Yeah that's why I found it to be stupid. He said no one can detect or understand truth, if that's the case then why make an argument for the truth of his claim on the internet then?

"I don't think that solipsism states that nothing exists besides our consciousness, it merely states that we can never know anything about what exists outside our consciousness because we will never experience anything other than our consciousness. which means there is no reason to believe other people are actually other minds, or to believe that the external world's contents will 'continue to exist' when we are not experiencing them. — Darkneos

This sounds more like the epistemological version of the argument but I can't say I agree that there is NO reason to believe other people are other minds considering they act and behave like we do, and I would imagine that the OP knows this if they posted it on a forum (otherwise such a comment would be moot). I also have a reason to believe the external world will continue to exist without me experiencing it since plenty of stuff happens without me being aware of it. I fail to understand how these people think that solipsism is the simplest explanation when thinking about it a lot shows all the holes.

"Western philosophy from Descartes up through Kant seemed to be going in a direction of increasing solipsism. Subject and object became further and further separated, and philosophers became more and more convinced that there was no way of knowing anything outside of them. In the 20th century, Heidegger rejected this notion as silly, noting that consciousness is defined by its being-in-the-world -- its utter dependence on outer objects to have any experience at all. Yet this concept of mind as social relations has, over the 20th century, led to a kind of different solipsism -- one of language. Wittgenstein really paved the way for this with his posthumously published Philosophical Investigations(in many ways a rebuttal of his earlier work, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). Post-modernists and post-structuralists explored how language and shared meaning don't describe reality so much as they create it. There was an emerging sense that the individual is nothing but a series of social relations -- a cultural construct with no real identity of their own. In this sense, it was a bit of an antithesis to solipsism. Rather than wondering if others are real, the more pertinent question becomes whether oneself is real. But if there's one thing I know from Hegel, it's that whenever there's a thesis and an antithesis, there's got to be a synthesis."

This sentiment however seems...interesting. I thought that language described reality but thinking about it now I can see how in some instances it can shape it. Simply exchanging one word for another can shift everything, I mean...it happens in politics all the time.

I mean that's not what we think though. There are events that cause other events to happen but I don't think that anyone would argue that they exist independent of each other. We just label the cause and the result that it led to, so it's two in one in a sense.

I though his argument felt wonky to me.

As mentioned before I don't see how these things being concepts necessarily means that they don't exist.

Yeah I got into it with this guy on a different forum and something smelled off about pretty much every reply of theirs. Mind you they sent me like 4 different paragraphs full of this stuff and then blocked me from replying so...

All I know is that they seem very sure of themselves and says they are arguing this with 99% of the forum (which to me sounds like they might need to revise their views).

This will be a short post, because this is fairly simple to explain…well, it is now, after boiling down a very long hand-written post to its salient and self-evident points.

Cause and effect are mutually exclusive ideas…that is, what is the cause cannot also, simultaneously, be the effect; and what is effect cannot also be the cause.

Each notion has an absolute definition which must remain consistent in order for “cause and effect” to have any meaning in the first place.

At the same time each notion depends on the other for its value and relevancy.

What this means is that the cause is not actually a cause without an effect.

There is no such thing as a cause with no effect, by definition; and the converse is also true.

So, in other words, each notion obtains its value and meaning as a direct function of the other.

For instance, a cause is only able to be defined as a cause and observed as a cause via the effect, which makes the cause merely a direct extension of the effect, which I have already explained must be absolute (i.e. the effect is absolutely and utterly the effect…it cannot simultaneously be a cause).

...And this renders any actual distinction between cause and effect impossible.

The distinction is purely conceptual; a product of the human capacity to conceptualize what he or she observes.

The converse, naturally, would also be true.

An effect is only able to be defined and observed and identified as an effect via the cause; its value and relevancy a function of the cause, therefore making the effect merely a direct extension of the cause; and the cause must be absolute (i.e. a cause cannot simultaneously be an effect).

This renders any actual distinction between cause and effect impossible.

Such a distinction can only be made conceptually, as a product of the human conceptualizing brain, which is uniquely able to organize the environment in such a way.

