Solipsim and Isolation

[cacian]

Are they related or disjointed because together the mean nothing.
The idea that one only exists because of one's mind is will self.
Isolation is will self. It stops there.
Solipsim is mind and therefore implores thinking processes which could only derive from revelations of other and not the rejection of them.

[russellb]

Solipsism need not imply the sense of isolation. My mind and its ideas may objectively be all that exists but i may have the wonderful sense of being connected to 'others' (who are really just ideas in my mind). Nor does isolation imply solipsism. A deeply schizoid and disconnected mind may live in a world full of other minds...

[cacian]

Hi russellb and thank you for posting.
You mention the sense of being connected to 'others'. Are you by any change talking telepathy?

Nor does isolation imply solipsism. A deeply schizoid and disconnected mind may live in a world full of other minds...
I am now worried about the idea that someone's mind can live in other 'things' with minds.
I only a mind and that is the human one.

If you separate does not mean you isolate. You separate to create a third another.

which brings me to this through Descartes or Cartesian circle:

Many commentators, both at the time that Descartes wrote and since, have argued that this involves a circular argument, as he relies upon the principle of clarity and distinctness to argue for the existence of God, and then claims that God is the guarantor of his clear and distinct ideas. The first person to raise this criticism was Antoine Arnauld, in the "Fourth Set of Objections" to the Meditations:


"you are not yet certain of the existence of God, and you say that you are not certain of anything. It follows from this that you do not yet clearly and distinctly know that you are a thinking thing, since, on your own admission, that knowledge depends on the clear knowledge of an existing God; and this you have not proved in the passage where you draw the conclusion that you clearly know what you are." (AT VII 124–125)

Descartes' own response to this criticism, in his "Author's Replies to the Second Set of Objections", is first to give what has become known as the Memory response;[citation needed] he points out that in the fifth Meditation (at AT VII 69–70) he did not say that he needed God to guarantee the truth of his clear and distinct ideas, only to guarantee his memory:


"when I said that we can know nothing for certain until we are aware that God exists, I expressly declared that I was speaking only of knowledge of those conclusions which can be recalled when we are no longer attending to the arguments by means of which we deduced them." (AT VII 140)


This is interesting because it places certainty and existentialism with god. I only exist if I can prove god exists.
Well whilst one cannot prove the existence of god one can prove one own shape or metaphysic the shape of things in which they fit. Without a given a shape nothing is. The shape of the earth as indicated is roundish.
Anything after is shape.
And so whilst one cannot guarantee memory one can guarantee its image.

So to separate is to recreate the prior shape without it separatism cannot be.

[Myshk1n]

Just like Kierkegaard did some time ago, you have realized that most of Descarte's arguments are either circular or tautological. He never got any proof of his own existence. Noone has been able to do so. So if you need to assume everything, what is the use of stopping at "I exist"?

[cacian]

Just like Kierkegaard did some time ago, you have realized that most of Descarte's arguments are either circular or tautological. He never got any proof of his own existence. Noone has been able to do so. So if you need to assume everything, what is the use of stopping at "I exist"?

Hi Myshk1n the fact that Descarte's argument is circular proves that he has underseen an important and the idea of the circle which is a shape.
Let call a static organism. Any shape is.
One cannot ''exist'' concept relying on other presuppositions that are or that aren't.
Let's say if the sun was not around then we won't be. That is a confirmation and not presupposition.
The opposite makes sense. The sun is then I am.
In other words I exist in reference to other things around me.
It is not about God it is about what you see around you. The minute you see something sky sun stars then in my eyes you exist.
The other thing is that we have our shadows that is the shape that tell us we do exist. We reflect in the sun because we can our shape then by definition we do exist.
I do not equate myself with what I do not see because that is like saying let's turn the lights off and try and read. It is pointless.
I exist because I can see and confirm that without these things life could not be and with them then I am.

[Myshk1n]

I exist because I can see and confirm that without these things life could not be and with them then I am.

You suppose that you exist because you think that you have the perception of perceiving, and you conclude that has to confirm something. I guess anything else is mere speculation.

[cacian]

You suppose that you exist because you think that you have the perception of perceiving, and you conclude that has to confirm something. I guess anything else is mere speculation.

Perception of thing as in reference to the solar system for example.
I may not know I exist but I exist even less if the solar system was not around on planet earth.
This is as good as it gets.
Existence is partial to the unknown because it does not see it or it could not.
The same with a living organism a bacteria it does not see me and therefore it existence is not confirmed. I see it and it sees me. It has it makes sense. Mathematically you add one to one you get two. You take one out of one you get nothing.

I see the sun and the sun gives me light I exist in relation to the outside environment and how it affects me. I cease to exist when the sun is no longer. That is the only confirmation on get from one's existence . It is a perfect combination where by I add me and light and I exist and light takes out and I don't exist.
It is also in alliance with maths.
That is as far as it gets.
Anyway that is I interpret it.

[russellb]

Solipsism is philosophy gone mad. Taken seriously it abolishes ethics. Anything is permissible because only i exist. Did i abuse you? sorry, you're just an idea in my mind. Or what? Do ideas in my mind have rights? Can it be repudiated? It is not true, phenomenologically, because i experience you, as an independent mind, experiencing me. Logic can be made to contradict experience? Consistency is not the only virtue then...