Solipsistic Existential Nihilism: Philosophy Time!

Some[pointless] background:


In short definition, Solipsism is the belief that I exist within my head, therefore nothing else exists in any manner other than the way I perceive it. Some take it to the absurd level of claiming that nothing else actually exists, but I don't. Existential Nihilism is the belief that life has no greater meaning outside of its own existence, no all-consuming value to be obtained upon one's death.

Do you agree on any level with these beliefs?

Bonus Points: is there any purpose to owning a philosophical title/label?

You know I found myself thinking about something just like this seriously once before about a year ago. I came to the conclusion that I did indeed believe that there was something more but I also rationalized my fear of death with me not wanting to be proven wrong in the end. In all manners, I don't agree with the Existential Nihilism.

However, my views on Solipsism differ greatly from my views stated above. I believe that everyone is in their own reality, and while one person sees something happen another might see it completely differently. It is all based on how we perceive what is happening around us at all times. So in short, I believe that we all see things differently and our reality is based on how we see it.

To answer the bonus question, as I said above having a title only has a purpose if you perceive that it does. One person may see it as just words while another may base their whole life around it. It is really just however you see anything that decides what amount of impact it has on you.

No. Because I only believe things that you can prove. Until you show me evidence that these beliefs may potentially be true I will treat them like the stuff I find in the toilet after I have Indian food.





No.

Solipsistic epistemology is mocked around the entire philosophical community as kindergarten philosophy. It's "I don't know I'm not a brain in a vat, so I might as well be!" It's nonsense in the highest degree.

Firstly, I'd like to point out that solipsism is necessarily dualistic. I did a topic about dualism a long time ago basically explaining the complete uselessness of the position, and the fact that lately, science has shown that presupposing dualism goes against just about everything we can conclude about reality. IT really only takes one question to demonstrate that dualism is stupid. And that's in a phrasing of the mind-body problem.

You have a mind.

And you have a body.

Your body reaches out and grabs a bottle. How did your mind interact with your body to do this?

Without presupposing an existential nonphysical mind, we can easily explain what the body might pick up a bottle...but making the presupposition adds the question of mechanism, and that is something that not only hasn't been answered, but people have TRIED to answer it(Including the famous Renee Descartes) and have failed utterly in their attempts.

Secondly, we can rationally come to the conclusion that there is an objective reality that our bodies are a part of partially based off of contingency. Our lives, and how we go about them is contingent upon the fact that we are living in a n objective world that is in no way controlled or imagined up by our minds. If this confuses you, simply think of it this way: "None of us are Neo...why?"

And thirdly another reason we can come to the conclusion of an outside world is through the fact of what the opposite would entail.

So say that your brain is imagining...EVERYTHING for just a moment. That means that your brain came up with every single concerto, every single opera, every single language, every single piece of scientific research that you've ever heard of, heard, or experienced in some way.

Conversely, by making the practical assumption that this is an objective world...it make a lot more sense. Your brain isn't the super mind that you think it is that came up with the most beautiful pieces of art in the world and the most intense mind bending phenomena observed in laboratories. It's simply a brain, in a vast universe, that is observing these things.

Do I think that life has an ultimate greater meaning not bestowed by the people who have the lives? No. Does that make my life any less meaningful? No. I don't call myself a nihilist because nihilists generally take an apathetic stance to issues because, "None of it matters in the long run anyways, we're all going to die out eventually and it won't mean anything."

As far as there being any bonus to having a philosophical label or title...what do you mean? I think it certainly behooves people who wish to be taken seriously to earn a doctorate, or at least some form of formal education in philosophy. IF you mean does it mean anything to come up with a word that sums you up? The only reason to ever do that is if you're writing a paper about a topic, and you don't feel like going in depth into your epistemology, so you just say, "I'm a rationalist." Or something like that, then dive into the topic at hand. Unless of course the topic is general epistemology, or leveling counter arguments against criticism of your position.

TL;DR, this topic is silly, solipsism is silly, nihilism is silly, and labels are sometimes silly.

