Solipsism will always be there for us. Unfortunately, as a lifestyle - barring schizopotent determination - it's unsustainable.

As distinct from notions of divine union, where the self and world and other are united, solipsism instead obliterates the other.

barring schizopotent determination — ZzzoneiroCosm

What does this mean? Curious...

What does this mean? Curious... — Wallows

True solipsism is schizophrenic. See Louis A. Sass's "Madness and Modernism." Brilliant book comparing schizophrenic experience with certain elements of modernist art and thought.

Philosophical solipsism is more like a game people play. Philosophers don't typically behave as if there are no others. Some schizos do. At any rate, certain schizophrenics come much closer to walking the walk. Solipsist philosophers mostly just talk the talk. In my view.

In one of my previous topics, I distilled the issue to be about a mind that is the same with the world, which is very similar to a conception of God being the one and the same with the world of Nature.

Think about it analogously to a person inhabiting a dream. The person's self is one and the same with the dream world. The unconscious, which is accessed at a deeper level during dream states, may-be in "control" over the process of a dream; but, it is still part of the self.

What are your thoughts on solipsism in light of this?

I don’t see how it is possible that a person can be both the world and inhabit the world at the same time. He is either the world or the inhabitant.

I am my world. (The microcosm.) — Wittgenstein, Tractatus

He's confusing world with mind.

How and why would a solipsist conceive of others?

Solipsism is trivial if true.

Even if everything you experience and interact with is in some way some other part of yourself, it is still in some way distinct from the part of yourself that you experience and interact through -- you're not all-knowing and all-powerful over the "dream world", there are parts of it beyond your awareness and control even if they are in some way technically parts of you -- so in the end all you've done is relabeled what someone would normally call "yourself" as some special part of yourself, and relabeled "the world" as "yourself". All practical matters continue to be the same as everyone else (or "those other parts of you") always acts like they are, you just find yourself using different words to talk about it and so causing needless confusion.

He's confusing world with mind. — Harry Hindu

Same thing?

I still contest, that even in dreams, where dream characters seemingly have an intent of their own, that it is still originating from something that can be called a "self". No?

Why would the characters in the dream world seem to have an intent if their own? Why wouldnt the solipsist's intent be the source of all the action within their own world if the world was really just its self?

Everything that exists at any moment exists within the solipsist mind, so it would be a contradiction for a solipsist to posit a cause that isn't part of its experience, like the unconscious being the cause of something that is experienced. For a solipsist, all causation happens within the experience. There can be no external causes to its experience. There is no unconscious - only consciousness - which would be the world in its entirety.

So again, I ask, how would a solipsist even come to posit others that have an intent of their own?

Why would the characters in the dream world seem to have an intent if their own? Why wouldnt the solipsist's intent be the source of all the action within their own world if the world was really just its self? — Harry Hindu

Well, you seem to have set the cart before the horse here.

Everything that exists at any moment exists within the solipsist mind, so it would be a contradiction for a solipsist to posit a cause that isn't part of its experience, like the unconscious being the cause of something that is experienced. For a solipsist, all causation happens within the experience. There can be no external causes to its experience. — Harry Hindu

Yes; but, the solipsist can never doubt that things happen otherwise. It's a self-determining future at all points of the experience.

Well, you seem to have set the cart before the horse here. — Wallows

And that could very well be the case in a solipsist's world. Who are you to judge what happens in my world being that you are just part of my world? The solipsist would be the prime mover, and why would it not know this? The sole source of causation in a solipsist world would be its own intent. If not, then what is "intent"?

Yes; but, the solipsist can never doubt that things happen otherwise. It's a self-determining future at all points of the experience. — Wallows

What is "doubt" in a solipsist world? "Doubt" and "skepticism" would be meaningless in a solipsist world. What it thinks about at any given moment is what exists at any given moment.

The sole source of causation in a solipsist world would be its own intent. If not, then what is "intent"? — Harry Hindu

I think that's the central question here. That is, what is *intent* exactly...

What is "doubt" in a solipsist world? — Harry Hindu

There can be none, I suppose. So, the question seems ill phrased... On the other hand, the world of the solipsist is so full of certainty that doubt seems in fact... meaningless.

Its a common thing everyone goes through. I fear people who are very successful and who are towards the top of the latter are most likely to experience this more often. I believe the cure is to make a facade to yourself that those around you are real people with real feelings.

I wish you the best and hope you get to the top as a team of people and not by yourself. The author of the book of psalms experienced this in my opinion.