The Sophist Solipsism - It's eating away at me!

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I. Nothing exists;
II. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and
III. Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can’t be communicated to others.
-Sextus Empiricus quoting Gorgias

What if of our entire perception of the world is akin to the prisoners watching shadows in Plato’s Allegory of the cave; much like they only saw the 2 dimensional shadows and not the 3 dimensional objects casting them - what if we only see third dimensional objects and by our very nature we are not able to see what lies beyond?

What if our “mind” is a mere moment of coherence sandwhiched between two eternities of insanity?

What if you are alone, and you wrote this, and created this website; what if this computer monitor and everything around you is a mere product of your imagination?

What if all of you are philosophical zombies, and I really am alone?

2

False. Nothing does not exist.

Translation: “nothing can be known” - this is also false. Nothing cannot be known.

Orly?

It is.

Again, it is.

So far as I can tell, that is the case. So what? Kinda like asking, “What if you were a human being on this little ball floating in space amidst infinity?” Yeah? So what’s your point?

You are.

3

:frowning:

4

Experience and illusion are two separate things, right? I mean, in thew case of illusion, the reality depicted by the mind does not give passage to a great deal of interaction, wheras if experience is the criterion, the doors are open to perception. Nontheless, they are so closely related, illusion and experience, that it is easy to flip from one to the other. We can see that with heavy drug use, of the opiate and psychedelic kind, experience and illusion run into each other like watercolors. It is only then, when verification becomes sort of an excersize in random picking that the idea of a solid reality begins to lose its appeal. But why would nothing exist?

5

Gorgias was a sophist, which meant he was in the business of impressing people and gaining students who paid him to learn to argue (he did not profess to teach arete like other sophists). One way he went about advertising his services was by taking some popular common opinion and then convincingly arguing it’s opposite. This one about nothing existing (which means that not any thing exists at all) is one such argument (another famous one is his defense of Helen). It’s purpose was partly to lampoon Parmenides’ arguments for his version of monism which defied all common sense, but mostly to refute the assumption of most philosophers of that time that arguments and reason can lead one to truth. Argument for Gorgias is not a powerful method for gaining truth; it is instead a powerful weapon of persuasion, and he demonstrated this point by arguing convincingly for blatantly false things like [Nothing exists]. Off course something exists…

6

You don’t know that.

Yes, Peachy, solipsism may be true. And you rightly grasp that what is terrible about that idea is the idea of absolute solitude. The only escape from that terror is to believe in the existence of a world shared by other beings like you. You definitely believe in that in the etymological sense, at least, in which “to believe” means “to hold dear”. In fact, the idea of solipsism is a great idea in that it causes you to affirm the world as it is, with all its suffering: for however much suffering there is in this world, however much you suffer in this world, it’s always infinitely better than the conviction of absolute solitude. So embrace this world, regardless of whether it’s real or imaginary (as far as I know we may never know that, may never be able to know that, anyway), and consider it real. You are now a lover of this world.

7

Xcz:

I do agree with much of what you say, but to understand Gorgias one should look into the background story to understand what “Nothing” he was talking about. His nothing is God. So the idea is popular even today:
1- No-God exists.
2- Even if God existed, It would be incomprehensible.
3- But even if it was comprehensible it would be incommunicable.

This nihilism elucidates the transcendence of God. God is taken away from the human sphere, the human-level of experience. What man is left with is himself, and the dialectics are not about discovering Truth, Wisdom, God, because these transcend man. Now we can understand Gorgias and the sophist better. Plato does not believe in such nihilism. To him there is a way to escape our cave and re-link (religion anyone?) with that Divine sphere. Thus for him (Plato), the anti-Gorgias, there is One Truth, One wisdom, One God. What Gorgias presents are the obstacles that someone like Plato would have to overcome:

1- First, he must prove that there is some God rather than no God. Even today, no one can prove the rational necessity for the existence of God.
2- Once and if this obstacle is overcome, then you have to deal with epistemology, or how the finite comprehend the infinite.
3- If it is accepted that at least one person has a dialogue with the Divine and has comprehended, arrested and thus known God within himself, that still leaves out whether this wiseman can pass on his wisdom to his students or if this wisdom can only be felt first-hand. This is the problem of language. How can a private experience become a public experience?
In Christianity this was expressed as Negative Theology, which meant that you said:“God is X” and immediately after say:“God is not X”, which sounds contradictory, just as Gorgias dialectic, but which can be explained as a recognition of our limitations in understanding God because of our intelligence, and secondly because our language is limited as well.

