Talk:Solipsism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Utter confusion

This article starts by correctly defining solipsism from its etymology from Latin solus, meaning "alone", and ipse, meaning "self". THE Self, that is, not MY self. But then exhibits total misunderstanding of the subject by stating: "[solipsism] is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist." This makes two glaring assumptions: that Self is identical with mind, and that mind is real. Which is as nonsensical as asserting "I am my nose". Mind has no existence, it is simply a mass of thoughts. Just as the nose inhales (selectively, since it can choose not to) odours, so thoughts are mere pollen or fragrances all around us. After choosing to admit a few, they are assimilated and we call them OURS.Or even OURSELF,as the further stage of folly, defining ourselves in terms of these thoughts, follows. The process is akin to a crustacean absorbing calcium in order to define itself by possession of a shell. "solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist". Solipsism denies the ego, so WHAT 'other' minds? Does anything exist apart from pure consciousness? It is possible to quantify a supposed component of a gestalt such as consciousness or an ocean as a 'personal mind' or a 'drop of water' respectively. First one defines 'mind' or 'drop', then one counts the number of such units. But in reality both are unbounded and unlimited. There are not several billions of minds, nor 10^37 drops in the ocean, but one. It is not solipsism that is a contrived theory, but the reverse; if we define people or oceans by their limitations - imaginary skins - then we are forced to see each as an individual. Like counting drivers by cars, or puppeteers by puppets.122.57.152.168 (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Minimalism and Occam's Razor

"So the realist can claim that, while his world view is more complex, it is more satisfying as an explanation."

Genuine question: In what real terms is it a more satisfying explanation; what more does it explain of the universe? Are these better explanations objective and definite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimensional dan (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, realism is too narrow to call the many philosophical discourses which aren't so vain as to credit one person's psyche with only 'real' existence. The article says that if you read it all. Most tempting postulates for a few moments (or period of infancy) such as this bar nihilism negate solipsism. It's a rhetorical, patronizing brain exercise to get you to think of the consequences of being a sociopath, selfish human or hermit. E.g. John Lennon was a pure idealist. His ideal and songs certainly pre-suppose the universe and other minds are actually important than one's own as we die and life across the universe, universes, or future conscience(s) does continue. As the article begins: it is sophistic and so ends with being self-refuting idea. It is like saying we are all semi-robotic? Perhaps we all daydream if moralizing or philosophizing? The very argument that you can only be permanently sure of your own consciousness is flawed in vivid dreams(?). Genetics and lust/love disproves the thing more I think than death, but Dawkin's Selfish Gene is not the answer. Moreover ultimately religions and philosophies often converge in short that these or one of these will last until the very end, or even surpass in any sense we could perceive as the end. - Adam37 Talk 21:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have a chat with another person, and you are not aware of the other person's thoughts, doesn't that prove that there must be another source of information outside that observer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.50.249 (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Paraphrase? : "If you chat with someone, and are surprised by the other's words & ideas, does that prove their source is outside yourself?"  ; I suspect stronger evidence is in disagreement with others, but neither is conclusive, in that I am often surprised and occasionally in discord with my own 'points of view' during meditation & contemplation or even dreams which provide surprise, insight, & joy of discovery. Solipsism allows for multiple 'levels' of 'self', and of confidence in one's own experiences.

(?) Could this be malaprop for Lucid Dream; where the dreamer is aware of the current dream state consciousness? I believe it helps (does not ensure) objectivity to maintain at least 2 points of view of your current situation: First person active, and over-the-shoulder/guardian angel, or father or child observing yourself. Literature is thick with references to the little critic, conscience, or other 'quiet voice in our head', which does not always agree with our 'own' self. --Wikidity (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Descartes' image in mobile

Descartes' image appears in mobile wiki. I don't think this is appropriate because although Descartes believed the mind was the basis for knowlegde (rationalism), he did not deny the existence of the physical reality. (Was a Duelist).

I agree. Much better would be Berkeley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbowicz (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Replaced image with Berkeley's. SolipsismDoesntMatter (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The whole psychology and psychiatry section seems really out of place

It is also unintentionally quite funny due to its choice of verbiage, for instance one part reads

Solipsism syndrome is a dissociative mental state. It is only incidentally related to philosophical solipsism. The lack of ability to prove the existence of other minds does not, in itself, cause the psychiatric condition of detachment from reality.

My first thought - can you prove it? It kinda turns the serious entry detailing a topic into a bit of a side show. I don't see how its relevant to the topic when you think in encyclopedic terms, you come to an entry to find its meaning, significance, etc. This belongs in a psychiatric entry, at most there should simply be a disambiguation type link, where it simply states for psychiatric related information on this topic click here.

