Thesis: Solipsism

Thesis: Solipsism is the Natural State of All Conscious Life

The reasoning is very simple here.

  1. All lifeforms inherently are selfish (example, human infants).
  2. All lifeforms presume themselves the center of existence (example, Earth is at the center of the universe).
  3. Very few human males escape this inward-pointed thinking (very, very rare philosophers).

I think that maybe 1 or 2 men “escape” solipsism from one millennium to the next and become truly “objective” thinkers. I think this occurrence is anomalous, perhaps occurring in 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 births or something like that. The reason for this anomaly, I believe, is due to some sort of recessive gene allineation. But there are degrees to “objectivity”. My thesis is that some men come closer to others to “the edge of knowledge”. The average would form as a bell curve. At any given time, there are a handful of living “Philosophers/Thinkers” as we call them, that approach such singularity. Out of these, say, 100 “philosophers”, one of those eventually stumbles upon some great “discovery” such as Aristotle’s Metaphysics or Newton’s Physics and Mechanics of Motion.

The indelible causes of such men, are genetic in nature, akin to ‘winning’ some astral jackpot.

All that said, people who approach (but do not break) the bounds of Solipsism, most definitely would encounter such experiences in life akin to “astral projection”. Some of these can become induced by drugs, but, should not become mistaken for the “natural state” of the philosophical mind. The philosopher who does in fact break the barrier of solipsism, literally and actually can “see the future” or even “himself” at a distance, as these are physical characteristics and attributes of the mind.

People often mistake such experiences as “visions” and such people as “seers”.

But, there is no “secret” about it, nothing “supernatural” or beyond physical. Nothing magical. It merely is within the capacity of a mind such as this, to see the world unlike any other. People are caught-up in their beliefs (delusions). They cannot escape them. They would not escape them even if they realized their ensnarement. The truth is “Ignorance is bliss” for them. Belief in God, Delusion in God, Delusions of Grandeur, these are all symptoms of such solipsism. When your common person (or any person really) becomes confronted with “the truth” or “objective facts”, then they usually turn their ears, eyes, and mind “off”. They are not listening. Again, there are even biological/genetic causes and explanations for that too!

The advantage of the “Objectivist” is a great ability, to see what other people see, and to believe what other belief, without necessarily doing so yourself. It would be like “mind reading”. In fact, the very possibility of such an ability automatically explains such a social phenomenon as differences in Intelligence Quotients. I presume that, the more “objective minded” a person is, the “higher IQ” he is tested to ascribe toward. But, such tests are written backward. They presume the error (that people are capable of objectivity) when the anomaly does not define the rule! Therefore, standard tests of intelligence (and judgment) both inaccurately are written for the “highest high”, the “top perspective”, and everybody is suppose to fall under that.

It is an unrealistic measure of intelligence.

Instead, the presumption should fall in line with the average: people are solipsistic en masse, and they are comfortable about this/their “reality”.

They are also not looking for ‘Truth’ (as philosophical truth), but rather, battling every measure of debate and ideology toward a Pleasure Principle. It is not a standard, objectivity, or principle that defines their (intellectual) behavior, but rather, the pleasurable feeling they get from justifying their actions (to themselves). Thus, even a vast majority of “philosophers” themselves (sophists) are guilty of the same mistake and fallibility. They subscribe to feeling and intuition, not intellect and reason.

The main reason why people cannot get “around” this fact, encompass it, or even pinpoint its general direction, is due to the highly misinterpreting nature of “common language”. Formed upon limited concepts (often solipsistic by design), people direct their language inward in addition to their thoughts. This creates a dual disadvantage for any common thinker.

Not only are they thinking things backward…

But they are speaking and justifying things backward as well…

This reasoning also explains the nature of False Premises, and why many people do not understand the devastating logic behind failed premises.

Any good ‘thought’ or ‘thinking’ depends upon a solid foundation of judgment; one that necessitates a strict and very rigid conceptual design (metaphysic).

Example added:

is this a bell shaped statistic too? :smiley:

God bless

-hth

I have no need to answer your questions until you answer mine.

You are trolling now. [-X

Move along, this thread is for serious inquiry only. :arrow_right:

would you mind explaining your take on that quote of mine you have up there? what do you think i mean by it, and what do you think about what you think i mean?

I’m glad you reminded me.

That example is given because it perfectly demonstrates Christian Solipsism.

That guy “phenomenal_graffiti” posits the existence of all ‘Otherness’ in the category of ‘God’. This is how neurotic and delusional Christians posit the existence of other people. They do not feel that other people exist or “have identity” (not coincidentally, HTH dodged my questions about that very statement). So, the Christian mind is one compelled by Solipsism, to doubt the existence and identity of other people and/or consciousness in general.

For them, the answer is obvious as it is simple: “All is God, We are all part of God Mind.”

There is no need for such minds to “go beyond” that statement, as it marks the end of their knowledge, and the beginning of their Solipsism.

Furthermore, the only “answer” to this is Doubt. But, it is a category that Christians absolutely refuse (in public) to doubt. They may doubt it (Him, Thy Lord) in private, and pray for forgiveness for Doubting Him, but to admit it in public, on a philosophy board of all places, immediately signifies their mental, emotional, and spiritual weaknesses.

Believers more often than not, are deluded. They either cannot or will not doubt themselves. Hence, Solipsism.

To phenomenal_graffiti, you (Humpty) and I, we literally exist in an “alternate universe” than him. I would define this as “insanity”.

ah, interesting theory. the idea of God is a modified form of solipsism.

what did you think about my response, though? that the proposition that there are no other minds requires more wild assumptions than the proposition that there are?

I think you’re right.

It seems to require much more postulation to deny the consciousness of another, while simultaneously purporting self-consciousness AND God, together.

That seems ludicrous to me.

What did I spend three posts admonishing Old Gobbo for in your defense in a thread in Social Sciences?

A.) Accusing you of trolling.

B.) Accusing you of trolling.

or

C.) Accusing you of trolling.

You’re issued your first Board Warning.

Your third post in this thread also border-lines ad hom on more than one occasion, since it’s border-line I’m giving you a pass, but don’t expect to be granted such passes in the future.

I didn’t realize HTH was serious. I will just presume people are always serious so that I don’t make the same mistake twice.

Mind quoting this “ad hom”? How can I learn from my mistakes if I don’t know what they are? :-k

By implication.

Clear and present.

It seems being a “solipsist” is an insult then, even though as I admitted, 99.9% of humanity is solipsistic (including me) and almost never do people break free from it.

Hmm. :open_mouth:

Basically, if you ask somebody “do other people exist” and they don’t answer, or don’t know, then it’s a safe bet they are solipsistic.

God, also, is a position of “We are all God Mind, One consciousness”. A beehive mentality, devoid of ‘individuality’ or differentiation.