I meant that as a statement of fact.

Well, I'll just leave you to it. — Ludwig V

For him, we don't exist, so you already have left him to it.

I guess I'm just Copernicus laughing at himself.

I suppose, from the point of view of a solipsist, the very idea of an unselfish act is incoherent.

The only selfless act would be when you deny yourself gratification, gain, achievement, everything, including your decision to deny self-interest to achieve the gratification of having the liberty of denying self-interest or to serve your adventurous desire to test yourself, and the idea of doing it all in your head by serving yourself an intellectual ride.

That makes selflessness theoretically (of course, practically) unattainable.

For him, we don't exist, so you already have left him to it. — Banno

That's just one aspect of solipsism. I take it as an initial chamber. Which leads to the understanding that no matter what the truth is, you would never know it because it's outside your head and you're stuck inside your head.

The only selfless act would be when you deny yourself gratification, gain, achievement, everything. Including your decision to deny self-interest to achieve the gratification of having the liberty of denying self-interest or to serve your adventurous desire to test yourself, and the idea of doing it all in your head by serving yourself an intellectual ride. — Copernicus

You are a solipsist. There isn't any one here for you to talk to. You are on your own. There is no one here to care about your opinion, or even to read your posts.

Oh - you are one of the solipsists who think other people exits? They are surprisingly common. But not that coherent.

I fail to see where that's my problem. — Copernicus

It is a problem with your dichotomy. You enlist La Rochefoucauld for your purposes but are unable to replace his model with equal perspicuity.

Reality is subjective, dependent upon stimulus reception and intellectual perception. — Copernicus

"Stimulus reception" is the language of behaviorism. Reductions to a pure set of external inputs is not the foundation for solipsism.

The only selfless act would be when you deny yourself gratification, gain, achievement, everything. — Copernicus

Okay, see now this is a good post. That much makes sense.

However, does it not defeat the premise (or at least title) of your OP?

Out of the billions (perhaps more) persons who have lived, there is absolutely no way to know at least one person never lived a life doing exactly that. Sure, it's likely said life ended prematurely, perhaps violently, and the person died an unknown and was never heard of or spoken of. But that shouldn't matter as far as the premise of your OP is concerned.

I see solipsism as the idea that we know nothing outside our heads, which creates the outside experience for us.

Whether my yellow is your yellow, or whether you're real or an imagination or an NPC is unknowable; that's all. Not that we know the objective truth about your existence.

You enlist La Rochefoucauld for your purposes — Paine

As a reference or background intro music.

Reductions to a pure set of external inputs is not the foundation for solipsism. — Paine

This argument isn't based on solipsism. Don't get distracted.

Out of the billions (perhaps more) persons who have lived, there is absolutely no way to know at least one person never lived a life doing exactly that. Sure, it's likely it ended prematurely, perhaps violently, and the person died an unknown and was never heard of or spoken of. But that doesn't matter as far as the premise of your OP is concerned. — Outlander

I answered it here:

That makes selflessness theoretically (of course, practically) unattainable. — Copernicus

I see solipsism as the idea that we know nothing outside our heads, which creates the outside experience for us. — Copernicus

See that "we"? There is no "we" in solipsism.

There is just you. I'm not here.

Isn't it odd, that even now, as you read this, you seem to be responding to something new - something from "outside your head"? Something unexpected, novel, hopefully even quite annoying. What Banno does out here is changing what goes on "inside".

Or am I just you, doubting your sanity?

I answered it here:

That makes selflessness theoretically (of course, practically) unattainable. — Copernicus

So, your OP, if simplified in one sentence would be: "Most people are selfish."

It's very well-written, I'll admit. With the right fine-tuning and your own personal chaperoning and stewardship can turn into something readable and thought-provoking. I feel you've yet to take that step, however. Pardon me for saying.

See that "we"? There is no "we" in solipsism. — Banno

That's the general way of arguing. (Like, "you can't see a young lady and lose your composure."..."you" doesn't mean you in specific.)

something from "outside your head"? — Banno

Nope. I'm intaking these letters coming through a screen and interpreting it according to my subjective perception and giving it back, creating a communication. What someone from other universe or dimension sees me taking and giving is unknowable to me.

Again, people, this argument (OP) is not based on solipsism. Don't get distracted.

With the right fine-tuning and your own personal chaperoning and stewardship can turn into something readable and thought-provoking. I feel you've yet to take that step, however. Pardon me for saying. — Outlander

I'd like to know where it went wrong.

Most people are selfish — Outlander

From my argumentative conclusion, all people are, and it's impossible not to be.

That's the general way of arguing. — Copernicus

Sure is. But you have no one to argue with. It's all in your head. So why use the "general form?"

If you are taking letters coming through a screen, then there exist letters and a screen. But no, you are a solipsist. There is only your mind, so the stuff I write here is somehow just part of that.