8

It seems that most of the self-proclaimed “philosophers” on this board like to accuse others of assuming things - even though, they, themselves, assume so much of their knowledge on so many occasions which they don’t realize. Whenever they like to feel the power trip of telling another person that they are wrong, they accuse them of assumption.

I have found that this message board all but impedes the successful communication of philosophy and really, it mainly consists of people wishing they were famous philosophers who are irritated that their ideals aren’t met with applause.
It is a perpetual sea of individuals telling other individuals that they are wrong, who in turn go to tell somebody else that they are wrong to negate their frustration.
Look at the posts of some of the users here, and tell me if you can’t see the pattern.

9

I am a Solipsist.

I find it incredibly liberating yet securing for all the many complications it ties up and new paths it opens up.

So far, all the criticisms, rejections and despairings that I’ve heard towards it have been misunderstandings of it.

For instance, since there exists only the self, there is no not-self to feel alienated from. Goodbye loneliness.

There is also, for this reason, no need to guess about “things in themselves” that are outside the self, such as 2 eternities of insanity, or 3D objects that cause your 2D visual experience.

You’re worried about the cause of the posts you didn’t write: why can’t the self incorporate “experience that appears without fitting your understanding of self causation”?

10

So, you’re sorta just saying that it’s impossible to disprove that a(ny) moment/subjective experience could simply the only “reality” (that has ever existed), right? That any subjective notion of a past event/a memory), of a “scientific method” to test the effect (happening of some moments) of some cause (happenings of other moments), could just be a (single) “flash of insanity”? That “That’s absurd because, after considering that, I was witnessed new moments, and I have found out things I did not know from other ‘real’ people!” isn’t really an argument, because the mindset of that argument could have “just” come about, simply with the (inaccurate/un-objective) “qualities”/colors of (notions of) past beings/existences?

Logically, it’s a valid question/consideration (you could even say considering it is the ultimate example of skepticism), but it’s pragmatically useless (at the very least).

We habitually make sense of things according to cause-and-effect, and carefully doing so can avoid and alleviate distasteful experiences (though are some irritations/things resulting in distasteful experiences that ought to be seen as dangerous potentials to avoid, a lot of “bad” things are only seen as such–resulting in distasteful experiences–due to an unknowingly ignorant mindset and/or inept core context/story/myth/values of what/how/why “reality” is, and what/how/why it should be),
so, unless utilizing this “solipsism” view is used as some final blanket for comfort in the case of some (“only a matter of time”) drug overdose or fatal gunshot wound, I don’t think it’s constructive when it comes to living (as) harmoniously (as possible) with the world (as–with the possible exception of the severely autistic–most minds generally see it).

Just to clarify, I am referring to the Wikipedia definition:

I don’t really think Silhouette is a “Solipsist”, by the above definition. It’s one thing to acknowledge that the mind can only see itself/that you can never see anything “objectively”, but it’s another to actually (and regularly) apperceive and think as if all those “objects of awareness” do not come from (are not interpreted/assembled from) anything “outside” (or not “in” or “of”) one’s mind. I can see it being useful when one is feeling down… to see certain things in such a way that they shouldn’t be of concern… but, again, I think it’s counter-productive for a healthy/comfortable philosophy of life; rather than using it as an opiate when one senses the aches of an “unharmonious” story/myth, one should instead creatively assemble their own myth that works best for them (in successfully integrating with their surroundings to minimize discomfort).

11

Another misunderstanding, matt. I assure you I am Solipsist.

You need to pose some pretty fundamental questions here, particularly, ‘whence came causality?’ despite the question’s inherent contradiction and ‘why the separation between subject and object?’

  1. ‘Causality’ is merely the ironing out of the continuous dissonance between the clear focused ‘present’ and the more blurry faded ‘memory’ that is also in the present, into a nice flattened out time-line. Nice idea, but an artificial construction of utility nonetheless. You don’t need a backworld of mythical ‘origin’ to form a void from which everything comes from. You need to question the concept you’re using.

