Solipsism?

[Jaymes]

I can't believe I'm the only real thing. There's no way I'm original enough to make up everything I see.

 

[No*s]

Defining the self? Not even non-solipsists can do this.

What do you mean about the car crash bit? I'm not quite understanding you here.

The solipsist believes that everything comes from the mind. All parts of the mind are under the self's control, although the self may not realize it.

It has to assert its control: the self is the only thing in existence, and so there can be no principle to deny it control .

 

[Prima]

Here's the problem, though: Solipsism is a philosophy of the self. It makes no assertion about humility or how to treat others: they don't exist. An arrogant and cruel solipsist is just as much a solipsist as a kind one, with neither one stepping outside the philosophy. The rules, also, were completely created by the self.

But ultimately, isn't everything a philosophy of the self? You've seen the way some Christians are different from others. Some Muslims choose to pay attention only to the 'jihad' part of the Qu'uran. Some others choose to look at the good. Like I've said before, there is no 'pure' religion. Everything depends on perspective and interpretation.

Now on your creating it for your own benefit, are you sure? Suppose that a man comes up, rapes you, beats you, takes all your money, and burns down your house. The only benefit you can make of that is in spite of that. Pain, sorrow, hate, and other things which can only serve a purpose in spite of themselves are some of the most potent arguments against solipsism.

You're being personal again, goof. I never said I was solipsist. But regardless, don't you think that it's good to experience things? I personally think that the more experience, the better. Therefore, that is good in and of itself. Also, that which you understand in spite of it, would you have understood that if you had not been forced to? I'm going to use a personal experience again. If I had not had tough experiences, I would not have started actually thinking instead of accepting. And then I would not be here. That good was not 'in spite of' it was because of! If I'm raped, perhaps I'll have a gorgeous, wonderful child. That certainly was because of it! Good comes out of everything, if only we pause to acknowledge it.

That...and I don't think you believe I don't exist when I'm not on your mind

.

True. But you know I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. And I expect some frubals tomorrow for this thread, dammit

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The solipsist believes that everything comes from the mind. All parts of the mind are under the self's control, although the self may not realize it.

I fail to see how one distinguishes between something under the self's control, though the self does not realize it and something not under the self's control.

If you agree that we do not have an adequate definition for the "self", then you must concede that what solopsism suggests is inaccessible, just as Spinkism is inaccessible without a definition for "Spink".

 

[No*s]

But ultimately, isn't everything a philosophy of the self? You've seen the way some Christians are different from others. Some Muslims choose to pay attention only to the 'jihad' part of the Qu'uran. Some others choose to look at the good. Like I've said before, there is no 'pure' religion. Everything depends on perspective and interpretation.

No, not really. What I mean by "philosophy of the self," isn't that it contains a philosophy about who we are, but which asserts that I am the principle element of importance (here, the sole, because "I" am the only thing in existence).

When you point to elements in other religions, the various Christians believe something different (I would say because of a schism lol), and this difference results in their having a different axiom. These different axioms lead to differing value judgments, which in its turn leads to different actions. Islam, likewise, falls into sects and different people having different axioms.

The axioms, though, are supplied by our view of the world. When we ask "What is the world," "what is in it," why does it exist," and other such questions we form a view of the world, and we draw our values from it, and our emotions (solipsism is in no danger of becoming an emotionless system of government hehe).

When we feel a pang of conscience we have either done something that doesn't set well with us emotionally, or we have done something that violates the axioms supplied by our view of the world. This conscience serves to check our continuous slide into self-centerdness, which we are all prone to. However, solipsism makes the self the universe, and thus, removes the axioms in the world view to check it, leaving only the emotion.

The Christian and Muslim, though, tend to view the world as created by God. This God then ordained existence, and our nature, order, and existance is dependant on Him, and we each have an existence separate from each other and not dependent on one another, but on God. It's more complicated, but here, the Other is the center of existence, not us, and we essentially are objectively separate beings. This, then, cannot be a philosophy of self.

