is the world as you see it really the only way things are?

SteveB

Well-known member
There's an idea in psychology, which also has a development of thought in philosophy known as solipsism.
From Mirriam Webster
: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing also : extreme egocentrism





Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds​


Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that “I am the only mind which exists,” or “My mental states are the only mental states.” However, the sole survivor of a nuclear holocaust might truly come to believe in either of these propositions without thereby being a solipsist. Solipsism is therefore more properly regarded as the doctrine that, in principle, “existence” means for me my existence and that of my mental states. Existence is everything that I experience — physical objects, other people, events and processes — anything that would commonly be regarded as a constituent of the space and time in which I coexist with others and is necessarily construed by me as part of the content of my consciousness. For the solipsist, it is not merely the case that he believes that his thoughts, experiences, and emotions are, as a matter of contingent fact, the only thoughts, experiences, and emotions. Rather, the solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could be thoughts, experiences, and emotions other than his own. In short, the true solipsist understands the word “pain,” for example, to mean “my pain.” He cannot accordingly conceive how this word is to be applied in any sense other than this exclusively egocentric one.

I think a perfect example of solipsism here on this forum is the inability of atheists to realize that others have a worldview which differs from theirs, and that our way of observing reality has absolutely nothing to do with them, or their views.....
Thus, their most commonly used phrase is-- strawmanning-- to accuse the other person of misrepresenting them.
Where I come from, this is a form of solipsism, which means that there can be no other views, than that of the atheist mindset.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
So you don't understand solipsism or atheism.

Solipsism is the view that one's own mental experience is all that exists, i.e. it is a denial of both the external world and of other minds. It has nothing to do with intolerance of different mindsets.

Atheism is the absence of belief in any god, and also has nothing to do with intolerance of different mindsets.

You are regularly accused of strawmanning because that is what you do. You are of course free to have your own opinions, but that does not entitle you to make blatantly false claims about what others have said to you.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
So you don't understand solipsism or atheism.

Solipsism is the view that one's own mental experience is all that exists, i.e. it is a denial of both the external world and of other minds. It has nothing to do with intolerance of different mindsets.

Atheism is the absence of belief in any god, and also has nothing to do with intolerance of different mindsets.

You are regularly accused of strawmanning because that is what you do. You are of course free to have your own opinions, but that does not entitle you to make blatantly false claims about what others have said to you.
But in the Final analysis, Since there IS a God, and He DOES have specific requirements for humans, then what "Atheists"/"Agnostics"/whomever think, believe, or strongly support, doesn't mean SPIT. The "Wisdom of FOOLS" is unimportant.
 

e v e

Super Member
There's an idea in psychology, which also has a development of thought in philosophy known as solipsism.
From Mirriam Webster
: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing also : extreme egocentrism





Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds​


Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that “I am the only mind which exists,” or “My mental states are the only mental states.” However, the sole survivor of a nuclear holocaust might truly come to believe in either of these propositions without thereby being a solipsist. Solipsism is therefore more properly regarded as the doctrine that, in principle, “existence” means for me my existence and that of my mental states. Existence is everything that I experience — physical objects, other people, events and processes — anything that would commonly be regarded as a constituent of the space and time in which I coexist with others and is necessarily construed by me as part of the content of my consciousness. For the solipsist, it is not merely the case that he believes that his thoughts, experiences, and emotions are, as a matter of contingent fact, the only thoughts, experiences, and emotions. Rather, the solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could be thoughts, experiences, and emotions other than his own. In short, the true solipsist understands the word “pain,” for example, to mean “my pain.” He cannot accordingly conceive how this word is to be applied in any sense other than this exclusively egocentric one.