  2. ‘Objects’ are merely piecings together of experience in the ‘present’ and the ‘memory’ to form ideas of 3D models and actual ‘things’ from different remembered perspectives of experience. The ‘subject’ comes from the idea that some ‘thing’ is actively doing the perceiving of ‘objects’ using a similar error as above (see 1). Try and picture this ‘subject’ and you’ll find that every attempt to do so makes it into an ‘object’ so that it can be experience. You are chasing a ghost. The subject does not exist = no subject/object separation.

Solipsism is all thorough examination to clear away the mess and loose ends of other flawed theories of abstraction. Not a comfort tool.

Any more criticisms to pose?

Cue the joke, ‘No, I’m Solipsist: so you can’t be’ :unamused:

Or the criticism, ‘But you’re talking to another person who’s not yourself.’ My experience assures me, everything I’m doing - despite the words I use - is still my own experience. They still make sense when you redefine ‘you’ to a part of ‘me’ which is simultaneously equivalent to ‘existence’ or ‘experience’ (see 2). Who said ‘I’ can only consist of predictable things?

12

You clearly didn’t read what I wrote very carefully… since you saw me arguing against “solipsism”, you assumed all the usual “errors” (that you think prevents one from understanding it) onto my arguments, even though much of what I wrote clearly demonstrates a knowledge of some of the things you just “explained” to me.

I bolded a part of the quote… look back at my post and you will notice I made a point to bring that up.

I won’t go through your entire post yet, I think it’s better you first define exactly what you mean by “solipsism”, and the mindset and/or philosophy that makes one a “solipsist”

13

My bad, I should have quoted the following, to make it more clear which parts of your post I saw as misunderstanding.

Since you say these specific words, regardless of what you said previously in your post, I address them in my point “1”, if only to clarify that I understand the concept just as you do and to show others the argument as well.

I briefly mention this in the sentence after point “2”. I didn’t assume any more errors of yours because I didn’t see any more in your post. Consequently, the sentence of mine that you bolded wasn’t actually aimed at you, but intended only to make up part of the challenge that I opened up to everyone in general: “Any more criticisms to pose?”

Clearly you’re familiar with the bulk of what I posted about, but it was the fact that you let the above quotes slip when addressing your judgement on whether I understood solipsism enough to actually be one. Hence the specific addressing of you at the start of my post.

An error of communication on my part must have made it seem to you as though the entire post was a criticism of you.

Back on topic, (talking to the forum as a whole) here I talk of communication with ‘others’ in the same way that I might talk or think of communication with my fingers to type what I want to say.

The challenge remains on whether anyone can poke a valid hole in Solipsism.

14

To take up that challenge would be a Don-Quixotery. You cannot kill a windmill.

15

I totally agree. I’ve been fed up enough to make similar points in some of my posts and, much like yours, nobody bothered to consider or acknowledge them. I’m just glad that there are people who do not get caught up in the competition for recognition, and ultimately attention to feed vanity. Not to mention the people like ‘Daybreak’ up there making definite statements that are unfounded (no explanations or evidence provided), yet with such an arrogant conviction. Bottom line is that some people come to think, some come to preach, and others come simply for attention.

I was almost appalled at first by the attitudes and horrendous egos of some of these folks. Philosophy has always been such a humbling thing to me because it’s a continuous search – always considering new ideas/possibilities and how they seem to affect perception. Perception itself, being such a mysterious and unpredictable concept when applied to ‘objectivity’, ‘subjectivity’, etc. It’s an almost maddening idea to dwell on because of the infinite possibilities. For that reason, I can’t imagine truly “knowing” anything, let alone professing knowledge - without merit - to minds that come here looking for intelligent discussion or logical debate. When I consider things in that light, I can’t help but feel both resentment and pity toward those who debate for egoistic utility. Then again, they do keep the discussions practical, because they help us to always consider the evil, or inherent selfishness, of humanity.

I will say that I have found some cool folks on here as well; thinkers like me. Like you.

16

Silhouette,

Thanks for clarification.

Well, I asked you to define exactly your idea of “Solipsism”, and what it is to be a “Solipsist”.

