That is the confounding question about the difference between being individual or social or what-have-you. Everyone is individual and everyone is social but it is a conflictual dual nature where one becomes dominant. I claim to be solipsistic, but that does not mean I am completely withdrawn into myself in catatonia. There are many permutations of individual and social, but to provide an example a social type is the nationalist. A nationalist as a social type will not think negatively about their country. An individual type will openly criticize the country as if a foreign enemy. As solipsistic, that is a state of being individual, but it risks saying things that are alien to what is conventionally understood. However, what is conventionally understood is, using the one example of nationalism, is a product of solidarity, integration, unity, those kinds of things, and are not necessarily true. The solipsist is not necessarily true either, but a general understanding of conflictual process for truth relies in some catalyst for argument, and these two realities are definitely a source of conflict. So the overall intention of the OP was to establish a solipsistic understanding (opposed to convention) of the very social phenomena, and the result has been various negative sanctions, some unsurprisingly conforming to the prevailing confederate institution (that once considered wanting to be free insanity).

It looks like this will not catch must traction, but I just wanted to underline a major schism in my thinking between the innerworld of thought and the outer world of the socius. This schism is captured in nuanced oppositional meanings from the proposed solipsist-confederate, introvert-extrovert, wild-civilized, feral-socialized, a/antisocial-social, unpopular-popular, deviant-conformist etc. I mention the concept 'lifeworld' in the opening sentences of OP as I believe it is in the tradition opposed to individual in favor of socius, but Habermas, for instance, presents it as critical. Critical is for me not of the lifeworld but of the transcendental individual. Promoting lifeworld as critical is paradoxical to me, and if the modern project has been about undermining individualism, then a critical theory biased towards the lifeworld of the external socius only pretends to decolonize. I look at in simple terms that when someone says you have no life, they are refering to this kind of lifeworld that is violent towards the individual in that every aspect of it, including the negation of existence, is a social construction.

I was attempting to, but in any essay it is implied that one might fail.

Perhaps it is not expressed clearly enough, but going straight to psychiatric diagnostic terminology is a rather new development in social sanctioning and really isn't helpful. It is the way the world is going, so you are on the cutting edge with the ChatGPT too. Very nice.

Can you provide a definition of confederacy that is not provocative of psychiatric intervention?

I'll edit when I can.

Obviously confederacy is a complex and broad topic, a leviathan, for the solipsist to create piece de resistance against, an indictment of this century is required, so to speak. On the matter of casual racism, it is helpful for the thinking mind, to call a spade a spade. Not understanding the racial unification of religious/ philosophical dogma is a barrier to understanding western philosophy. The assimilation of whiteness beyond the nordic/ germanic has made people lose fundamental identity, especially as it relates in the struggle against this. I acknowledge I am white to person of color or indigenous, that's fair I guess, but that assimilating color doesn't dilute the redness of the blood in the body or that has been shed. Anyway solipsism and confederacy is an interesting topic for anyone who isn't analogous to a bundle of sticks.

All philosophy is about it.

That's fine. My mind is 100% independent of god.

I would agree that athiest=solipsist in that god is a potential other mind, and the solipsist tendancy is to argue against these to find true self. I'm solipsistic but I accept god as another object/concept like any other, but I dont have any piece of gods mind in me.

I look at it in a very simple and practical way. Solipsism is the potential of a person to exist in absolute illusion. It can be ironic on that the belief is opposed by other minds. That illusion could be a delusion, or it can be from mis/disinformation from other people. The biggest issues are not about the affairs of the world, but of this solipsistic simulation that reality is completely the product of each individual mind. The solipsistic simulation everyone has of the world is indistinct from their concept of self. The world and the self are experienced as one, but the body separates a person from the other objects in the world. I reduce solipsism to a conflict between ego/self/I vs. other minds as it seems through interaction with other minds that the pure solipsistic state of infancy is divided into other minds. How are other minds experienced by a sole originating solipsistic simulation of reality? From my examination of self a certain essence is extracted from that other mind, their expectations and rules and codes about how they construct their own simulation and how they would like you to construct yours. This is the issue I have with philosophy/ psychiatry in that as subjective states are objectified they create a target for opposing minds. Psychiatry to me, I reference my solipsistic simulation, creates a 'them' that is against solipsistic simulation, transcendence, etc. in favor of a functionalist body of individuals. Just as it is convenient for the communitarian that the disorderly simulation of the criminal can be used to promote their fascism, the disordered simulation of the 'mentally ill' can be used to slowly and methodically target what they interpret to be mental disorder and produce countervailing social types (those who target and control those those things in self and others). It has become a more legitimized form of medicine after ww2 (ironic coincidence?) with ways of tranquilizing the body, but it is a front against the transcendant solipsistic simulation. It is the confederacy against disorganized individual freedom. A confederate is a social-psychology term and the most important concept to understand.