If I were a solipsist, though, I would say that all things exist because I have granted them existence. If, however, my self denied them existence, they would cease to exist. Their nature, value, everything comes simply from me, and thus is subject to me. All existence, in fact, is contingent upon me. That's some slightly different axioms from other philosophies .

You're being personal again, goof.

Sorry, I tend to be aggressive, but it's rarely meant personally (the personal becomes really apparent with me lol). I try to be a polite debator, but I have to work at gentleness on several occasions (this is why I don't tend to post in other religions' forums). I tend to simply state a point, sorry .

I never said I was solipsist. But regardless, don't you think that it's good to experience things? I personally think that the more experience, the better. Therefore, that is good in and of itself. Also, that which you understand in spite of it, would you have understood that if you had not been forced to? I'm going to use a personal experience again. If I had not had tough experiences, I would not have started actually thinking instead of accepting. And then I would not be here. That good was not 'in spite of' it was because of! If I'm raped, perhaps I'll have a gorgeous, wonderful child. That certainly was because of it! Good comes out of everything, if only we pause to acknowledge it.

I think you have a good point there, but I tend to emphasize it a bit different. Good comes from them in spite of what they are, not as a result of them. There's a spot in the Bible that encapsulates this for me which goes something like "What the enemy has intended for evil God has used for good." All things can be used for good, but not all things are good. All things can be used to teach, but they don't all impart value onto the event or circumstance.

True. But you know I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. And I expect some frubals tomorrow for this thread, dammit

I didn't think that meshed with your philosophy as I've understood it . I like to play the devil's advocate...but only in person. Nobody would know I am, unless I decided to argue something like atheism, and then, everybody would go "Aha! That's not what No*s says" lol.

 

[Valjean]

Good analysis, No*s -- I'd throw some frubals your way but I'm told I have to spread 'em around.

Interesting coincidence, Prima. Illusions is also my favorite book! I've got a copy not two meters away as I type this.

 

[sondadareas]

Hi to All!


I didn't know this thread exists! But this one connects with the thread, 'The PC Proves Kant was right about God!'

The whole world appears to you as it is, precisely, because you are solipsistic!

Consider this experiment. Walk on a busy street & you feel like you are a floating point of consciousness! FPC! Everything revolves around you & the only 'thing' you can't see is yourself! (unless you're unlucky enough to bump into a huge mirror! & unlucky enough to think that that illusion staring back at you is 'you'!)

All the objects, including what look like humans, in your field of vision are your mind's creations. Your brain/mind creates those mental objects out
of the electronics pulses send by your...own brain! Those pulses, in turn were created because your eyes got hit by photons! And these photons?
The photons are quantum particles! And quantum particles? These are not ordinary objects, which means they are extraordinary objects! Confused? Me too!

These quantum objects are extraordinary because they are even more abstract than mental objects which we ordinarily 'see'( which are creations, anyway, by our minds). Instead of being merely ordinary objects of our visual mind, these quantum objects are objects of our mathematical mind!! Unfortunately, only .ooo9% of humans have evolved to that high level of mathematical understanding. (In one sense these theoretical physicists are freaks!....mathematical freaks!) Most humans are visual.
In any case, mental objects, which we 'see' around us with our mind's eyes & abstract mathematical points (particles) are both creations of the human mind!
They make sense only within the human mind. On the other hand, in my dog's mind they - mental (visual) object & abstract mathematical points -don't exist! My dog, like yours hopefully, is not very visual. Their mental objects are mostly form out of smells, not shapes & colors!

Peace,
sondadareas

 

[michel]

Defining the self? Not even non-solipsists can do this.

What do you mean about the car crash bit? I'm not quite understanding you here.

The solipsist believes that everything comes from the mind. All parts of the mind are under the self's control, although the self may not realize it.