I think a perfect example of solipsism here on this forum is the inability of atheists to realize that others have a worldview which differs from theirs, and that our way of observing reality has absolutely nothing to do with them, or their views.....
Thus, their most commonly used phrase is-- strawmanning-- to accuse the other person of misrepresenting them.
Where I come from, this is a form of solipsism, which means that there can be no other views, than that of the atheist mindset.
the "I" or carnal self is like that...but sad, most people equate the "I" or self to the soul, though it's not the same thing.

the self gives the soul her reality..or else God does.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
There's an idea in psychology, which also has a development of thought in philosophy known as solipsism.
From Mirriam Webster
: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing also : extreme egocentrism





Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds​


Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that “I am the only mind which exists,” or “My mental states are the only mental states.” However, the sole survivor of a nuclear holocaust might truly come to believe in either of these propositions without thereby being a solipsist. Solipsism is therefore more properly regarded as the doctrine that, in principle, “existence” means for me my existence and that of my mental states. Existence is everything that I experience — physical objects, other people, events and processes — anything that would commonly be regarded as a constituent of the space and time in which I coexist with others and is necessarily construed by me as part of the content of my consciousness. For the solipsist, it is not merely the case that he believes that his thoughts, experiences, and emotions are, as a matter of contingent fact, the only thoughts, experiences, and emotions. Rather, the solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could be thoughts, experiences, and emotions other than his own. In short, the true solipsist understands the word “pain,” for example, to mean “my pain.” He cannot accordingly conceive how this word is to be applied in any sense other than this exclusively egocentric one.

I think a perfect example of solipsism here on this forum is the inability of atheists to realize that others have a worldview which differs from theirs, and that our way of observing reality has absolutely nothing to do with them, or their views.....
Thus, their most commonly used phrase is-- strawmanning-- to accuse the other person of misrepresenting them.
Where I come from, this is a form of solipsism, which means that there can be no other views, than that of the atheist mindset.
I've never seen such a poor understanding of what solipism is.

I'd say I've never seen such a poor understanding of what atheism is, too, except on this forum I've seen some very poor understandings indeed of what atheism.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
I've never seen such a poor understanding of what solipism is.

I'd say I've never seen such a poor understanding of what atheism is, too, except on this forum I've seen some very poor understandings indeed of what atheism.
Yeah, it's just Steve looking for a new way of blaming anyone but himself for his inability to respond to others without misrepresenting them.
 

e v e

Super Member
My two cents for what it is worth, on the topic of the OP.
every soul suffers from this quoted article topic, and is in the Self, the ego-mind.
That is called the natural mind by science and it obeys survival of the fittest and lives for its own needs and wants.

Not just 'atheists' but almost every one IS in the Self, which is the natural mind of the 5 senses. The natural mind never sees anything outside of itself and tries to even fit God to its natural (this world) way of seeing things.

Most christianity doesn't even recognize that the Self IS the natural mind, and that the mind is not the soul...so many
christians live in the same Self an atheist does. (I don't like to use the term, atheist since, for me I think of the enlightenment period, and the term meant different things then. ) Most people then, live in the natural mind or SELF, be they christian or not, and skipping the term atheist, since it isn't relevant to solipsism, the op topic.

In the OT, the soul was defined as npsh, which is a soul, but also at the same time, a living being, the entire being then, not a body or a spirit, but the soul as the entirety of a being.

The term psuche in greek is just the mental side, because to the greeks who hated the body (compare to gnostics) the mind was the only highest value. See Phaedo dialogue for this exposition. The mind is the same Self I described above, but, having conquered it's earthliness it becomes what plato describes. And this is how augustine, and many church fathers defined the soul as well, following upon their greek mentors, who they revered and placed even above God.

The problem is that the Greek view of the body, only includes this type of body, and did not consider that God's Eden does not refer to this type of body at creation. Example, Christ's resurrection body is the type of body adam received in Genesis. What I just wrote is considered a heresy. Christians will argue here that the body adam received is the one they have. Nope. Greeks hated the body and only valued the mind (soul). The mind had no materiality to it.

So the strict dualism of the greeks, of body and mind, was transmitted to the medieval christian theologians, who revered the greeks. The medievals took the greek understanding of the soul, which they saw as a pure spirit, without body, and glued that to their concept of a soul God made (in genesis, in eden). But the language terms are NOT interchangeable.

The soul of the greeks, as they viewed it, has no body. It's disembodied. A mind.

And indeed MUST be solipsistic. and for the Pagan mindset IS solipsistic.

