"This is still a thing?"
Yes, it indeed is. Part of the reason it still is "a thing" I'll be sort of touching on in this post. As a fun side quest, see if you can spot the single word reason in the post.
As usual, I'll just be jumping right in.
I can't believe you guessed when it's right there in the title 🤦🏿♂️, we have a lot of work to do with this one 😪.
First things first, let's assert the universal, unchanging, unanimously agreed-on rule that we must all know and revise in our daily lives; I am never wrong, everything I say is factual, I am never to be doubted.
With solid foundations built, We can now commence.
Solipsism.
"Solipsism?"
Yes. Solipsism. What does it mean, you wonder.
Taking a look at the second definition given by Google after a quick search:
"Solipsism: The quality of being self-centred or selfish."
The quality of being self-centred or self-... Sounds like narcism. If only that meaning was all we had in store for today's post. Imagine having been met by this term and simply going off that definition and carrying on with your day, what a saddening thought it is the prospect of missing out on such bountiful knowledge as you are going to gain right now, such a lucky observer you are.
So if we aren't defining solipsism with that definition, what definition shall we use? Well, why don't we start from the origin of the word it's self, the two Latin words 'solus' and 'ipse'; 'solus' meaning alone, 'ipse' meaning self; put the two together and we get the definition...
Alone-self?
Yes. Alone-self, as in, you're all alone, in yourself, makes sense?
You'd rather use the Google definition?
I'm offended, but not surprised, allow me a bit more of your time to better explain.
Solipsism, as a philosophical school of thought, is characterised by the idea that only one's mind and conscious experience is sure to exist. This meaning that the world -- the universe, and all the things within it; people, objects, the device you're using to read this "short" post, things not yet made, each individual grain of salt you put in your yam, could and might as well be nothing more than figments of your imagination.
Very believable? I agree.
It's like that idea you've had about everything just being a dream or that one you had about everything being a simulation; except people actually pay to learn about solipsism, unlike your ideas (You're such a pleb).
Well, being frank, the above definition isn't all there is to solipsism. Like most subjects in philosophy, there are subclasses under solipsism. The version I defined above can be taken as "metaphysical solipsism". It's a nice idea but seems a bit too arrogant in a way, if I do say so myself.
Personally, I prefer "epistemological solipsism". Instead of saying "There exists nothing outside of my mind", epistemological solipsism says, "I'm not sure whether things exist outside my mind or not, but I'm sure my mind exists, and that's the only thing I can be sure of".
I should point out now before going any further that I may use "mind" and "conscious experience" synonymously throughout this post; sometimes, but not always.
Now, back to epistemological solipsism. It's a nice idea, but why give it any attention, you may ask yourself. Well, if the world is only a figment of your imagination, why not spend all your efforts in trying to make the world your perfect paradise! Quit whatever you're doing right now and start manifesting things into your world! Imagine that new car you've always wanted, think it into existence! What are you waiting for?!
...
You tried?
...
It didn't work?
...
Have you tried a bit harder?
...
You have?
...
I don't know what to say, maybe you're doing it wrong.
When you're done trying to "manifest" your chosen reality, how about you continue reading and gain some actual, valuable information?
Done? Alright.
Being the smartest person in the room isn't about "manifesting" it into existence.
We don't do that here.
So why the hell am I talking about solipsism? Bruv, calm down. Foreplay is very important.
Did you know cults use foreplay to get more loyal members? They don't just make you swallow the whole "Jesus was an alien, and telepathy is a real thing" steak all at once; they seduce you with that sweet "Here's the potential answer to all your problems" bread with a side of "Sound logic" soup, so keep quiet and gulp down some of this sound philosophy juice. The reason I spoke on solipsism as a whole first was to try and ease you into the main concept of today's post:
Idealism :)
Another -ism, *sighs*.
Bro, we're nearing the end, calm.
SO... Idealism. What does that mean?
Let's do what we did for solipsism and begin with a quick glance at what Google has to say.
Idealism: "The unrealistic belief in or pursuit of perfection".
That's Google's primary definition for the term, below that we get the philosophical definition, but we aren't going to jump straight for that, are we? Exactly. So what similarities does Google's definition have with the philosophical definition of idealism? Some? None? We're not giving one-word answers here, you know this. So what is the philosophical meaning of idealism?
A simple definition, in my own words, would be "Epistemological solipsism, but without caring so much about the 'objective' world aspect, and instead focusing on the 'subjective' perception of things aspect". While solipsism is bothered whether things are a figment of our imaginations or not, idealism is more concerned about how each observer of a thing, or reality in general, "sees", "understands", "observes" and "perceives" objects and concepts.