And from here you can see why the title of this article makes sense. “Cause” and “effect” are both everything (i.e. absolutes, which must possess a consistent and ineluctable definition at any given moment) and nothing (i.e. each one deriving its value and relevancy as a direct function of the other, rendering each one a direct extension of the other, thereby making moot both concepts altogether).

Everything and nothing are mutually exclusive, which means that everything and nothing cannot possibly be the existential state of any object or force in question.

To write the equation mathematically, everything is 1, and nothing is zero. 1 x 0 = 0. The product of both “cause” and “effect” separately is zero. And thus when you couple them together as “cause and effect”, or rather, cause plus effect, in order to complete the notion, you get, presented abstractly, 0 + 0. Which of course equals zero.

The point is to show that cause and effect is not an actuality…is not a causal force which somehow, outside of man’s conceptualizing brain and therefore his life, exists as some actual, tangible, efficacious objective reality and causal power. But rather, the material universe is what it is, and it is a singularity, not ruled by “laws of nature” or other forces which are in reality human-derived concepts, much like “cause and effect”, and another one of my favorite punching bags, “chance” (which we will look at later).

The material universe, being an infinite singularity, makes all objects within it likewise infinite singularities, parsed and given meaning and relevancy and truth by those who possess observation coupled with an innate ability to make a conceptual distinction between SELF and OTHER (whatever object or objects are observed to be NOT SELF). And thus, truth is a function of the truly self-aware agent.

He who is able to know and define SELF as SELF is the Standard of Truth for all which is observed; and is likewise he who gives value to everything in the universe, and is the most valuable.

Reason thus demands that all castes and hierarchies, and distinctions of all sorts, must inevitably crumble under the weight of infinite individual human worth.

Because these castes and hierarchies and distinctions are not actual, they are conceptual.

Therefore all human beings can only be judged according two things: their own self-ascribed values, and how they wish to freely exchange those values as a function of their individual attributes and desires (excepting, of course, the decidedly irrational desire to exploit and violate a fellow human being, or supposed gods, etc.).

In this sense, then, one having “judged”, has not been in the least judgmental.

Or if you want to get at the direct version of it:

https://qr.ae/pNUkcv

"The origins of Solipsism in Western Philosophy comes from the Greek Pre-Socratic Sophist Gorgias who claimed that:

Nothing exists.
Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it.
Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it cannot be communicated to others."

Well I was referring to the pages in general, mostly 4 and 5, which state that a belief in others is not warranted as we have no evidence for any of them.

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/13665046/fpart/5/vc/1#13665046

“
Those who claim for themselves to judge the truth are bound to possess a criterion of truth. This criterion, then, either is without a judge's approval or has been approved. But if it is without approval, whence comes it that it is truthworthy? For no matter of dispute is to be trusted without judging. And, if it has been approved, that which approves it, in turn, either has been approved or has not been approved, and so on ad infinitum.

--Sextus Empiricus”

That's not what the epistemological version states. It's just uncertainty about the existence or lack thereof of an external world/reality or other people. It rejects metaphysical because that is a claim to knowledge when it cannot prove so, so I guess it neither affirms nor denies but says it is uncertain.

"I don't think that solipsism states that nothing exists besides our consciousness, it merely states that we can never know anything about what exists outside our consciousness because we will never experience anything other than our consciousness. which means there is no reason to believe other people are actually other minds, or to believe that the external world's contents will 'continue to exist' when we are not experiencing them. — Darkneos

I suggest you read the other quote on this page.

How is that muddled? Though consciousness implies there is something to be conscious of. Sensation implies input from externality. Though solipsism would argue that all of sensation is a product of the mind, well some forms.