Prima,
Solipsim, as you say, is:-
1874, coined from L. solus "alone" + ipse "self." The view or theory that self is the only object of real knowledge or the only thing that is real.[PART QUOTE=No*s] "Now on your creating it for your own benefit, are you sure? Suppose that a man comes up, rapes you, beats you, takes all your money, and burns down your house. The only benefit you can make of that is in spite of that. Pain, sorrow, hate, and other things which can only serve a purpose in spite of themselves are some of the most potent arguments against solipsism." [/PART QUOTE]


The point No*s was trying to make, is that if you belive in solipsism (Forget the ins and out of the moralities for the moment), image that:-Suppose that a man comes up, rapes you, beats you, takes all your money, and burns down your house. What does that men about your solipsism ? That you are creating pain, sorrow, hate, and other things in your own consciousness, that can only hurt you. Does that make you a masochistic solipsist ? - If you believe in solipsism, I think you would create 'a confortable world' for your self - it would be illogical to imagine pain on yourself.

 

[Valjean]

People don't read only pleasant, inspirational books. They don't always listen to soothing music or watch 'comfortable" movies. Some people prefer the roller-coaster to the merry-go-round.

Violent, challenging, highly adventurous lives are probably really popular -- "best-sellers", so to speak. Some people might even live their favorite crash 'n' burn dharmas over and over again.

 

[anders]

Solipsism is too narrow and conservative. The world needs to understand the concept of nullipsism:

Not even I exist. It's only some crazy *** dreaming me.

(Note: In Swedish, the most common names of the guardians of heaven as well as of hell both are three-letter words.)

 

[sondadareas]

Dear Anders,


'SOLIPSISM IS TOO NARROW & CONSERVATIVE', you wrote.

I say that one cannot reach out into the world & to really re-connect to other beings unless one becomes fully solipsistic!
.
1. The world you create moment-by-moment with your body/mind is truly your own Personal Space, PS.
2. You are totally responsible for your own creation, your PS; the world is yours; the world is you!
3. Anything you destroy is necessarily within in your PS! You destroy a part of you!
4. This means, too, that you can destroy fully (suicide!) & create fully!
Like I posted in another thread, you can be Mother Teresa, picking up rotting bodies before they die off, or gassing millions, like Hitler!

Finally, when you have fully embrace your PS, you can leave it behind! & be re-united to other beings! This is, of course the Perennial Philosophy, the Big Story - That humanity is temporarily in time & space, but we will eventually be re-united with our true SELF, our Source.

TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR PS IS TO BE SOLIPSISTIC! Since your PS is your creation, everything in it - the good & the bad - must be fully embraced.

In the bible, when the people began to pick up rocks to throw at Jesus, he said, 'Ye are gods!' He said it to mean that not only He could claim to be God, but we too, ordinary humans, are in a sense gods!

peace,
sondadareas

 

[TheHeretic]

Solopism is a sin for Satanists.

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Solipsism—Can be very dangerous for Satanists. Projecting your reactions, responses and sensibilities onto someone who is probably far less attuned than you are. It is the mistake of expecting people to give you the same consideration, courtesy and respect that you naturally give them. They won’t. Instead, Satanists must strive to apply the dictum of “Do unto others as they do unto you.” It’s work for most of us and requires constant vigilance lest you slip into a comfortable illusion of everyone being like you. As has been said, certain utopias would be ideal in a nation of philosophers, but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, from a Machiavellian standpoint) we are far from that point.

So I think my answer to this thread is self explanitory:
[/font]

 

[michel]

Solopism is a sin for Satanists.

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Solipsism—Can be very dangerous for Satanists. courtesy and respect that you naturally give them. They won’t. Instead, Satanists must strive to apply the dictum of “Do unto others as they do unto you.” It’s work for most of us and requires constant vigilance lest you slip into a comfortable illusion of everyone being like you. As has been said, certain utopias would be ideal in a nation of philosophers, but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, from a Machiavellian standpoint) we are far from that point.

So I think my answer to this thread is self explanitory:
[/font]

Solipsism :-
solipsism http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=solipsism 1874, coined from L. solus "alone" + ipse "self." The view or theory that self is the only object of real knowledge or the only thing that is real. PART QUOTE "Projecting your reactions, responses and sensibilities onto someone who is probably far less attuned than you are."

