meal to one less fortunate than yourself?