Pantheistic Solipsism?

Does anyone have any information on pantheistic solipsism? I've run searches but only gotten the same Wikipedia explanation over and over again.

I'd really appreciate any information that could be given. Also, feel free to discuss and give your thoughts on it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In terms of pure philosophy, the term should mean the affirmation that God and the universe are identical and the self is the only being capable of being known. Combining them together, one might imagine it refers to the self of God being the only true thing capable of being known.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't stop there. Multi-person pantheistic solipsism is the only way to go. Gods bless Heinlein.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So God, the Universe and the Self are all really one thing, which is the only thing we can know. How does pantheistic solipsism account for the apparent differences between things?

Solipsists don't believe in anything except themselves. So a pantheistic solipsist would believe that everything in existence is themself.

Which to my mind means that if the self is everything, then the self contains its negation, so the self is nothing.

 

we are all made up of the same energies right, you me a rock a tree the sun?,


energy/matter can reside in many forms right? but its all just matter isnt it? and can eb aranged liek building blocks on atomic levels?


peace,

 

JoeTheMan:

I couldn't tell you how PS deals with this philosophical problem. In fact, it seems more related to a science fiction concept, rather than to a philosophy one.

Does nothing exist?

 

There is no contradiction here. Solipsism allows for differences as being nothing but inaccurate perceptions.

This is incorrect. A solipsist grants certainty exclusively to themselves; as to other things, they are skeptical.

Why is it necessary to include negation amongst 'everything'? Furthermore, it isn't the claim of a solipsistic point of view that it is, or explains, everything. In any case, the conjunction of 'everything' and its negation, would necessarily produce something other than the negation. That's just simple dialectic.

 

*****PrinceJames*****
JoeTheMan:
Which to my mind means that if the self is everything, then the self contains its negation, so the self is nothing.
PrinceJames:
”Does nothing exist?"

Unless we're getting seriously existential here and saying that man brings nothingness into the universe with himself, then no, nothing does not exist by definition.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But does that mean that because something does not exist, that it is therefore nothing? Aliens and unicorns are certainly something rather than nothing, even if they probably or certainly don't exist.


*****Glaucon*****

JoeTheMan:
Solipsists don't believe in anything except themselves. So a pantheistic solipsist would believe that everything in existence is themself.

Glaucon:
”This is incorrect. A solipsist grants certainty exclusively to themselves; as to other things, they are skeptical.

What's the difference between being skeptical and doubting, i.e., withholding belief or not believing? Also, if the self=God=the universe=everything, and the self is all a solipsist is certain of, then a pantheistic solipsist is certain of everything and uncertain of nothing. What, then, is left for a pantheistic solipsist to be skeptical of?

Glaucon:
Why is it necessary to include negation amongst 'everything'? Furthermore, it isn't the claim of a solipsistic point of view that it is, or explains, everything. In any case, the conjunction of 'everything' and its negation, would necessarily produce something other than the negation. That's just simple dialectic.

Your point here is quite worthy. I'm arguing that since any given thing is contained completely within its negation. If the self is everything, then *nothing* is not the self. We aren't just being skeptical of external reality, we are saying there is no difference between ourselves and external reality. There can be no synthesis because there is no dialetic; the only possible negation is nothing. Maybe I'm just not understanding this point of view clearly enough...

 

Joe,

I can't claim to understand this point of view myself either. To my way of thinking, an 'any'theistic solipsism would be a contradiction. Unless of course, one were quite sure that they were indeed god. This is senseless to me.

Anyways, my point of distinction in my last post was simply that there is a serious difference between being skeptical, and having a belief. The former implies a degree of verity, whereas the latter has little to do with truth, but much to do with faith. Truth and belief are non compatible concepts, one being logical, the other not.

 

The way it was explained that I saw it...varied greatly from the root of solipsism. It was more like through the mere acting of creating a story a world could be created. I kind of see the connection back to solipsism only it seems to be saying that everything is real as opposed to nothing.

 

I'd love to read a better description of what you were told then Desdemona, because as it stands, it makes little sense.

 

Yeah, like I said, I don't know much. That's why I was also asking for information on it myself.

This is the only thing I've been able to find on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheistic_solipsism

Maybe it does seem a little "science-fiction"-ish, but I find the idea rather compelling.

 

Meh.
Wikipedia is garbage; hardly qualifies as a source... best avoided.
To sate your curiosity, check out an Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Have fun.

 

JoeTheMan:

Their existence would be wholely mental if they had no physical existence, but something which does not have existence in anyway whatsoever, mental or physical, would not be capable of being counted. That is why it would seem improper to construe Pantheistic Solipsism as containing its negation and thus everything is nothing, for nothing is not properly part of everything.

Glaucon:

Why do you construe wikipedia as garbage?

 

As I've said elsewhere, quite simply, it cannot be trusted. It is freely editable, and therefore its 'sources' (sic) may lack credibility. I'm not saying it's useless, but think of it this way, no school is going to allow it as a source reference in a paper so.....
I think the idea has potential, but there needs to be some way of monitoring editors, an verifying their sources.

 

Glaucon:

The system of peer editting assures quality. Vandalizations rarely last more than a few days and those are on the most obscure pages, which few go to on a regular foundation. Moreover, sources are generally checked, too. Would not this system of checks and balances work in their favour?

 

Perhaps. And yes, it's better to have an active system of checks and balances. Still, I often worry about the quality of what passes for 'peer's on the site. That's not an elitist statement, it's just that I've often found such pedantic things as spelling errors on there. tsk tsk.

 

Glaucon:

Whilst not perfect, it is still an exceptional source. Spelling errors are also relatively rare and, in general, are not so horrific as to require anything but a quick editting on the part of someone who would know better.

 

I would never use wikipedia as a primary source (how could one?), but as a quick provider of a general overview and some useful links, and often some interesting insights it is first rate. If one is naturally sceptical - and if you aren't what are you doing mucking around in science - one will ferret out the irregularities and errors quickly enough.

 

What does not change is Reality (dreamless-sleep) what APPEARS to change is fiction, the mind.

If you are in a dream, NOW – as you read this, then there is nothing that will make you realize that you are sleeping except one: death. That might not sound very funny but only because you are not dead yet.

"pantheistic solipsism" means that the mind is always dreaming that it is awake.
And it is the Supreme Comedy because it means that there is no doer, only the hallucination called mind.
It means that "I" am no more real than is Mickey Mouse in the TV set -- and that is the Supreme Comedy.
IN this Supreme Comedy called “mind” the Joy of Laughter, tears-of-joy, is the only thing that is real.