But Western Philosophy sort of dug it's own hole here:

"Western philosophy from Descartes up through Kant seemed to be going in a direction of increasing solipsism. Subject and object became further and further separated, and philosophers became more and more convinced that there was no way of knowing anything outside of them. In the 20th century, Heidegger rejected this notion as silly, noting that consciousness is defined by its being-in-the-world -- its utter dependence on outer objects to have any experience at all. Yet this concept of mind as social relations has, over the 20th century, led to a kind of different solipsism -- one of language. Wittgenstein really paved the way for this with his posthumously published Philosophical Investigations(in many ways a rebuttal of his earlier work, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). Post-modernists and post-structuralists explored how language and shared meaning don't describe reality so much as they create it. There was an emerging sense that the individual is nothing but a series of social relations -- a cultural construct with no real identity of their own. In this sense, it was a bit of an antithesis to solipsism. Rather than wondering if others are real, the more pertinent question becomes whether oneself is real. But if there's one thing I know from Hegel, it's that whenever there's a thesis and an antithesis, there's got to be a synthesis."

Actually as far as solipsism goes that is pretty much it. I think therefor I am. That's all, there is a reason it's called a dead end.

"

"I don't think that solipsism states that nothing exists besides our consciousness, it merely states that we can never know anything about what exists outside our consciousness because we will never experience anything other than our consciousness. which means there is no reason to believe other people are actually other minds, or to believe that the external world's contents will 'continue to exist' when we are not experiencing them. — Darkneos

That seems to be the case. There is often confusion between the metaphysical and epistemological verisons.

"I don't think that solipsism states that nothing exists besides our consciousness, it merely states that we can never know anything about what exists outside our consciousness because we will never experience anything other than our consciousness. which means there is no reason to believe other people are actually other minds, or to believe that the external world's contents will 'continue to exist' when we are not experiencing them.

but solipsism does not deny that what we are experiencing is caused by external ripples.. this is still within possibility. It can simply never be determined true or not.

solipsism is logically flawless.. but it is also uninformative in the strictest sense of the word."

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4846074/fpart/3/vc/1#4846074

"Any type of sensory input. We divide this sensory input into categories such as sight, touch, sound, smell, etc. What we fail to acknowledge is that this classification of the senses is merely constructed and all sensation that we experience is just that, experience. It is difficult to define sensations because when we peel back the layers and look to their essence, there is nothing to be found. There is nothing other than the immediate totality of your perceptual state of being. This remains so whether or not you accept solipsism."

"I'd also like to point out how alarmingly consistent the tenets of solipsism are with the theories of quantum mechanics, namely, "the observer determines the outcome of the experiment." How could this possibly be so if not looked at from a solipsist viewpoint?

The same goes for the "we are all one" philosophy preached by Buddhism and other Eastern religions. In the solipsist sense, we are all one because everything exists within the single individual perception. If this is not so, then that immediately falls apart, because we are simply not all one. I am not the people who are replying to my post, I am the person that is typing this one. There is nothing to suggest otherwise because the only perception I have ever experienced is my own."

So in this conceptualization of existence wherein we awaken to a waking dream, the “mind” addressed in effect encapsulates all the sources of awareness and intention that interact (both human and non-human). Thereby not pertaining to any one source of awareness and intention. Thereby constituting one interpretation of a non-physicalist existential reality that, all the same, is constituted of multiple selves which all pertain to a common mind—for instance, a common effete mind as C.S. Peirce would say.

For the solipsist, there is an insistent equivocation between “me”, a source of awareness and intention, and “my mind” which is not “me” but instead belongs to “me”—such that both “me” and “my mind” are illogically affirmed to be identical. This is as equally true of mind (in whichever ontology) that is composed of both conscious awareness and sub- or unconscious awareness—such that both are conflated into “me” as conscious awareness—as it is in regard to the notion of mind as that which constitutes reality as a waking dream—wherein all others are irrationally deemed to be “figments of my imagination as a conscious awareness”.... Or, else, "my mind's figments of imagination" which, again, is conflated with the "me" that is one source of awareness and intention. — javra

I fail to see how this is unsound though. I mean just calling it a figment seems to be an explanation and there is nothing in solipsism that explicitly says there is an author to this. But for the purpose of solipsism (as in the threads I've shown) "me" and "my mind" are essentially one and the same. Regardless all we truly have is our own immediate sensory perception, which is also what it argues and one would find this point hard to deny.

Solipsism is fucking rubbish!