It's clear we have different views on what solipsism is. I was referring to the belief that I cannot truly understand anything around me because I am merely interpreting it. It is undeniably there before me, and I can't manipulate it, but it is somewhat subjective in that what I see is influenced by my biases; also, the belief that because my mind is separate from yours, I can truly never understand what you believe, and vice-versa.

About solipsism, are you sure it's silly ? Aren't you the one being arrogant ? So you can't explain why it works like that so you'll just say your mind is separated from your body and your mind is so great that while not being anything physical, it can be attached some way or another to your body. Aren't you being silly ?
Maybe, maybe not. I may not be sure of many things, but as of right now I believe our mind or our soul or whatever hasn't been proven to have any mass am I right (even though we claim that they are apart) ? If so, it doesn't exist in the physical world, in which case I ask how to explain that we are attached to something totally apart from this world.

One of the thing philosophy wouldn't be able to exist with is the fact that we don't know everything and that there are things we can't explain. I believe it silly to call silly one's philosophy.



And now, "Do you agree on any level with these beliefs? "

I'm not sure if it counts but I believe it to be a possibility that in some way, Our brain could be like any machine we create, working like it's supposed to be when taken a good care of, and able to accept and record everything we live. in short, we're able to create things because we are ourselves things, but we can only produce things that are less intelligent than us.
That would mean we do exist in our brains and only in it, that would be coherent since all we do is, even in our minds, represented using our senses, the brain's way to receive information about what's around. We live by our five senses and none else (though I believe the Saint men of Athena had one).

Or not, that's what's horrible, it's not absolutely sure, yet it's what makes us able to think, reflect, meditate, ex-cogitate.
In a way, that answers to the bonus point, since we can't be sure, it would be better not to attribute ourselves ways of thinking. But exploring those ways of thinking is a good thing. You may prefer one way, but always consider the others ...(aha... It's just the first time I'm going to see that written seriously on an adult-oriented site's forum ^^)

Pretty sure.



This is not only my field of study, but philosophers in general tend to look down on epistemological solipsism. So if I'm arrogant for agreeing with people who know what they're talking about...ok?



That would be silly, but that's not what I think. I'm not a dualist. Solipsism is necessarily dualistic in nature.

My mind is my brain, that's my position, there's no difference between the two, and I've yet to see any reason to propose otherwise.



I don't claim that they're apart, for one, and for 2 I don't believe in a soul. The mind is simply a manifestation of consciousness and entience, which are by products of the evolved brain that humans have.



Again, I'm not a dualist. You're asking me to explain why dualism is correct when I'm not one. Did you even read my post?



We can know plenty of things to a practical certainty, this allows us to say that unless there's a huge paradigm shift in the way reality must be viewed, I can call those that view reality in the way epistemological solipsisits do, silly. It's never silly to call another philosophy silly, and to espouse that position is kind of postmodernish, which isn't valid, just annoying.

Okay. As I'm not a pro, since being silly doesn't exclude that there are good parts, I won't argue too much about what's what. Plus you do make sense.

I'm sorry for misinterpreting what you said, you're clearly not a dualist, and it was a huge mistake on my end.

To anyone who thinks I am frustrating to deal with...try debating a solipsist for 5 minutes.

These are people who accept the premise that nothing outside of their perception truly exists, that it is all simply a result of their mind's projection.

...Let me say that again: Reality, is only what you percieve, and nothing else outside of that exists. They believe...there's no world, outside their minds.

Now...I'm an existentialist. I believe there is an external world, that I have free will, that I create what I am in reference to other persons, etc. etc.

So as you might imagine, I might have some...differences with solipsists. But I want to know what you guys think.

Solipsism? Or no Solipsism?

For those advocating solipsism, I present the "Here's a Hand" argument.

1. I have a hand.
2. I have yet another hand.
3. These hands are parts of the external world.
4. There's an external world.

No? Oh how about this? Go kick a boulder.

I'm not a Solipsist (if thats the word) but i like this idea because of the fantastic side of it .