One way of understanding this concept is through a thought experiment.
Think of two people who've never encountered a dog before, person A and person B.
Person A encounters a dog for the first time and is immediately attacked, while Person B encounters a dog for their first time and is comforted by said dog. In this, two separate perceptions of a dog's characteristics are formed, person A's perception that a dog is naturally violent and person B's perception that a dog is naturally friendly.
We ask ourselves, which perspective is the true perspective or the most objective.
You might say "obviously a dog is neutral and can act either violently or non-violently" and that this view is the most objective and true, but I will remind you that you only have such a view because of your experience with dogs and that it says nothing of the actual characteristic of the animal, only your perception of it.
We may then come to ask ourselves "What is the true 'objective' characteristics of a dog if there is no observer to observe it?".
Well, without an observer with a preconceived notion of right and wrong, without an observer which perceives the difference between black and brown or top from bottom, and without an observer with language, we have, most objectively, a superposition of all views, perspectives and characteristics a dog can take. That is to say "a dog" only exists through the lens of the observer that observes said dog. Being more general, it can be said that there isn't any real objective way to view material things in the physical world, only subjective perceptions, or a superposition of all possible subjective perceptions. This is all without mention of how slight differences between each observer's sensory organs, as well as their "brains" (an organ of several billion neurons, connected differently for each individual, determining how information is read), may vary the perception of objects, such that the way one human perceives a colour might be slightly different from the way another human would, not to speak of the difference in perception different animal will exhibit (think back to that gold and white/blue and black dress).
So... How does this matter?
Well, thinking back to person A's perspective, in their reality dogs are vicious and dangerous. Person A's view of the universe is uniquely experienced by them such that they live in a universe their perspective is true, that is, until the perception is somehow changed. Person A exists in a totally different universe from person B, who exists in a universe where dogs are comforting creatures. These two universes are independently and uniquely experienced from their observers perspective, both varying perspectives simultaneously true of the universe each observer resides.
For example, if I view electronics as cancer-causing devices, I live in a universe in which electronics are cancer-causing devices. I perceive the world through this lens and react to it accordingly, at least till the truth I hold is proven to be false, but up until then, the universe I uniquely exist and experience is as true and as real as anybody else's.
What's that? Another -ism incoming?
So, the last -ism I'll be talking about is presentism. This -ism is basically all about being an observer which exists only in the "now".
So with all this stated, how do these concepts relate to the title of the post? If you haven't figured it out yet, you're still golden, no need to fret.
What I'm basically trying to say is, whatever view you hold of the universe is the true reality of "the universe", in the sense that, your perspective is the only perspective you'll ever experience.
For an extreme example, let's imagine this scenario, you're in a relationship, you believe your partner is not cheating, whether or not your partner is cheating or not, if your truth is that they are not, that is the true nature of things in your universe until convinced otherwise; the same thing if you were the one cheating.
So there you go, to exist in a universe where you're the smartest person in the room, think yourself the smartest person in the room (Just practice some arrogance and the world will be your oyster).
That's it, smartestest person in the room mode activated.
Quick side notes:
It seems to me that this concept isn't completely "new" in the sense that it is a common theme across spiritual and religious practices.
In nearly all religions, belief, prayer and "thinking things into existence or to make them so" are concepts regularly posited; unsurprisingly many self-help concepts and new age spirituality ideas also use similar concepts within their doctrines.
Be arrogant enough to believe that you levitated with your eyes closed in a room by yourself after deep meditation, and that is the universe you exist in, a universe in where you can fly with enough "will power", but that may only be factual in your universe.
We must also keep in mind that holding several divergent truths of the world, different from the consensus of your society, will earn you the tag "insane"; so if everyone else exists in a universe where they fly every Thursday night and you walk in and be like "Yo... I don't get that. I only fly on Monday mornings" you will be seen as an outcast and an anomaly, or even possibly a liar if you only "think" that you fly and another observer doesn't perceive you flying.
A second note I would like to add is the limitations of this concept.
You can't think yourself into a Lamborghini, the best you can do is deceive yourself that you have one somewhere or that your car is secretly a Lamborghini, or something along those lines.
So how do we deal with that? I personally don't feel we can, we are subjected to our minds as much as our minds are subjected to us. If everyone around you calls you a liar or dumb, you likely will break and their truths will eventually become your truths, and thus your universe.
We are subjected to other people as much as we are subjected to being able to only see a fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum (visible light), as bees are subjected to seeing ultraviolet light.
We are all captives of our minds, all observers alike, birds and bees, from ants to trees; subject to the perception of the universe we hold, formed by the perception of the universe we've held.
No comments:
Post a Comment