The Art Of Solipsism A new, fresh look at a concept that has been long ago rejected and forgotten.
Natural409
Understanding the Solipsist Viewpoint
Solipsism has been defined as the theory that only the self exists.
If �only the self existed� were true, one would be relegated to a
world of one's own making; yet, there are many occurrences, surprises,
and mysteries in one's life. Since the origin of these anomalies does
not appear to be from inside us, they must be from outside us. The
general conclusion is that we are entities existing within an
�outside� which is vibrant, existent, and ever present. In the
traditional sense, the solipsist would believe that when they close
their eyes, the universe disappears; but, in the broader sense of the
solipsist viewpoint, it is important to recognize that 'for you' the
universe does disappear, and 'for you' that is important in assessing
one's thinking.
The "solipsist viewpoint" is everyone's viewpoint. It is the viewpoint
of singular, unobstructed, direct experience in the broadest sense of
the word. It is an idiosyncratic, dynamic presentation of
consciousness representing one's existence itself. The idea that that
which is inside one's self, including all things inside that represent
things outside, can only be "proven" to one's self by one's self may
seem a tautology, but is exemplified by "I think, there fore I am".
All the rest of philosophy must start here, if one can reach this
space in one's mentality.
As an intellectual doctrine, the way most people have come to
understand it, solipsism is immediately dismissed with no value except
perhaps in historical terms. However as an exposition of pure
subjectivism, the entirety of one's experience as seen totally from
one's subjective point of view divorced from everything else, it has
enormous analytical value to the extent that materialism represents
the exposition of the pure objective viewpoint. In this presentation
we will recognize the objective, other things and people, only to the
extent that the subjective perceives them. I want it to be clear that
one reason that analysis in the solipsist viewpoint is important is as
a limiting extreme in opposition to materialism, out there, where most
people normally function.
In the case of solipsism all subjective and objective knowledge is
considered a manifestation of, and subject to, the analysis of the
cognitive individual. Conversely, in the case of extreme materialism,
all subjective and objective circumstances are considered
manifestations of objective circumstances apart the individual. In
other words, in analyzing the solipsist viewpoint, all considerations
only lie within the cognitive individual - the one cognizant of the
circumstances. It is only through processes of deductive inference
that one can discover the actual analysis of their perceptions.
To start this process we can refer to a definition of what we perceive
as the objective as the "non-subjective". We do this because it's
certainly true that the origin of most non-subjective circumstances
lie outside us, but that's really only because the bulk of objectively
definable circumstances do, and not because the non-subjective (that
which has been perceived as objective) requires, or precludes, such a
thing out of necessity. The great barrier to this analytical attempt
is that all experience, including that which is labeled as
non-subjective, is contained and analyzed within our subjective
selves. So, we can't expect to totally vitiate the solipsist viewpoint
and emerge into an absolute realistic, non-subjective world; even
though, approaching this state of mind is ultimately the value of the
solipsist investigation.
In relation to solipsist viewpoint, all experience might be broken
down into that which is controlled (things one does) and that which is
not controlled (things that happen to us). Further, these categories
might be subdivided into that which is considered inside or
"subjective", and that which is considered outside or
"non-subjective". This results in four categories:
1) subjective-controlled, 2) subjective-not controlled,
3) non-subjective-controlled, and 4) non-subjective-not controlled.
It is interesting to bring forth concepts and ideas to try to sort
them in these categories.
Even if we are sentient beings in an objective environment, everyone,
whether one admits it or not, still verifies their knowledge primarily
on their personal experience with those sources which are subjectively
judged as authoritative. This is how we learn from reading, for
instance. Any of the following statements could be considered absurd,
or not, as judged by the individual�s perception of the authoritative
nature of their source: "the universe is controlled by many
intelligent, supernatural beings" (the polytheist), "the universe was
designed and created by one intelligent, unseen being" (the
monotheist), "the universe and all laws of nature sprang from a
singularity" (the big bang theorist), "water springs from nothing in
an explosion" (that might be absurd unless you were a chemist). As we
approach information closer to our own experience: "all life needs
water", "to be alive, one must be breathing", or especially "when I am
happy, I smile", we become more convinced of it's veracity. And yet,
conversely, it is the veracity of one's experience that is challenged
whenever one questions from the solipsist viewpoint.
Since the introduction of the scientific method with its observational
repeatability, reliability, and consistency, and its media of
interaction and sharing among mind/brains, one can be lulled into a
comfortable position of imagining that everything, with the exception
of just a few concepts, is already worked out. However, one will find
that where one draws the analytical line between these subjective and
the non-subjective categories is still another question. An important
aspect of the solipsist inquiry is the individual's assessment of the
nature and origin of their operating/behavioral precepts. These can be
broken down through deconstruction, or skepticism, of the
authoritative value placed on the sources, or origins, of one's own
ideology.
The category of origins is often determined by
1) someone "out there" who has guided one's life, either on an
involuntary basis, due to their authority, or a voluntarily basis, due
to one's respect for their authority, 2) one's own understanding and
acceptance through some education of what has been perceived to be
true of both subjective and non-subjective nature,
3) the determination and comparison of one's present precepts with
what one has accepted to be true in the past (In point of fact, in #3,
one often has no immediate way to decide where, exactly, the origins
can and do lie, how important they are, and what recourse does one
have if one dismisses them. This effort described in #3 can be
exceedingly traumatic and life altering), or
4) one's own conclusions, either true or erroneous, based on direct
experience, and the resulting logical inferences.
Unless one considers the solipsist viewpoint seriously, one may not
even comprehend that there is such a viewpoint. I realize this may
seem like a rather fine distinction. However it's important to grasp
that inter-human discrepancies regarding this viewpoint have been
completely misunderstood throughout history and have led to all kinds
of pernicious conflicts and misinterpretations. When we extend beyond
our direct experience, there is danger of mythology that sets people
against each other. As long as these diverse analytical
misunderstandings are apparently required for the human condition, the
pernicious conflicts and misinterpretations are, unfortunately, bound
to continue.
What I'm saying, here, is that those things which are perceived as
non-subjective do not have to be objective for that reason. It is
possible for something subjective to be misinterpreted as
non-subjective. When addressing things from the solipsist viewpoint,
one might think that they are non-subjective things because they have
or can have objective perceptions according to their circumstances.
However, it is also true that they may not actually represent what one
might otherwise think. The issue of solipsist analysis is whether they
are what we think them to be.. or whether or not they are something
else.
Once precepts are determined as questionably absurd, it should be
noted, they need not be deleted, for one might find these ideas to be
a pillar of one's cognitive construction or a door to something later
to be determined as true. The first step is to merely identify and
label them for future consideration.
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
Realistic Idealism
Philosophy based on evidence.