I don't really understand in what the hand argument proves that there is an external world ? (i'll read the here's a hand argument on wiki this evening when i come back from work)

So for your argument you say that because you kick a boulder , you feel pain from an object from the external world so it must mean that the external world exist ?

But i would counterargue saying that the brain is able create pain by itself without the exterior world so it might have created the boulder and the pain .

EDIT: I still don't see the logic in the "here's a hand" argument ?

1. I have a hand. (OK)
2. I have yet another hand. (OK)
3. These hands are parts of the external world. (What is the logical proof of that , having two hands doesn't mean there's an external world ?)
4. There's an external world. (since 3 is incorect , 4 also is .)

Our universe can be just simulation like matrix look at some interesting facts: assumed abillites of god, he could be programator who created our universe, our universe is made of small un-split-able particles like pixels, our universe has gravitation -> contraction of time and space (time is slowing near massive objects) thats like lags/loading in games. On small scale (quantum mechanics)we can observe really weird things. Some interesting links on this topic:

Double Slit Experiment Wiki

I don't really agree with the concept. If everything outside of my own perception doesn't exist, then there wouldn't be anything to perceive. That would also mean the people around me doesn't exist, but that obviously isn't true. If more than one person perceives the same thing, then that object must exist. Its common sense really.

The Schrödinger's cat's problem is a good exemple to explain how something doesn't exist but you can observe it and once you observe it , it comes in existence . (look it up on wiki if you don't know what it is)



No it's not common sense , in common sense , there is the word sense , and what you just said doesn't make sense .

You say that if 2 person perceive the same thing , then the object must exist . It is not a logical argument since my brain , from a solisism view point , have also created the other person who observe the object .

Well you didn't demonstrate 3 is incorrect. So you can't really say it IS incorrect.

the Here is a Hand argument was originated by G.E. Moore as a flippant response to the ultra skepticism of solipsistic nonsense in his book, "In defense of common sense." The point of it is that this is something we know better than any philosophical argument to the contrary. We have been given insufficient reason to doubt that our hands are parts of the outside world, and all arguments to the contrary seem obtuse, and unnecessary. This is a natural presumption that anyone makes, unnecessary to be justified until sufficient reason is given to doubt.

Kicking a boulder doesn't demonstrate the external world exists because of pain, it demonstrates the external world because it's a demonstration of physical laws, as well as something that the solipsist literally can't explain. Why is it that everything I do is contingent on physical laws, if reality could be nothing more than my mind's projection?

The possibility for a brain in a vat or virtual reality type theory of self doesn't modally render it probable or even equally likely as an external world.

First , thanks for explaining , it took me abouth 10 minutes to really understand since it's in english and it's harder for me to understand sometimes .

But i still don't understand though , it's not because something is a natural presumption that anyone makes (that's a sophism btw) and that there is nothing challenging this theory that you should not doubt it . My philosophy's teacher said this : 90% of what you know is false so you should always doubt everything you know . Isn't that itself a sufficent reason to doubt it ?

Schrodinger's theory is just that, a theory. If I were to believe it, I would also have to believe that you don't exist right now since I can't perceive you at this moment. However, if that were the case, no one would be able to have conversations over the internet because we can't perceive each other, because we don't exist outside of our scope of perception.

I don't see how my last statement wasn't common sense. If there really isn't an outer world, then why can't we control what we create? Why can't I perceive my mother to look skinny rather than obese? Why are the things we perceive so...immeditative?

I didn't try to convince you that the theory of solipsism is right , just explaining you the concept of it .



We could only be an observer created by our own mind .

I would see this as the subconcious , there is toughts that we are unaware that we have , if i'm unaware of those thoughts , then are they really mine ? Our conscious could be this observer and the subconscious our mind .

Well, the whole idea of solipsism is far fetched. The ecosystem goes on whether we perceive it or not. I think as long as matter resides within space and time, then it exists regardless of who is there to perceive it.

That's why the poll only have bullshit or fantastic and this is exacly why i love this idea of something so far fetched might be in fact possible .