Again, sorry if I derailed. I understand you want to talk about the view that your mind or whatever conjures all reality, and if it can be proven true.

Technically it is not considered a "mental disorder" but it is part of diagnostic criteria like introversion, nihilism, antagonism, paranoia etc. That it is not a "mental disorder" doesn't negate it as mental disorder. Someone would hold their semantic ground that a mental disorder is the name of the phenomenon, but if someone can be diagnosed 'schizo' for being antagonistic, nihilistic, introverted and having solipsistic delusion it is mental disorder.

As for denying any simulation hypothesis from the soul to mind to computer does not cause someone to doubt what is real, compared to direct realism then perhaps Plato and Decartes are not as adept as you.

I'm not inventing anything: solipsism is classified as mental disorder, feral state, speculated state at infancy, and an individual/ subjective/metaphysical/ irrational state. It is the perception that one is the sole mind and origin of everything, but it is not that reality. It is like the simulation hypothesis. The simulation hypothesis causes us to question what is real, but it is not the likely reality. That we can consider the simulation hypothesis is a function of indirect realism, that we can think of things and have perceptions that do not reflect the physical world. Solipsism is another function of indirect reality but it is about the ego v. other minds.

Why do you think solipsism is something other than its manifestations? Because that is how it is conventionally understood? The convention is an illusion. Don't ask if the illusion is true, but if the convention is true.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The standard you are holding solipsism to is not what it is but its absurd eventual conclusion. If you are asking if anyone can prove the absurd eventual conclusion is true, which is the argument against it, the discussion topic is meaningless.

argument that refutes an absolutist metaphysical solipsism also leads to a refutation of sceptical epistemological solipsism — RussellA

It does, and it has. It may not be true by modern philosophical ideals, but it is a true force of nature.

Indirect Realism is not a form of solipsism. — RussellA

I didn't say that it was. However, indirect realism is the underlying phenomenon.

I would have used '=' signs rather than ':', but I get the message.

You are performing a reducio ad absurdum, taking solipsism to it's extreme conclusion to refute it. Indirect realism can be reduced to the absurd by taking it to solipsism. However, solipsism is like indirect reality, it is not completely of the mind, but it is a function of the body.

Pure solipsism is not a challenging philosophical exercise. You don't have to have any JTB about any of the things that you mention, they are merely objects of your creation that mean whatever you want them to. Everything that is, is possibly interpretable by an 'idea of reference' that relates to you. About you or against you. You immediately understand everything as if it orbits around you like a planet around the sun. Better yet, geocentric is more solipsistic than heliocentric.

Obviously some manifestations of solipsism can be deemed false/untrue/dysfunctional, but ultimately it has a power whether you call it will-to-power or something else, that is opposed to group-think, consensus, democracy, fascism, normativity, herd mentality, objectivity, collectivism, state-philosophy, psychiatry, etc.

If you look at it as sarcastic it's wit, but that was unironically agreeable to me.