As a strictly skeptical point, there is no hole to pick in it. However, sometimes Solipsism is associated with the actual belief that there is not anything outside one’s mind. I know sometimes definitions (on wikipedia, online dictionaries, etc.) can misrepresent something by oversimplifying it… maybe that’s the case here? It’s not that you actually believe/perceive that mental objects ONLY exist in your mind
–and by that I mean not that they only exist in your mind as you see them, but that there really is NOTHING that is not (in/of) your mind–
right?

My original post was directed as what I see as a kind of “existential” crises Peachy has been in. Though I think Solipsism (as an example of skepticism, not as a belief) is a good step in avoiding logical errors, and being less deluded, I don’t see it as a constructive “philosophy of life” because, in order to minimize discomfort, you generally have to (at least in social and work settings) think and act as if your mind isn’t the only thing that exists.

That’s why it seems weird to me for someone to call oneself a “Solipsist”. I don’t see anyone actually regularly living by this idea throughout most of their day, to such an extent one would equate one’s being with Solipsism. Maybe I just made the mistake of assuming you were saying you directed your life around/based on Solipsism, just because you said “I am a Solipsist”, when you really meant something more like “My way of being results from and has benefited from Solipsism (skepticism)”?

I just originally felt the need to tell Peachy “Well good job in reaching this level of skepticism, but Solipsism isn’t a life affirming/basing/directing philosophy; it just helps you avoid the destructive ones”.

Make sense?

17

Are the above objections to certain types of attitudes of posters going to overtake this thread?

Perhaps another thread is in order as I, personally, would like to keep the original topic going in this one. As many objections or agreements as possible, on topic, would be greatly appreciated as it is something that I am very keen on sharing and spreading as a much more credible stance than it is popularly conceived to be.

Peachy Nietzsche, do you have anything to add to the relevant comments about your original post and its concerning topic? Just ignore those who are unphilosophical in an philosophy forum. Only acknowledge them with a deconstruction of their ineffectual analysis of your interpretation of the topic if it is going to provoke an improved subsequent response. This, rather than attacking them as people, which will only stir up unfocused practice that veers off topic.

Daybreak has actually used some logic in his response. Other than being a grammatical error and contradiction, saying that ‘nothing exists’ is inconceivable empirically. Surely nothing, or “no things/objects/sensory forms contributing to existence” as I understand the word is merely an abstraction of ‘negativity’ or ‘antithesis’ from existence and taking it out of context.

I use a basic thought experiment that tends towards nothing to understand this better, which is simply to envisage an empty space in existence with no things in it except blackness, and picturing reducing the boundaries of this blackness to zero. You actually have nothing left as the theoretical end point of this boundary reduction. Once the reduction is complete, you are simply left with existence. At no point is experience ever not perceivable unless you try to add in a similar ‘black void’, as just mentioned, that fills in the time gaps between supposed periods unconsciousness, which is solipsist mistake.

As such it was probably a bad idea to open the thread of solipsism with a quote that says this mistake backs up solipsism.

18

I’m just sure if I am one of those “off topic” illogical posters mentioned above, but I think my posts have been very true to the topic. It’s clear in the OP (and the title) that Peachy is experiencing angst about this and seeks a comforting philosophy direct his life.

I can understand how my posts may have come off as an argument against Solipsism (as a skeptical point), which isn’t the case (unless one actually believes only one’s mind exists, rather than recognizing that there is no logical argument otherwise). I thought the real issue/meaning/intent behind the OP was an attempt to stop Solipsism’s “eating away” at him, so I think my post was relevant.

19

matt, I have jumped in the deep end of Solipsism and have swam around it for a long while now haha.

And no you are not off topic, I wrote that post before I saw what you had to say. You are being very complimentary to the thread.

Despite your understanding of Solipsism as only possessing merit on purely skeptical grounds and not being a life affirming/basing/directing philosophy, I actually advocate incorporating it into a lifestyle.

I do find that it is useful to doubt the mess of destructive philosophies, I don’t see it as merely a cleaning tool that thrives only in negation. As such, I don’t see it as equivalent to skepticism. Rather, I see it as a direct form of empiricism that rejects all abstractions that are taken out of context, and strictly constructs understandings only from present experience.

It is obvious to me that present experience is the only existence that exists. Memory, readings of history, predictions: they all take place in a continuously dissonant present. The mapping them all out into a timeline is an artificial construct of a linear timeline that results in all sorts of comedic embarrassments, such as serious consideration into time travel. I don’t reject this kind of imaginative abstraction, as the models they create DO often end up having some kind of contribution once brought back to real life, but I just take it as 1 possible interpretation of potentially many. Solipsism here provides freedom of imagination, but doesn’t get carried away with it.

