Talk:Solipsism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
 C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Contents

[edit] Arts and Culture

The movies previously mentioned do not have solipsism themes in them. In fact, they are about the opposite, getting out of ones mind and accepting reality. 222.154.102.110 (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty understanding how "breaking out of solipsism into reality" is not a solipsistic theme. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Last consciousness?

Just so we're clear, the last consciousness in the universe WOULD be a solipsist, or rather, experience the universe solipsistically, right? (As opposed to the narrow-view "last man on earth" situation). And it wouldn't by any means be required to contemplate or understand the concept of "solipsism" (or even know that it was the only consciousness) for this to be correct? Or am I totally missing something here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.228.229 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Solipsism only indicates that an individual's (in my case, ME) mind if the only thing that exists. The last consciousness is also the first and the only consciousness, MY consciousness (or yours if you are the only mind that exists. Maybe you are.). Assuming a realist worldview in which external things actually exist physically, the last consciousness on earth would NOT be solipsistic unless the external reality didn't exist and was only a creation of his mind. But of course, his mind is only a creation of my mind ;).Voyaging (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Semiotics

In the "See Also" section at the bottom, might I suggest adding semiotics or Peirce? When I read about Berkeley and Radical Empiricism, I thought to myself, semiotics should probably be linked in here somehow. Not sure how or if I should do this, so I'll leave it up to the pros.

98.64.73.9 (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Tom in Florida

[edit] I've got a question on this

Maybe someone who knows a bit about this can tell me. Is solipsism like saying that one soul is reincarnated billions of times over to live over the lives of every human being in a predetermined order? That would mean every person you interact with is you. You're Abraham Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth. You're Hitler and the millions he killed. You're Jesus and the people who followed him. You're the hobo on the street corner and you're Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. I am you. You are me. I think I made my point here. If that's not solipsism, is that a written theory and if so what is it called? NERVUN (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC) I want to switch bodies with George W. Bush. --67.52.221.226 (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Solipsism means that a brain knows only its own changes. The brain experiences itself. Therefore, the brain only knows for sure that it alone exists. Everything, other than the brain and its changes, is only a supposition that the brain makes on the basis of its changes. This has nothing to do with souls or reincarnations. The notion that you describe is similar to the Hindu religion's doctrine of "tvat twam asi" (you are that). According to this doctrine, everything is basically, fundamentally, essentially one and the same. All differences are only apparent or illusions. Monistic philosophies like those of Parmenides, Spinoza, and Schopenhauer are based on this notion of oneness.Lestrade (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Lestrade
I agree with what you're saying but there's philosophical skepticism and then there's solipsism. The latter isn't merely agnostic about those suppositions; it draws the conclusion that only the solipcist exists. No doubt that takes a lot of rationalization and I suppose enlisting this view of reincarnation (in just such a way) might be one's example? It's hard to generalize about the solipcist's perspective without begging the question.—Machine Elf 1735 09:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

With regard to solipsism, the question is, "what is immediately or directly known by the brain and what is mediately or indirectly known?" Only the brain's own changes are immediately or directly known. Everything else is known only mediately or indirectly. Therefore, only [solus] the brain itself [ipse] is known, by the brain, to exist and have real actuality. Everything else only seems or appears to really exist.Lestrade (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export