Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Thoughts on Solipsism
05-15-2015, 04:46 AM (This post was last modified: 05-15-2015 06:15 AM by Feywer96.)
Post: #1
Like always, it's here too~

Well it's been way way wayyy too long since I've updated my blog - and I don't want to see that site turn into every other weird 90's abandoned website hosted on 'angelfire' (lol) - so I decided to add a little 'thoughts on..' entry to my blog since I woke up hella early this morning and just read a bunch about the concepts.

The wiki page here on this concept is a good 'primer' about Solipsism. A' la wiki:

Quote: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.

The world can only be known through the senses.

Without the 'tool' of the Eye, no sight can be percieved.
Without the 'tool' of the Ear, no sound can be heard.
Without the 'tool' of the Nose, no smell can be smelt.
Without the 'tool' of the Tongue, no taste can be tasted.
Without the 'tool' of the Skin, no sense can be felt.


The world is percieved through the senses.
Without the senses, the world cannot be known.

Therefore, the awareness of the subjective reality is the only knowable awareness.

Argument: an unexpected event occured to an individual that believes all outward experience is derived from the mind (Solipsism).
Example: walking forward and being scared from behind - and unexpected occurence.

The person walking forward did not expect to be frightened by the other individual. If the only awareness is the subjective one - his mind did not construct this other individual and scare him - the other individual existed objectively, and that other individual acted upon his own Will. Therefore, there is some degree of objective reality.

However, without the perviever, there can be no experience.
So we depend upon this subjective perception to have awareness of this objective reality; but the objective reality can only be made aware by the processing through the senses and into the subjective reality.

When a person dies, their 'instance' of subjective awareness is ended; so to them, the world has crashed into dissolution. But other people percieve the world afterwards although one no longer does. Therefore, there is some degree of objective agreeable reality, that *does* exist although many lifetimes live and die within it.

Say one person was standing facing another person, and stated, 'How I prove this [object] is real?'
The other responds, 'I also see this object.' (Validating that it exists to both individuals)

What then is agreeable reality? Reality would then just 'be'. Subjective perceptions attach meanings to objective realities.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-17-2015, 04:32 PM (This post was last modified: 05-17-2015 04:33 PM by Leon.)
Post: #2
My reply:

"If you don't understand this reality. You can't and you don't know anything else."
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2016, 05:49 AM (This post was last modified: 12-12-2016 05:51 AM by Ontical.)
Post: #3
Descartes solution to solipsism was that God is perfect and God gave me a mind, God is not a deciever and so external objects must exist, this led to dualism. Berkeley on the other hand, in order to get away from the problem of solipsism, argued that matter does not exist, only minds exist and God is a mind, therefore scrapping Cartesian dualism for idealism.

I personally like Heidegger on this, as this is one of those questions that I can totally understand why people outside of intellectual circles get frustrated with philosophy. Heidegger says 'if I hit you with a hammer, it will hurt, therefore you know external objects exist!', doesn't matter if you expect the next strike of the hammer to feel like a feather or to provoke the taste of chicken, the result objectively ends in you experiencing pain upon being struck with the hammer. In other words, stop fooling around with the problem of solipsism and talk about things that matter. haha

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2016, 07:50 AM
Post: #4
lol Descartes maybe just didn't want to get killed by the authorities. God is the Deceiver, and there is no God save that which deceives the most in every sense. It wasn't hard though, there was only One to deceive.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-14-2016, 12:49 AM
Post: #5
I think Descartes was already well within the Catholic boundaries and didn't intentionally want to contemplate the non-existence of God. The Demiurge was a possibility for him however, that was one of the possibilities of being decieved into thinking material objects outside of the self may not exist.

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-14-2016, 06:02 AM (This post was last modified: 12-14-2016 06:29 AM by The Artis Magistra.)
Post: #6
(12-14-2016 12:49 AM)Ontical Wrote:  I think Descartes was already well within the Catholic boundaries and didn't intentionally want to contemplate the non-existence of God. The Demiurge was a possibility for him however, that was one of the possibilities of being decieved into thinking material objects outside of the self may not exist.

Yes. What Descartes did or did not believe or know or think or not think is irrelevant to me and impossible to be sure of or know for certain. What is interesting is that he is supposed to have mentioned something which represents the actuality of things, or My God:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon

of which there is no other God.

He also seems to have mentioned something which can be twisted advantageously, the realization that at the very least the experience exists in some way or the way in which does.

Regardless of this, historically, Descartes was risking being called a blasphemer in a time where the Church wasn't so friendly and any rhetorician could try to turn people against the Church, especially for what seemed like a statement that God just might be Evil (like the Bible says explicitly, and which the Church denies vehemently).

Descartes remained within the boundaries of what could be published with Church censorship or careful observation for heresy, and managed to whisper just enough blasphemy to satisfy our future ears and minds.

I never intended to suggest that Descartes ever intended to consider the non-existence of God, but provided some important clues regarding the real nature of God, without stating so explicitly. That God is none other than the Supreme Evil, and the Evilest of All and most Vile and Violent, Deceptive and Destructive, who has trapped Descartes or at least me which is just an extension of itself, in a passive paradigm of terror.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditation...Philosophy
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Thoughts on suicide Logicius 13 159 02-23-2017 07:48 AM
Last Post: Mider2009
  WF's Thoughts on Neville Goddard? amxha 10 572 11-30-2016 08:53 AM
Last Post: aries
  Thoughts on God United States of America 30 3,049 02-25-2014 06:25 AM
Last Post: daemonesse
  War in Afghanistan, Your thoughts? Pira 25 2,435 10-02-2013 06:38 AM
Last Post: hecate8

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)