The fact that the clear focusing in all senses of the present differs from the ethereal blurry imagination, memory and dreams is largely irrelevant except with issues such communication with others. They don’t seem to need explanation of the more focused events, but they do of the more blurry ones. Surely something like the loss of an arm will persist in the focused present, but do you not avoid such an occurence from potentially happening in all dreams and imaginations just as in reality? Solipsism here does not remove you from reality in any irregular way.

I do not err to propose that what I can’t sense exists to me in some backworld. But I recognise that I can change my REAL world to revisit an old sensory scene in my memory. So I avoid this error of induction that tends towards ideas that have messed up philosophy almost beyond repair, but only if taken seriously and for granted.

I do not err to propose that others are lying when they tell me they experience something different to me. I know precisely the words they say and can construct an imagined idea of their proposed sensory picture, but my reality will not take place in exactly the way they explain and never will or could. I sense this exact construction that I sense only in my own mind, but I know to interact with them, I must treat them in a certain way: in the same way that I must treat my body in a certain way for it to work like normal. This involves taking into account feelings, so I am not a sociopath.

The idea of treating people in this way is often seen as offensive, but only to the stubborn who appear to not be doing what I understand as applying the same thing to themselves and realising the exact same conclusion. Those who are buried in the problems of not-Solipsism are doomed to existentialist frustrations where they see the sense in Solipsism, but cannot reconcile them with the problems they have with being embedded in a false, contradictory mindset.

Therefore the Solipsist doesn’t fall into existentialist angst, they are not sociopathic, they are flexible, they are in touch with reality, they are honest and contrary to what the non-Solipsist might think, a Solipsist is MORE connected with others than the non-Solipsist. Others are not just objects and/or minds disconnected from them, but they are all incorporated into the same sensory picture with the supposed self’s apparent evidence of self identity. As such it is not ‘mine’ and ‘not-yours’ because they are each combined and the ‘self’ is all existence so has nothing to feign take possession away from.

Non-Solipsists error to assume that reports of different perspectives MUST match perfectly somehow so they create more backworlds and tell you they exist outside of existence. This assumption buries them in misunderstanding despite the intentions to free themselves from it!

As you might see, a Solipsist enjoys many benefits as well as the many avoidances of mistakes that enslave non-Solipsists. You are truly master of your own existence.

20

Thanks for the explanation.

I think we agree much more than we disagree.

My describing Solipsism as not being life-affirming was a little too black-and-white, as I was saying so in the context of one (predominately) considering oneself (basing one’s life from and thinking according to) Solipsism(t).

To clarify, I don’t think that an awareness of (the lack of a reasonable argument against) Solipsism is–even if regularly considered (before one has habituated it and apperceives accordingly in appropriate situations)–necessarily an opiate, (mostly) used to numb oneself when in turmoil (rather than used to better prevent/minimize unreasonable turmoil from happening).

However, I do think a lot of people…
(due to some combination of alienation, a need for ego-comfort through a sense of “intellectual” superiority–to rationalize why they feel out of place with others, a desire to stop caring about things that hurt them and/or simply a lack of fully understanding and integrating Solipsism into their natural/automatic/effortless “critical” worldview)
…try to use it as THE philosophy/worldview of their existence–an inarguable “ah, fuck it” to existence. Of course, they’re going to keep experiencing unpleasant emotions, which they try even harder to convince themselves don’t matter, and I think this often results in a major gap between one’s self concept (I don’t need/ I am not A B and C), and one’s actual being (of A B C).

I guess I would put it this way…
(hope you don’t mind the biblical reference, nor disregard what I say due to associating me with some fanatical christian–I don’t associate with any particular religious groups)
“The Kingdom of God is in you” (the world you see is in/of/you–“you”, the mind at a given moment, IS that subjective experience)
but Solipsism doesn’t provide any cements, wood, etc.
however, as a logical reminder (in terms of designing a sturdy castle),
it is extremely useful–and, in a multicultural, socially-complex society, probably necessary–for constructing a Kingdom that can handle the "bad"s (dangers of the all-important subjective-ease) of the world.