Yet, I see on this forum constantly, many christians think that the mind is the soul, or that the mind is superior to the soul, and due to this medieval mess passed on into the modern christian view, have accepted psuche as a synonym to the term soul as if when scripture refers to the soul, it meant psuche. NOT.

The precedent is in the OT. Not the Greek form.

To be in the ego is basically a simple way to describe solipsism. No? An ego. The Self, revolving upon own reflections.

And that ego is exactly what keeps any soul from ever meeting God.

Paul discusses 'dying to the Self' in Corinthians. Because that is the only way to meet God.

That ego is perfectly glued to most christians, who cannot distinguish the mind from soul and who think that the mind can understand God.
The mind can never understand God unless directed by the soul God created which is listening to God.

The soul understands by archetypes and images and by what she 'sees' inside.
The mind only understands causal structures such as either or logic and what can be seen by the five senses.

The natural mind and the soul do not 'see' the same way. In fact, the natural mind rejects anything beyond the 5 senses. (Compare Dr. Quantum flatland vid.)

The natural mind can only understand the structures of the natural world, ie this current earth which is a globe and circles the sun and exists in the solar plane / system and which DOES have evolution.

But that is not the creation God made in Genesis. and Genesis events of scripture, take place in the other world, not this solar plane. Eden was never upon this earth.

modern conceptions of what early christians understood are just OFF and are corrupted by the long period of time during which theology incorporated Greek forms, and developed into the christian view often seen today.
 
Last edited:

e v e

Super Member
^^^ The above situation carries over into many other christian topics and causing further misinterpretations.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
I've never seen such a poor understanding of what solipism is.

I'd say I've never seen such a poor understanding of what atheism is, too, except on this forum I've seen some very poor understandings indeed of what atheism.
Atheism is so poorly understood because atheists resent answering probative questions which don't agree with the pre-approved list, nobody but atheists know about.
So, the fact you don't understand solipsism isn't really a problem for me either.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Atheism is so poorly understood because atheists resent answering probative questions which don't agree with the pre-approved list, nobody but atheists know about.
So, the fact you don't understand solipsism isn't really a problem for me either.
Atheism and solipsism are poorly understood by you because you don't listen or take the time to learn.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Atheism is so poorly understood because atheists resent answering probative questions which don't agree with the pre-approved list, nobody but atheists know about.
Blatantly and obviously false. Atheism is poorly understood by SOME because they have no interest whatsoever in learning about it; they just want to attack it and atheism.

There is no "pre-approved list", nor can you find any question that atheists "resent" answering.
So, the fact you don't understand solipsism isn't really a problem for me either.
The fact that you baselessly imagine that I don't understand solipism isn't a problem for me at all.
 

Komodo

Active member
There's an idea in psychology, which also has a development of thought in philosophy known as solipsism.
From Mirriam Webster
: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing also : extreme egocentrism





Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds​


Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that “I am the only mind which exists,” or “My mental states are the only mental states.” However, the sole survivor of a nuclear holocaust might truly come to believe in either of these propositions without thereby being a solipsist. Solipsism is therefore more properly regarded as the doctrine that, in principle, “existence” means for me my existence and that of my mental states. Existence is everything that I experience — physical objects, other people, events and processes — anything that would commonly be regarded as a constituent of the space and time in which I coexist with others and is necessarily construed by me as part of the content of my consciousness. For the solipsist, it is not merely the case that he believes that his thoughts, experiences, and emotions are, as a matter of contingent fact, the only thoughts, experiences, and emotions. Rather, the solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could be thoughts, experiences, and emotions other than his own. In short, the true solipsist understands the word “pain,” for example, to mean “my pain.” He cannot accordingly conceive how this word is to be applied in any sense other than this exclusively egocentric one.

I think a perfect example of solipsism here on this forum is the inability of atheists to realize that others have a worldview which differs from theirs, and that our way of observing reality has absolutely nothing to do with them, or their views.....
Thus, their most commonly used phrase is-- strawmanning-- to accuse the other person of misrepresenting them.
Where I come from, this is a form of solipsism, which means that there can be no other views, than that of the atheist mindset.
If you accuse "the other person" of misrepresenting you, you are acknowledging the existence of "other persons." But according to the passage you are quoting, a solipsist does not and cannot do that; he does not believe "that there could be thoughts, experiences, and emotions... other than his own." If there are no thoughts, experiences and emotions other than his own, then there are no persons other than himself, since to be a person is to have thoughts, experiences and emotions. So it makes no sense to say that accusing "other people" (even falsely!) of strawmanning is "a form of solipsism."