Solipsism is a philosophical position.
All philosophical positions require language use.
All language use requires shared meaning.
All shared meaning requires a plurality of creatures.
If solipsism is true there is no such plurality of creatures.
If solipsism is true there is no shared meaning.
If solipsism is true there is no language use.
If solipsism is true there are no philosophical positions.
Solipsism is a philosophical position.

Draw your own conclusion. — creativesoul

It's still in the realm of possibility that it was all formulated in my mind. I heard the private language argument before but I also heard it's weak against solipsism. I mean one could just create all the meaning in order to organize and establish one's ideas in order for it to make sense to oneself. I don't see how language requires shared meaning, it just needs one in order to understand it.

As was stated above a modern philosopher cannot evade it under certain models.

It's also not as ridiculous as it sounds:

"I will begin by saying that by any standard of proof, the onus is on an opponent of solipsism to prove solipsism is false. That is because solipsism is the default stance. You exist, and that is all you can be sure of. Basic Descartes which has not been shown to be false. The best argument against Cogito is that ‘maybe you only think you exist’ but this argument can never get off the ground since this already implies the Cogito. (How can you think something without existing?)

Now,

IT is important to define the different notions of solipsism.

First there is the notion that all that exists is your mind. This might encompass an experience.

If if encompasses an experience then nothing disproves solipsism. Your feeling something bump is just a sensation of yours, as is your sensation of being in control of things when you are. All that exists are the sensations, and they are what comprise your mind.

Mind might encompass experience plus action
If it encompasses action then there must be something that you have action over. Therefor either you have action over all things or else you have action over some thing, IN WHICH case there exist multiple things.

Now solipsism can still hold true if you think the self has action over some of its ‘body’. IF you think that the self is comprised of a body and a mind, then solipsism is still default, because quite simply, the things you experience, the ‘people’ you have relationships with are just part of your body, part that you do not have control over.

To deny solipsism in this sense is to say that other people have conscious minds, but this is not proven and in fact we have no way of proving this. We take it by faith.

If the self is considered to have control over all of itself, then solipsism is clearly FALSE because we do not have control of everything.



So the senses that solipsism is not disproven are:

All that exists is your experience, including your experience of control and of being affected by things that you perceive as ‘other’.

Or

All that exists is your mind and your body. You have control over some aspects of the body, and not others. The body supplies your mind with sensations. The crucial point is that no other minds exist.

A sense that solipsism IS disproven is:

All that exists is you (either body+mind or just mind), and you have control over every aspect of yourself.
This is not true because we simply don't have control over everything.

Solipsism is a most potent idea in the context of philosophy of MIND. Does your consciousness exist in a world with other consciousnesses or is it just your consciousness?

Since each consciousness only has access to its own consciousness, it has no way of proving that any other consciousness exists. Therefor the default stance is SOLIPSISM. Nevertheless this is hard to accept because we see other ‘people’ who seem to behave just like us, therefor we infer INDUCTIVELY that other consciousness probably exists, unproven.”

Except it is about issues with experience based logic as I have tried to show is the case here. Solipsism would also argue that all sensation that one experiences is produced by the mind.

"I suppose sensation is being as opposed to not being. Without sensation, there is nothing, which is inconceivable to the conscious mind. Stop moving completely for a moment, stop thinking, do not attempt to rationalize anything and just be still. Your state of being at that time will be the only thing in existence from your perspective, to assume that anything else is existing will require faith. I guess I can't give you a concrete answer because you are still presupposing that you are experiencing a "thing." Why does this have to be so? When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency. You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight."

The logic is clear from this quoted post, that all I have is immediate experience and anything else is an act of faith. I even posted a thread that explains the issues with experience based logic.

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4846074/fpart/7/vc/1#4846074

Solipsism refutes itself as even a solipsist would distinct between himself and others/things. This makes it unsound - if there was only himself he could not speak of other things: there would be nothing to experience — Heiko

The thread I linked addresses this part. The solipsist can only be sure that they exist themselves. It's not unsound. Why do we presuppose that we are experiencing a thing when according to the wiki page on it:

"There is no conceptual or logically necessary link between mental and physical—between, say, the occurrence of certain conscious experience or mental states and the 'possession' and behavioral dispositions of a 'body' of a particular kind."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

So again, how does it refute itself because so far the arguments don't seem so strong. You can intend X and not X by simply waving it away as a figment of your mind. Other people are figments of your mind and imagination. You cannot hold with certainty that other selves occur as javra wants to posit. There is no inconsistency with your experiences. How do you know they are aware? How do you know they have intentions and furthermore if they do how do you know you didn't intend them to be that way?