This is a key topic in the prevailing ethos of anti-schizophrenia. The first issue is that, of course, solipsism is a phenomenon of indirect realism. Indirect realism is not disproven by the solipsistic extreme that the mind originates all reality, neither is Idealism disproven by the existence of the physical realm. Solipsism is a verifiable fact of 'psychology'. Practical knowledge has been developed through the objectification of solipsism, such as 'theory of mind', therefore, through it's existence what is considered normal psychology has not been taken for granted, and some understanding has been developed of epistemology etc. Arguing solipsism is not true, is like arguing idealism is not true, but the difference is that idealism has developed in the modern by the rejection of manifest irrationalities that occur in nature. Solipsism is true because it resides in all of us, it is part of our bodily power, it can help us and it can hurt us. That it is most noticeable, made an object, through its problematic manifestation, and not really noticed when it is functional, arguing against it is an absurd and ironic rational idealism. Ironic, because one is using solipsism in making solipsism purely an idea your mind can deny, without acknowledging that there is a material basis for it outside your mind that is undeniable. This is like a transcendental idealism, but by trying to transcend solipsism, one confines idealism to rational (normative, deindividuating) thought. Ultimately a disempowering belief. This disempowerment, rejection of solipsist negation of other minds, turns one into a mindless extrovert. A mindless extrovert is a fascist, a mindless introvert (solipsist) is a homeless schizo. The Deleuzian concept can be interpreted that the schizo is an oppressed introvert (lone thinker) in a socius of extroversion (collective doers), is about a broader philosophical project that makes the anti-solipsist into a useful marionette, and the solipsist into a tangled mess of strings that only the most powerful can unravel.

Solipsism can be about metaphysics. If one is the only person with a false/irrational belief, then one has to transcend "go beyond" the physical reality of the socius. Boom metaphysics. Your belief will never be true, therefore not epistemology, unless you change other minds. Then it is not metaphysics but epistem.

1 If I'm missing the point I apologize for derailing. I just wanted to state my position that solipsism is not a perspective where truth is relevant, truth is only important to other minds. Have you ever met a compulsive liar? Theoretically they are in a kind of solipsistic state. They are not acknowledging the other mind against their own imaginings. When it comes to pulling the wool over someone's eyes it takes a person more aware of others' minds. Usually authority, statistical tricks, and some psycho-babble.

You're looking for solipsism as the absolute standard for experience, and that is not what it is. Anyone can tell you the individual mind acknowledges the existence of other minds. However, solipsism does manifest as mental disorder, is speculated to be the original psychological state at birth, and it can be experienced in social-psychological events such as when you are arguing alone against a group of people. Feral children, I have read, are found in a solipsistic state. The question is not if solipsism is true, but if it is a psychological state as 'legitimate' as intersubjectivity and acknowledging other minds. I personally cultivate solipsism as an irrationality, and can through thinking a certain way achieve a kind of solipsistic state similar to what I have experienced through other experimentations.

Proving solipsism true is anti-solipsistic. Philosophy deals with intersubjective agreement of other minds. That there is 'intersubjective agreement', or none, does not negate solipsism, as a multiplicity of subjectivities does not preclude the primacy of the origin of them all.

That being in a solipsistic state causes the other intersubjectives to 'come get you /poison you' does not disprove solipsism, just perhaps that you are not god/ originator of all law. That intersubjectives are anti-solipsistic does not prove they are expressing god's will, but is perhaps the fundamental lesson of this experience which all philosophy seems to be about.

Orange is psychiatry, it is a focus on natural law (science) of individual behavior especially in adapting adjusting to modernity ( but it us also the whole regime of sanctioned thought), green is the individual in natural naive state, the struggle of naivete (inexperience) and becoming something in relation to the modern: the functionalist psychiatrist on one end or the anticapitalist schizo on the other. Naivete is tied to philosophy in Cartesian critique of direct realism, but Naivete is opposed on a deeper level. It is naive to think without doubting your thoughts, but what about the entire modern experience, the naive struggle of not learning how to think and behave, compared to the 'experienced' who are unironic in relation to expectations. The cartesian implication that direct realism is naivete does not extend to cartesian scientific dogma that pretends to have exact perception of the world. But that is fine naivete is the individual solipsistic introverted escapist maladaptive lazy daydreaming transcendant argumentative nonsensical etc. individual. This is just talking between extremes. The solipsist can manifest not as delusion but as an egoist irrationalist against collectivity. That sort of thing. This picture is just painted in bold colors/ extremes.