What on Earth are you talking about ?
So I think my answer to this thread is self explanitory:

Your answer has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic, as far as I can make out; it almost sounds as if you were not even aware of the meaning of Solipsim - either that, or you have an extremely strange perception.

 

[TheHeretic]

Solipsism :-
solipsism 1874, coined from L. solus "alone" + ipse "self." The view or theory that self is the only object of real knowledge or the only thing that is real. PART QUOTE "Projecting your reactions, responses and sensibilities onto someone who is probably far less attuned than you are."

What on Earth are you talking about ?
So I think my answer to this thread is self explanitory:

Your answer has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic, as far as I can make out; it almost sounds as if you were not even aware of the meaning of Solipsim - either that, or you have an extremely strange perception.

What are you, chasing down all my reply's and making angry faces?

It was not my answer, it is the official answer of the Chruch of Satan. If you cannot see a connection between what I posted and what the OP was talking about than that is your problem, not mine.

 

[sondadareas]

Heretic's post is very relevant to the present subject.

My own definition of solipsism stresses the fact that since each consciousness creates its own reality only according to the capabilities or potentialities of one own's body/mind, THEN one should then be constantly aware of its metaphoric character. One should seriously consider that one's reality is illusion or maya!

Idolatry is our constant temptation. We tend to idolize/worship our own creations! It isn't that we worship idols - like scientism, for example - but that it is extremely hard to 'see' beyong the very ground of our personal illusions! ( If you can get hold of Roger Jones' Physics As metaphor, please read it. )

peace,
sonda

 

[xander-]

So ultimate happiness is death? The conclusion of all the bad things?
-Xander

 

[michel]

Solipsism :-
solipsism 1874, coined from L. solus "alone" + ipse "self." The view or theory that self is the only object of real knowledge or the only thing that is real. PART QUOTE "Projecting your reactions, responses and sensibilities onto someone who is probably far less attuned than you are."

What on Earth are you talking about ?
So I think my answer to this thread is self explanitory:

Your answer has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic, as far as I can make out; it almost sounds as if you were not even aware of the meaning of Solipsim - either that, or you have an extremely strange perception.

I retract the above - I'm sure it wasn't I who posted it - was I really that pompous and irritable?

 

[Katzpur]

Does anyone here believe in Solipsism?

Solipsism is the belief that (for me) I am the only thing that is real, that everything else is an illusion.

A lot of people think that solipsism is a very cold and uncaring belief, but I disagree.

For example: say that I believe in solipsism. Therefore, everything else (RF, this computer, my parents, you all, the world) was created by me. My ultimate goal is happiness (rather, I am naming my ultimate goal to be happiness, whatever happiness is) Well, if my ultimate goal is happiness, then it follows that everything I created was for my ultimate goal (happiness) So everything that happens to me, everything that is, is for my happiness. So bad things that happen, people that I really can't stand, my friends - it's all for my ultimate happiness. And since it's for my goal, I should treat it (them) well, because it helps me achieve my goal. Therefore, I should look for the happiness in bad things, in bad people, in everything.

I think that this idea helps people care for other people even more than the 'love your enemies' idea does.

Thoughts, comments, ideas?

That's funny... I didn't know there was a word for it. When I was a teenager (hundreds of years ago), I used to tell my two best friends that they existed only as figments of my imagination. It used to drive them nuts! Actually, it used to infuriate them, which I thought was a riot!

 

[scitsofreaky]

Solipsim seems to be the epitome of a developed narcissimand egocentric world view. It is not infantile since it seems that infants cannot distinguish the rest of the world from themselves (so the ultimate egocentric world view), and this view does show the capacity to distingish the world from themselves physically. But it does seem to be low on the developmental level, like when a child thinks that when they walk the sun is following them, ergo they are indirectly moving the sun.

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

i've always had a thought of that possibility, that we create everyone and everything. very interesting.