See what I mean? It's trickier than I hoped and that doesn't help when dealing with it.

And, it is the existing subject's relation to existence, not the nature of existence, but the relation that causes despair and makes a tragedy. As an existing subject, one is effectively "It", and this is the case regardless of whether solipsism is true or not.

If solipsism is untrue and there are other subjects like me, I still cannot directly access their subjective immediacy as I do my own. In this way I am unique and separate. Whether there are others like me or not, I am (as a subject) alone as it were. I think alone, dream alone, shit alone, die alone...this is what existence as a subject entails, even if you are incessantly surrounded by crowds imitating your every move. This senario seems to me to be even more dreadful and tragic than that of solipsism.

Just remember, when in solitude, everyone is effectively a solipsist, or maybe not, who knows? — Merkwurdichliebe

That's not true though. Because there are others around me I am not alone. I don't think alone, and I hopefully won't die alone. But if solipsism were the case then it would be true.

I can't see why anyone would do it. Willingly choose to be cosmically alone and shut off from any friends or loved ones.

What about the quantum physics that proves it though?

There's also some evidence from quantum physics to suggest solipsism: https://qr.ae/pNgq9Q
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_mechanics

"In solipsism, only the mind exists. It is important to note that the mind refers not to the brain, or one's ego perception, but the totality of all that you perceive, this includes all of the senses. What are the people around me other than images, sounds, and feelings?"

.

That's my case. I think that because something is logical that it must be true. I'm still getting used to the whole "valid but not true" thing.

I'm off to work for now, but wanted to make the comment: So too will some argue that Earth is flat irrespective of what you and I say. Why take what they say so seriously?

Especially when it comes to experience and intention ... you know your own better than anyone else, right? — javra

I mean yes...but what if my interpretation is wrong like the quotes say? According to some they say solipsism supports their experience. I can't say I agree though. But the point they make about when you tear down everything else all you have left is your own isolated perception. Some say this is Idealism and empiricism taken to their logical extreme.

No, the definition of self that you provided is enough and somewhat one the lines of what I think a self is as all.

I know there is the argument of P-Zombies, but if I never heard of the term it would not be my first reaction to a new world. Neither would that the world is my creation.

But as to intending both X and not X:

"When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency. You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight."

"It seems to me that absolute knowledge is the totality of the individual's current knowledge at any given moment. Any knowledge that has not yet been acquired is nonexistent until observed. Therefore, the equivocation of metaphysical and epistemological solipsism is still consistent with my own perceptual experience."

It's not really what I think about it but what others say about it. I don't want to believe it but it's a select others that say I am mistaken in dismissing it as false or wrong. We can go on about what I think about it, but that does not matter. What matters is the counter arguments I hear against me, mostly that it can't be refuted, is logically perfect, or that I have no evidence to believe my position, or that solipsism is the default.

I heard it said a lot that it is logically consistent and can't be refuted. I mean all I can be aware of is my own conscious experience and it's possible that there is nothing else.

https://askaphilosopher.org/2012/08/22/can-there-be-certainty-outside-my-currently-observed-world/

Solipsism being true would not be fun. It would lead to despair and tragedy as one would become keenly aware that they are "It".

I'm not entirely sure how that logic checks out, is there a way to expand on that?

Again butchering QM to make a point. The person in the article misunderstands observation as it applies to QM thinking that it means consciousness when it doesn't.

Also that article is useless, it's essentially a long winded way of saying "I don't know". Neuroscience is already getting to the point of solving consciousness, QM has no role in this.

Also for an article that has solipsism in the title it appears nowhere in the actual article.

It's not really a prejudice when it's a known "fact" that metaphysics is a useless branch of philosophy.