'it' is the philosophical problem you are having that perhaps makes Deleuze et al. attractive to you. But maybe on closer inspection it may not align with you. Maybe the text is so open to accomodate your soul/ will to power/ libido/ mind

— introbert

Its however you understand it. You can understand it simply by knowing thyself and thy enemy, without these major interpretations.

In terms of the code I have described, which is only a piece of it, if you look at modernity/ capitalism as based on rational idealism, Descartes's rationalization of all thought and where that went, Calvinistic ethics producing a capitalistic culture contrasted with Marx's dialectical materialism that was not rational idealism, but that the spirit is from the corporeal like the green color code. Some 'philosophers' will never allow a concept they worship whether god of/or capitalism to ever have its rational ideals lowered to something as base as material conditions. But it is an undeniable fact that rational ideals do not necessarily produce material conditions that will promote the same spirit that created them. As for the green symbol, that is not dialectical materialism, but the ideas people had based on 'animistic' understandings likely created certain conditions that were offensive to people with 'higher' (divine from the heavens rather than Earthly) ideal understandings of god, but that was before relativism was well thought-out. People still don't understand.

Neitszche is against Platonic idealism, in favor of back-to-nature. However, the green color code changed as Christianity progressed, and at the fall-of-Rome Irish monks saved Platonic idealism / irony, so the story goes, and by the end of the 'Dark Ages', Calvin psychologizes religion, in a complex theological system. I see people acting out of individual spirit/soul as different from 'the mind' that can be taught and disciplined. The soul is individual, the individual is ironic to the community/ flock/ herd/ audience. Calvinism and Cartesianism are compatible. It is a complex matter, a long book wouldn't do the topic justice. On the matter of a long book, the German film translated as The Never Ending Story is by my interpretation a cheeky comment on the bullied 'introvert' struggling in the social world but finds freedom in a schizo escape from reality. It is not tolerated given the investiture of cultivating a social mind. He 'ironically' prevails in this fever dream.

Rorty said something interesting in his book about irony
"Skeptics like Nietzsche have urged that metaphysics and theology
are transparent attempts to make altruism look more reasonable than it
is. Yet such skeptics typically have their own theories of human nature.
They, too, claim that there is something common to all human beings -
for example, the will to power, or libidinal impulses. Their point is that at
the "deepest" level of the self there is no sense of human solidarity, that
this sense is a "mere" artifact of human socialization. So such skeptics
become antisocial. They turn their backs on the very idea of a community
larger than a tiny circle of initiates.

Deleuze talks about libidinal impulses, but I like will to power. It is anti-oedipal after-all. So maybe he is using libidinal ironically, and perhaps will-to-power is better? The socius: the object for the 'skeptical' or individualistic schizophrenic, or the schizo: for the skeptical scientific Cartesian modern social conformist, is two converging poles of desire or libido, or alternatively will-to-power. Maybe the schizo has will to power, and the conformist has libido.

That is very poetic, but I am not so poetic right now. I look at the body without organs as a common schizo delusion, the psychiatric name I can't remember right now, and also the Cartesian conception of the automaton - biological machines that operate like clockwork. The cover of my Penguin edition has a body without organs and some mechanical schematic inlayed. Descartes had this delusion (not of his own body, but about other animal bodies), ironic given his ironclad doubt against unreal notions, the idea of constructing such an animal, a duck, or capitalist system makes nothing, garbage. Shit and piss (eggs, fat etc.) gives life; plastic and acid makes nothing. This is the modern schizo capitalist table overstuffed with meaningless antiproduction.

I'm the same way with Deleuze... Marxism has an analogy of consciousness to material conditions. Part of the hegelian dialectic, and the alienation of spirit from Feuerbach apparently. There is a philosophical game going on in history that I try to understand. There is another step. The orange green thing is not just about philosophical concepts it is about racial conflict germanic v celtic, but that is not as interesting as the philosophical conflict from ancient thinking to christianity to modernity and beyond. I look at the colors as relevant as part of a process of rationalizing 'human' thought and representative of conflict in philosophy. Obviously I am not against good sense, but there are good sense fanatics that reduce sound thinking to the absurd, which has happened to science and psychology.

Yes, the concept of anomie is meant to address social problems.