What someone from other universe or dimension sees me taking and giving is unknowable to me. — Copernicus

There isn't any one from some other universe or dimension - there is only you, trapped in your head, making me up.

It's all in your head — Banno

I never know FOR SURE. That's the idea. No accepting, no denying.

Again, people, this argument (OP) is not based on solipsism. Don't get distracted. — Copernicus

Yeah, it is. All those threads about not caring for anyone else - that's all part of your realisation that you are alone.

Or that you are mistaken.

I never know FOR SURE. — Copernicus

You seem very certain 'bout that.

If you are taking letters coming through a screen, then there exist letters and a screen. But no, you are a solipsist. There is only your mind, so the stuff I write here is somehow just part of that. — Banno

Your version of solipsism is not the one I follow. Something like anarchism vs libertarianism vs liberalism. Close, but different.

You seem very certain bout that. — Banno

Don't remember when I ever was.

Yeah, it is. All those threads about not caring for anyone else - that's all part of your realisation that you are alone. — Banno

No. What I argued was that you can't betray your self. Nothing more. Solipsism isn't even involved in this.

Your version of solipsism is not the one I follow. Something like anarchism vs libertarianism vs liberalism. Close, but different. — Copernicus

It's not my version - I don't exist. It's the reality of your realisation that you are the only mind, closing in on you.

So you are certain that you are never certain about anything. Cool. I'd say that problem was with coherence rather than certainty.

What I argued was that you can't betray your self — Copernicus

You are betraying yourself, by writing as if we were here. We don't exist. There is only what you have in your head.

Agnostics are skeptical about God; Solipsists are skeptical about Reality.

No accepting, no denying. Just skeptical.

The argument is based upon being able to completely separate the self from what is not self. You defend the thesis by an appeal to solipsism as a given condition. But you give the world back to yourself when proposing a different one.

It is not a matter of challenging your thesis but from where the new models will come in the conditions you have set for yourself that make me think that you have had your cake and have eaten it too.

Your version of solipsism is not the one I follow. Something like anarchism vs libertarianism vs liberalism. Close, but different.
— Copernicus
It's not my version - I don't exist. It's the reality of your realisation that you are the only mind, closing in on you.

So you are certain that you are never certain about anything. Cool. I'd say that problem was with coherence rather than certainty.

What I argued was that you can't betray your self
— Copernicus
You are betraying yourself, by writing as if we were here. We don't exist. There is only what you have in your head. — Banno

You're now swimming in solipsism. I don't see any point in arguing if you'd deviate from the OP.

The only selfless act would be when you deny yourself gratification, gain, achievement, everything, including your decision to deny self-interest to achieve the gratification of having the liberty of denying self-interest or to serve your adventurous desire to test yourself, and the idea of doing it all in your head by serving yourself an intellectual ride.

That makes selflessness theoretically (of course, practically) unattainable. — Copernicus

Well, this is one person's opinion. Your assurance, your worldview, the way you were raised and so live your life. Surely you don't think out of the billions people alive and who were once alive, it's impossible not one person could have thought differently than how you do in a way that laughs in the face of the way you perceive life must be lived?

To put it bluntly, your views, your limitations perhaps, weakness even, are yours and yours alone. Even if in principle they are shared by every person you've ever met or ever will meet, there's more than enough people (7 billion+) to warrant the belief that perhaps your way of looking at life, or rather, how your mind is forced to process life, isn't the only way to do so.

Does that make sense?

separate the self from what is not self — Paine

That's not the point. We're not separating anyone. I just said humans are programmed to be selfish. If some physical properties manage to be selfless, it's not humans.

I don't exist, so I can't deviate from the OP. Nor can I "swim in solipsism", whatever that might be.

This is the very same problem you aimed at yourself in the The Libertarian Dilemma
thread - the failure to acknowledge the other.

Your own acceptance of solipsism in a post to other people brings out clearly why you are a bit of a dill.

Well, this is one person's opinion. Your assurance, your worldview, the way you were raised and so live your life. Surely you don't think out of the billions people alive and who were once alive, it's impossible not one person could have thought differently than how you do in a way that laughs in the face of the way you perceive life must be lived? — Outlander

(a+b)^2 might have been a2+2.0045ab+b2 in some corner of the universe, but from our observation (practicality) or mathematical equations (theory), we derive that it's impossible to happen.

To put it bluntly, your views, your limitations perhaps, weakness even, are yours and yours alone. Even if in principle they are shared by every person you've ever met or ever will meet, there's more than enough people (7 billion+) to warrant the belief that perhaps your way of looking at life, or rather, how your mind is forced to process life, isn't the only way to do so.

Does that make sense? — Outlander

ISN'T THAT WHAT PHILOSOPHY IS? Unless we're talking math (or science), my arguments don't have to be universally accepted. Philosophy is a higher form of art, which is a subjective expression of oneself.