Introducing that into QM is likely to cause more problems and confusion in an already dense field of study.

I just don't see doubting as a valid form of argument because the same thing can be done right back to you to the point that no one really gets anywhere. Once you start doubting the senses then you don't really get to claim science for support for whatever claim you have.

Trauma is actually rather complex but it has nothing to do with a subconscious. It's literally wiring in the brain. Recent developments in neuroscience show that much of what was "the mind" is just the brain. The tricky part is that it's a little more than just going in there and nip and tuck.

"The mind" so far has no evidence for existing as neuroscience gets more advanced. What was termed the mind is just the brain: personality, behavior, emotions, everything. As for Freud psychology would have been better off without him. Talk therapy was his only good contribution but that was not news.

Apparently, from previous comments, you doubt that even You have a Mind! But, you seem to act as-if you are certain of your own mental/brain powers -- whatever you call them. Do you believe that other people have similar faculties? On what empirical basis? Do you know anything for sure, outside the direct experience of your own mind/brain/senses? On what empirical basis? Have you directly experienced all the "facts" of Science, or do you accept the testimony of those who have personal (solipsistic) experience with the pertinent experiments? — Gnomon

I don't know what you think pulling dictionary definitions prove or support in your arguments as nothing you have so far shows that quantum physics is on par with metaphysics. The two are not related no matter how much you want them to be.

To your first question, no I don't. I don't even know what a mind actually is yet the term is used often, I don't act though as if I am certain of anything I just act. The rest of your questions are all meaningless. The point of science is that one can test the claims being put forth. Considering science has brought planes, miracle drugs, tvs and other such gadgets I see no reason to doubt their testimony. I could but why? Unlike religion they actually deliver. I have experienced plenty of the facts of science, considering I have a major in the field.

If you are asking on what empirical basis, it's that I see it and feel it, etc. But one cannot know anything for sure and science doesn't claim to have certainty, hence it has evidence and not proof. I mean science acknowledges it's limits, other schools don't. I mean I can't be certain of my direct experience either, I have no choice but to take it as a given. I can't be sure of my mind or brain either. If you want to play the game of skepticism then we can play but neither of us is going to win out.

I'm not sure where you are going with your line of reasoning, but spouting dictionary terms seems to reflect your inability to put a good argument together. If you are trying to cast doubt on senses and empiricism then you don't have any grounds for trying to tie quantum physics with metaphysics.

Freud was a quack because his who body of work tried to pass itself for science when he had no evidence that any of it was a thing. He could not see past the ideas of his time either which greatly impacted his views.

I didn't need evidence to attack Freud but you refused to accept the obvious.

Regarding biases I am inclined to think that rather that certain biases rather than him creating them he had certain views because he was affected by the prejudices of a former time. What I believe he did was about bringing sexuality into an open forum. The ideas he expressed provided a forum for discussion and this in itself has been a starting point for positive developments to further the awareness of women's rights and gay rights. — Jack Cummins

Not at all. He is one of the people responsible for perpetuation negative stereotypes of women and essentially gave people "scientific" grounds to discriminate against homosexuality. He didn't bring sexuality into an open forum, he pretty much validated the male-centered view of the world and still cast the women as "other". If he never existed women and gays likely would not have had the setbacks they would have because people would not be pointing to him as "science" behind their views.

I don't think you grasp how worthless the mans ideas were and yet he was able to influence people for years afterwards before they got smart as saw him as a quack. You are attributing positives to the man that don't exist. Nearly all of psychology today recognizes how Freud damaged the field pretty badly and almost led to people not taking psychology seriously.

My questioning about discrediting the subconscious or unconscious is from a theoretical stance though. I am wondering is if we see the unconscious as a mere background process, I am left wondering if that would mean that sleep(and dreams) would be regarded as unnecessary. What would happen if we were awake constantly? I have experienced many sleepless nights and have felt absolutely terrible. I am not convinced that sleep is a mere rest for the body and do believe that dreaming is essential.I would suggest that it allows for some kind of synthesis of conscious experience. — Jack Cummins

Dreaming is not essential. Sure we can't really know much about it because it's very hard to test, but plenty of people have dreamless sleep and feel fine. Some don't dream at all. It's not essential. Your first conclusion does not follow. The subconscious being background noise does not mean sleep or dreams are unnecessary. IF you were awake constantly then you would suffer terribly as your brain cannot operate at that level for extended periods of time. Sleep is just rest for the body, that includes the brain. As for synthesis of conscious experience that is literally all we do. Our brains construct reality based on our sensations so what you get is a simulation not the actual thing.