Anomie is the wrong kind of word to use actually. It is a functionalist theory tends to conceptualize things as problematic, so that the problem has a natural function of increasing solidarity, cohesion, unity, and integration etc. of those that become social types to address the problem. Anomie as a concept is actually destructive to the state of being critical or nihilistic etc. as it problematizes the experience and makes a social type who is the complete opposite.

I am anomic, but I am not for or against it. I would prefer that the rational order of society was more critical, so that a person who is critical does not become more distant. Absurdism, nihilism, existentialism, postmodernism and critical theory are anomic and appeal to anomics. I like these philosophies, but I would prefer individual, subjective and critical consciousness pervaded all society so that anomie doesnt cause alienation, distress and risky, selfdestructive and aggressive behavior.

I believe in rational oppressions. If you think broadly of psychiatry not as the contemporary medical science but as a progression of the history of thought as healing a sick soul, this includes all philosophy and religion that is known. I make quite a few antiorange statements, but I am not fond of the catholic psychiatry either. Both religions played a role in the emergence of modern rationality, but like psychoanalysis carried a rational system that was dual natured, some aspects of the rationality prevail today, but further rationalizations are eroding the content. The religious belief is schizo compared to science, but the social structure and other aspects form the herd mentality of society. There are mentally sick people, but not all have common cause and I am particarly concerned by the possible mistreatment of anomics.

Yes, work has to be done. Science comes from ancient industrial way of thinking, and scientific objectivity has worked its way into psychological and social thinking about the 'soul' which has enhanced scientism in these bidies. In the context of the forum and your role of mod I understand you are not only making a countervailing argument in favor of modernity, but also making an appeal to quality which is rational in the context of the maintenance of norms and the demonstrably rational power of scientific thinking. However, I don't personally approve of science outside of industry. To me, understanding the conflict I have with the psychiatry of these bodies is a Socratic examination of life that I can extrapolate to broader social phenomenoa.

This rather poorly composed post was meant to make several points: irony is a phenomenon of indirect reality; irony is the form of forms: the complete formulation of the indirect reality of physical simulacra of divine ideas and the struggle of the soul to remember; that irony is doctored in the modern period as a literary device, therefore subverting the soul's apprehension of the ironic form exemplifying the struggle of the soul in indirect reality; and, to also raise the question of a possible reconceptualization of irony in the modern conception of indirect realism, if not a struggle of the soul, a struggle of the individual against oppressive rationality such as objectivity?

That is reasonable of Socrates to not claim he possesses the divine knowledge, but still ironic that without true knowledge can still prove the falsity of belief. This kind of irony to a rationalist would make Socrates seem too contradictory, and the rational tendancy to unite thought with the world is in conflict with the Platonic ideal of uniting the memory of the soul to absolute truths that the world decieves us of. That irony acknowledges fundamental contradiction and uses a process of uncovering contradiction can be contrasted with other rational methods that achieve certainty by conforming to what is made agreeable by the intersubjectivity of conventional forms of reason. I'm not sure exactly what conventional forms of reason the philosophers of Ancient Greece agreed was divine, but an analogy can be drawn between scientism as a rejection of the ironic condition by a nonironic process of scientific progress, that doesn't acknowledge rational detachment from actuality as argument against fundamental belief but simply part of a futurist process that will not abandon it's antiironic foundation.

I entertain the idea that schizo is the manifestation of irony that was once in the premodern viewed as divine and the same manifestation of forms that is in the assemblage of collective rationality justifying the poisoning of an irrational subject for the preservation of the collective ideal which in the modern is the antischizophrenic persecution of irrational behavior and delusion.

No your interpretation is biased towards descartes. You don't know Descartes didnt torture dogs, you have grounds to doubt it as it is an accusation and in contemporary legal rationality a person is innocent until proven guilty, unless you're in France. The question is not that they did or didn't, it can only be "if". Just because you have grounds to doubt, does not create certainty of the negation. If he did torture dogs that fits with my perception of the legacy of his philosophy and its psychiatry. If he didn't opponents lose a symbol people are more sensitive to than the acceptability of disciplinary and corrective measures towards the irrational.