The Art Of Solipsism

Solipsism has been defined as the theory that only the self exists. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, Solipsism is Idealism taken to the limits of absurdity. If this were true one would be relegated to a world of one's own making; yet, there are many occurrences, surprises, and mysteries in one's life. Since the origin of these is not inside, it must be from outside us. The only conclusion is that an outside is vibrant, existent, and ever present.

Even if we are sentient beings in a real environment, everyone, whether one admits it or not, still verifies their knowledge primarily on their personal experience as can be exemplified by the series of statements that follow. Any of the following statements could be considered absurd by some: "the universe is controlled by many intelligent, unseen beings", "the universe was designed and created by one intelligent, unseen being", "the universe and all laws of nature sprang from nothing", "water springs from nothing in an explosion" (that might be absurd unless you were a chemist). As we approach information closer to our own experience: "all life needs water", "to be alive, one must be breathing", or especially "when I am happy, I smile", we become more convinced of it's truth. And yet, conversely, it is the veracity of one's experience that is challenged whenever one questions from the solipsist viewpoint.

The "solipsist viewpoint" is everyone's viewpoint. It is the viewpoint of singular, unobstructed, direct experience in the broadest sense of the word. It is an idiosyncratic, dynamic presentation of consciousness representing one's existence itself. The idea that that which is inside one's self, including all things inside that represent things outside, can only be "proven" to one's self by one's self may seem a tautology, but is exemplified by "I think, there fore I am". All the rest of philosophy must start here, if one can reach this space in one's mentality.

I want it to be clear that one reason that analysis in the solipsist viewpoint is important is as a limiting extreme in opposition to materialism, out there, where most people normally function. As an intellectual doctrine, the way most people have come to understand it, Solipsism doesn't really have much value except perhaps in historical terms. However as an exposition of pure subjectivism, the entirety of one's experience as seen totally from one's subjective point of view, divorced from everything else, it has enormous analytical value to the extent that materialism represents the exposition of pure objectivism. In this presentation we will not erroneously conclude that the "only reality that exists is the self", as has been historically noted. We will recognize the objective, other things and people, but only to the extent that the subjective perceives them.

In the case of solipsism all subjective and objective knowledge is considered a manifestation of, and subject to, the analysis of the cognitive individual. Conversely in the case of extreme materialism all subjective and objective circumstances are considered manifestations of objective circumstances apart the individual. In other words, as a solipsist observation, all considerations only lie within the cognitive individual - the one cognizant of the circumstances. And it is only through processes of deductive inference that one can discover the actual analysis of their precepts.

To start this process we can refer to a definition of what we perceive as the objective as the "non-subjective". We do this because it's certainly true that the origin of most non-subjective circumstances lie outside us, but that's really only because the bulk of objectively definable circumstances do, and not because the non-subjective (that which has been perceived as objective) requires, or precludes, such a thing out of necessity. The great barrier to this analytical attempt is that all experience, including that which is labeled as non-subjective, is contained and analyzed within our subjective selves. So, we can't expect to totally vitiate the solipsist viewpoint and emerge into an absolute realistic, non-subjective world; even though, approaching this state of mind is ultimately the value of the solipsist investigation.

In relation to solipsist viewpoint, all experience might be broken down into that which is controlled (things one does) and that which is not controlled (things that happen to one). Further, these categories might be subdivided into that which is considered inside or "subjective", and that which is considered outside or "non-subjective". This results in four categories:
1) subjective-controlled, 2) subjective-not controlled,
3) non-subjective-controlled, and 4) non-subjective-not controlled.
It is interesting to bring forth concepts and ideas to try to sort them in these categories.

Since the introduction of the scientific method with its observational repeatability, reliability, and consistency, and its media of interaction and sharing among mind/brains, one can be lulled into a comfortable position of imagining that everything, with the exception of just a few concepts, is already worked out. However, one will find that where one draws the analytical line between these subjective and the non-subjective categories is still another question. An important aspect of the solipsist inquiry is the individual's assessment of the nature and origin of their operating/behavioral precepts. These can be broken down through deconstruction and skepticism of one's own ideology.

The origin of these categories is often determined by
1) someone "out there" who has guided one's life, either on an involuntary basis, due to their authority, or a voluntarily basis, due to one's respect for their authority, or
2) one's own understanding and acceptance through some education of what has been perceived to be true of both subjective and non-subjective nature,
3) the determination and comparison of one's present precepts with what one has accepted to be true in the past (In point of fact, in #3, one often has no immediate way to decide where, exactly, the origins can and do lie, how important they are to one, and what recourse does one have if one deletes them. This effort described in #3 can be exceedingly traumatic and life altering), or
4) one's own conclusions, either true or erroneous, based on direct experience and the resulting logical inferences.

Unless one considers the solipsist viewpoint seriously, one may not even comprehend that there is such a viewpoint. I realize this may seem like a rather fine distinction. However it's important to grasp that inter-human discrepancies regarding this viewpoint have been completely misunderstood throughout history and have led to all kinds of pernicious conflicts and misinterpretations. As long as these diverse analytical misunderstandings are apparently required for the human condition, the pernicious conflicts and misinterpretations are, unfortunately, bound to continue.

What I'm saying, here, is that those things which are perceived as non-subjective do not have to be objective for that reason. It is possible for something subjective to be misinterpreted as non-subjective. When addressing things from the solipsist viewpoint, one might think that they are non-subjective things because they have or can have objective perceptions according to their circumstances. However, it is also true that they may not actually represent what one might otherwise think. The issue of solipsist analysis is whether they are what we think them to be.. or whether or not they are something else.

Once precepts are determined as questionably absurd, it should be noted, they need not be deleted, for one might find these ideas to be a pillar of one's cognitive construction or a door to something later to be determined as true. The first step is to merely identify and label them for future consideration like a tree surgeon who is planning a magnificent garden.