But you are still working though, we are talking about flat out just not working at all. That is parasitic, it seems you misunderstood me.

We literally have neurological evidence that the unconscious is really just background brain processes that we aren't aware of. Freud however failed to provide any evidence that the subconscious is a repository of any sort.

Any fool can see his theories are rooted in the biases of his time.

In the case of the wolf man Freud pretty much fabricated the cause of the poor guy and claimed that he was cured when the man himself says that such a memory would be impossible.

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/06/science/as-a-therapist-freud-fell-short-scholars-find.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

His entire practice has 0 evidence to support it. Literally anyone can see it and it's why his name no longer holds sway in psychology, some even say he set the whole thing back by 50 years.

His theories about women were just downright horrifying:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/friedan.htm

He even thought homosexuality was stunted repression of sexuality and that it contributed to several mental illnesses. He's responsible for several anti-gay myths.

I could go on but there is literally scores of evidence as to why the man was a quack.

I mean he even tried to peddle cocaine as a psychiatric cure-all: http://marsdentherapy.blogspot.com/2011/08/book-review-freud-and-cocaine-freudian.html

There is literally thousands of reasons to forget about the man.

I know enough about philosophy to know that you are essentially trying to argue for solipsism.

The problem I have with idealism is how can the world be made of ideas when we haven't even learned them yet?

I also find that most idealists posit a "mind at large" that holds perceptions, for which I can't honestly see anyone actually believing it.

Why exactly would society support those who don't wish to work. It's different if they are unable to for some reason or another. But you are essentially asking society to validate parasitic lifestyles.

I have been confident individuals and cultures have a consciousness and a subconsciousness. What is the explanation of Freud being wrong about that? — Athena

They believe that but recent evidence shows there to be no such subconscious.

The revelation here is that working at a job that you enjoy is a luxury because several others have to work other jobs they don't exactly enjoy just to make that possible.

I suppose there is a point in that. Everyone lies at some point in their lives so it's not reasonable to suggest that they would turn EVIL later. Some people admit when they lie too and others do it for the right reasons.

You realize that the only way such a life is possible is because the majority doesn't follow that way of living?

I also forgot to mention that the guy you cited is essentially arguing for solipsism so.....good job.

Your posts are like someone who doesn't understand Quantum physics trying to explain what it is.

Not to mention the article you linked is full of errors in reasoning, not to mention that the author of the article does not have a degree in physics. He tries to peddle idealism as truth when it was debunked long ago and tries to use "mind" as a thing that exists when neuroscience has debunked it. Also mindless does not mean zombie.

Seriously, not sure how Scientific American greenlit that article.

No need since his entire body of work isn't rooted in evidence. It has been called into question several times and even some of the experiments he performed were found to lack serious control methods and even influenced outcomes. A number of his case studies have been found to be fabricated, distorted, or just outright fraud. His "repressed memories" were just confabulation like in the case of "the Wolf Man" where he essentially inserted what he thought happened to solve the case.

The man's entire body of work has no evidence to back it and some of the good stuff he came up with was actually practiced by others before and during his time. Not to mention the HEAVY bias evident in his world (it was a reflection of his time, not about human nature in general).

One doesn't need philosophy to see him for the quack he is.

I find Stoicism has too many contradictions to be a philosophy on how to live well.

As for Freud, the guy was a quack. I honestly wonder how he had such an influence for so long when much of his work has been discredited along the way. Even his notion of the subconscious was later found to be incorrect.

So we don't need a belief in natural rights, or inherent rights, to act morally and virtuously. — Ciceronianus the White

You kind of do, otherwise morality becomes "whatever I say is moral", something the stoics never fully grasped.