Anon, so I know my deletion will be instantly reverted no matter what kind of detail I put, so im writing this here in the hopes that a user with some authority will eventually see it, agree, and be able to take it down without instant revert.

96.239.74.63 (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No, that actually sounds perfectly reasonable - that section was nonsense. I agree with you it should be deleted or, at best, massively reworked and re-inserted later. SnowFire (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there a school of solipsism such as this?

Under "Main Points":

“There is also the issue of plausibility to consider. If one is the only mind in existence, then one is maintaining that one's mind alone created all of which one is apparently aware. This includes the symphonies of Beethoven, the works of Shakespeare, all of mathematics and science (which one can access via one's phantom libraries), etc. Critics of solipsism find this somewhat implausible. However, since, for example, people are able to construct entire worlds inside their minds while having dreams when asleep], and people have had dreams which included things such as music of Beethoven or the works of Shakespeare or math or science in them, solipsists do have counter-arguments to justify their views being plausible.”

Long before I ever read this article or heard this argument, this was why (occurring to me independently of others) I dismissed what I personally term “radical solipsism,” i.e., the belief that I am the only one and only thing that actually exists and all others and everything else were creations of my imagination. I am simply not that creative. It’s impossible. While studying Eastern metaphysical schools such as the Hindu Advaita Vedanta and Zen Buddhism, I wondered if these philosophies might be a form of solipsism that I term “corporate solipsism,” i.e., that all beings and all things are manifestations of universal consciousness. Instead of there being one human creating all else (unknowingly), the singular mind of universal consciousness does by partitioning itself.

To answer the implausibility argument as noted above from the article, each manifestation of consciousness exists in his or her personal universe with all others, who do exist in theirs, being borrowed from "central casting" as if actors in a movie. Some play prominent roles, others peripheral ones and many more as metaphorical extras, people we pass on the sidewalk or drive by on the street, etc. The others in one’s personal universe in some cases act as if they would in any given situation in their own universes, while others act and react as one would expect them to, including in some cases with surprising reactions to add credibility to the metaphorical movie. However, the others have no consciousness within one’s universe but only behave as if they did.

Whether a proposition is true or not is not contingent upon how attractive a scenario is, of course, but this might seem attractive in that in one’s personal universe no one ever suffers in reality but one’s self, perhaps in accordance with the concept of karma, how the personal illusion unfolds, in Eastern metaphysical thought. Those one knows, reads or hears about who appear to suffer terribly, such as dreaded disease, accident or crime victims, don’t really, but again adds credibility to the illusion of material life. In such a victim’s personal universe, he or she does not but likewise perceives others as doing so.

So my question is, has anyone ever positioned such a form of solipsism? The concept of “philosophical zombies” seems appropriate (“The theory of solipsism crosses over with the theory of the philosophical zombie in that all other seemingly conscious beings actually lack true consciousness, instead they only display traits of consciousness to the observer, who is the only conscious being there is.”), but lacks the addition I speculate upon of such "zombies" actually existing and having consciousness in their own personal universes, just not in those of others. If I appear in their personal universes to any degree, then I would be the philosophical zombie behaving either as I would in my own universe or as the “host” unconsciously "programs" me to.

I am not saying that I am convinced by this speculated scenario, but if I were then the problem would be that leaving a note like this might seem senseless since no one conscious in my universe would actually read it, and any answer I might receive would actually be input from myself. But then again, one or more of my imagined (albeit borrowed from another reality) creations might answer as they would in his or her personal universe. Therefore, perhaps various personal universes might be able to metaphorically bleed into one another and thus share insights and wisdom all the same.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, Giovanni Gentile's Actual Idealism is one of the most thorough-going attacks (in his Theory of Mind As Pure Act) against "logical positivism" so much so the re-published Living Time Press edition of his work in 2002 called it the most conprehensive solipsistic philosophical defense ever. However, he'd go further and say even objectifying the self as the only existence is reifying a thought object and is untrue because it "outruns our precepts". Ultimately true solipsism is both irrefutable and indefensible by definition. Nagelfar (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

History / first usage of the word itself?

This is a good, detailed treatment of the idea we refer to today as solipsism, and the history of that idea, but I was disappointed not to find any information about the history of the *word* solipsism. It seems to be much more recent than the philosophical theory it refers to. My sense is that it existed first as a seldom-used Latin word for egocentrism, and at some point someone - maybe Kant - applied it as a name for radical skepticism that anything beyond one's own consciousness exists. This would be great to pin down, and add to the article, if only in a sentence. 100.40.76.131 (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Satire

Is satire of the theory acceptable on the page for the theory? In the film "Dark Star", one of the ship's crew argues with a smart bomb using solipsistic arguments to try and talk it out of detonating. The script is here: https://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/dark-star_short.html, look for the lines beginning with "Hello, bomb, are you with me?" . Glennglazer (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)