Now it's possible you are just using the word "solipsism" in its second dictionary sense: "extreme egotism." A "solipsist" in this sense would acknowledge other people's thoughts, but act as if only his own thoughts have any value. Is this what you're doing here? If so, why did you bother quoting at length from the passage that used "solipsism" in the first dictionary sense, a denial of other people and their thoughts?

Moreover, there's no reason why the particular accusation, "you are strawmanning," counts as evidence of such egotism. If an extreme egotist is determined to disparage other people's thoughts, wouldn't they be more likely to say "you're ignorant" or "you have no Discernment" rather than "you're strawmanning"? An accusation of "strawmanning" is much narrower; it just means "in this case, you have misrepresented me," not "you are incapable of understanding me."

So I have to wonder how the people "where [you] come from" managed to come up with such odd ideas.
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Well-known member
Atheism is so poorly understood because atheists resent answering probative questions which don't agree with the pre-approved list, nobody but atheists know about.
So, the fact you don't understand solipsism isn't really a problem for me either.
How much effort does it really take to understand "there is no god"? That is literally all there is to atheism. If you think that that is poorly understood, that just reflects your own ability to comprehend.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
There's an idea in psychology, which also has a development of thought in philosophy known as solipsism.
From Mirriam Webster
: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing also : extreme egocentrism





Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds​


Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that “I am the only mind which exists,” or “My mental states are the only mental states.” However, the sole survivor of a nuclear holocaust might truly come to believe in either of these propositions without thereby being a solipsist. Solipsism is therefore more properly regarded as the doctrine that, in principle, “existence” means for me my existence and that of my mental states. Existence is everything that I experience — physical objects, other people, events and processes — anything that would commonly be regarded as a constituent of the space and time in which I coexist with others and is necessarily construed by me as part of the content of my consciousness. For the solipsist, it is not merely the case that he believes that his thoughts, experiences, and emotions are, as a matter of contingent fact, the only thoughts, experiences, and emotions. Rather, the solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could be thoughts, experiences, and emotions other than his own. In short, the true solipsist understands the word “pain,” for example, to mean “my pain.” He cannot accordingly conceive how this word is to be applied in any sense other than this exclusively egocentric one.

I think a perfect example of solipsism here on this forum is the inability of atheists to realize that others have a worldview which differs from theirs, and that our way of observing reality has absolutely nothing to do with them, or their views.....
Thus, their most commonly used phrase is-- strawmanning-- to accuse the other person of misrepresenting them.
Where I come from, this is a form of solipsism, which means that there can be no other views, than that of the atheist mindset.
You have a gift for getting everything wrong.
Solipsism is the trick creationists use to try to get non-creationists to deny observable reality.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
Atheism is so poorly understood because atheists resent answering probative questions which don't agree with the pre-approved list, nobody but atheists know about.
So, the fact you don't understand solipsism isn't really a problem for me either.
This is a pile of lies.
Atheism is well understood by everyone who does not force themselves to not understand. No atheist has ever resented "probative" questions. Nor does any atheist have a "pre-approved list".
The fact that we all understand solipsism, and recognize it as the dishonest tactic that it is.... is a serious problem for you.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
This is a pile of lies.
Atheism is well understood by everyone who does not force themselves to not understand. No atheist has ever resented "probative" questions. Nor does any atheist have a "pre-approved list".
The fact that we all understand solipsism, and recognize it as the dishonest tactic that it is.... is a serious problem for you.
I'm not the one who is constantly seeking to justify ignorance of the whole of reality, when it's so readily able to be learned.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
I'm not the one who is constantly seeking to justify ignorance of the whole of reality, when it's so readily able to be learned.
You are the one trying to pretend that someone else is though.
Alas for you, the strawman you create is far too obvious. Nobody buys it.
 
Top