Doesn't God's omniscience matter in this? — TheMadFool

Depends on how you contextualize this. If you equate His/Her/Its omniscience with the world, then there is nothing apart from the World and God is a solipsist.

If intentionality isnt a necessary component of mind, then if God's mind lacks intentionality, how is that any different from a physical universe that is shaped by mindless, unintentional forces, the way way science describes reality? — Harry Hindu

Well, backtracking on my limited knowledge of Spinoza, this raises the concept of necessitarianism. If everything that is the case can only be true in one world*, then God is equanimous with a strict degree of agency pertaining to the current state of affairs of the world. So, human agency is essentially an illusion and God too has limited agency if we equate Him/Her/It with the World.

We could have minds too as you havent defined what mind is. — Harry Hindu

So, I'll assert that to have a mind is to have some degree of agency, or more succinctly, to have a mind is to have something called a free will.

* This still holds true for any multiplicity of world(s) or one world.

But how do you know anything if you aren't a mind? — Harry Hindu

Well, this goes deep into the realm of epistemology and what constitutes knowledge. But, not to profess sophistry, I suppose we can assert that epistemic closure is possible in a pragmatic sense, by which I mean that certainty is a fallacious concept apart from degrees of knowledge.

If agency is irrelevant then that is no different than describing the same unintentional nature of reality that science provides. — Harry Hindu

I'm not following you here, can you elaborate?

So you are saying that none of us have a mind except God? — Harry Hindu

Hypothetically, yes. Although, the act of endowing us with a free will would contrive with this line of reasoning. Again, I'm basing all of this on the Tractatus version of Spinozian pantheism.

Then how is it that you even know what a mind is to say that God has the only one if what you experience and "are" isn't a mind? — Harry Hindu

For all I know, and that's not a lot, I assume that agency is irrelevant, given God's solipsism.

How can I be a figment of god's imagination if I have a mind? If my experiences are not my mind, then what is a mind? — Harry Hindu

Well, you, we, all of us, seem to miss the point about there being no "self" in a solipsistic world. Thus, "minds" kinda go *poof*.

But I don't know that I'm really an avatar posing as god, therefore god can't be omniscient. All I know is that I have a mind, and if solipsism is true, then I am the solipsist by default and you are just an internet forum post because solipsism is the srate of affairs where there are no other minds other than my own. — Harry Hindu

No, no, good Sir. Only God is a true solipsist. So, we are all just figments of God's imagination, until God wakes up and decides to start playing peekaboo with Itself or musical chairs or some such game.

Not true. God is the ultimate solipsist. You are merely an avatar posing as God.

I laid out my reasoning here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/290567

As to the question about solipsism and pure realism, I recall his assertion of transcendental solipsism explained by P.M.S Hacker:

What the solipsist means, and is correct in thinking, is that the world and life are one, that man is the microcosm, that I am my world. These equations... express a doctrine which I shall call Transcendental Solipsism. They involve a belief in the transcendental ideality of time. ... Wittgenstein thought that his transcendental idealist doctrines, though profoundly important, are literally inexpressible.
— Hacker, Insight and Illusion, op cit., n. 3, pp. 99-100.

So, it is the inexpressible and ineffible that we are confronted here with.

More on the topic:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2614/on-solipsism/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4076/transcendental-solipsism/p1

We are the created. That such a thing happened is of great interest. But the way we talk about that captures some things and misses others. — Valentinus

Yes, we are. As to the implicit question as to why there is something rather than nothing... Well, that question is such a tongue twister, that I dare not address it.

So, whereof one cannot speak, thereof one ought to remain silent?

God as the only being, in whom everything that was, is, or will be exists, seems consistent with solipsism. — Bitter Crank

Yes, that is my starting premise.

Of course, God as conceived in the Western, Judeo-Christian scheme of things, made the world separate from himself. (It's all there in Genesis.) So the Western God of Abraham can not be a solipsist, because the world (cosmos, universe, multiverse?) isn't one and the same as God. — Bitter Crank

Yes, this is where I think Spinoza's pantheism fails or at least implies solipsism. In fact, any form of pantheism leads to the above conclusions. I've always identified myself as a pantheist so hence the above reasonings.

See that beautiful rose? God. See that bright star? God. See that manure pile covered with flies? God. See me? God. Want to see God? You are already there. — Bitter Crank

*Head explodes*

The idea is only worth entertaining if he/she is not. — Valentinus

Please expand. What do you mean?

I meant why should any creator bother with all of this. If we are the creatures trying to get a clue what is going on, the signs on the road are mostly posted by us, the clueless people on the road. — Valentinus

Yes; but, God is a solipsist or not?

If your are going to have a creator who made all the stuff, it is going to be difficult to talk about.
My first question is why bother with all this. — Valentinus

Because it's an interesting thought experiment. Despite the amusing quality of having God as a solipsist, which seems inherently true, how do you go about addressing the skeptical argument? I mean, in Descartes writing the evil demon who prods the individual to doubt is an ad hoc proof that one does not live in a solipsistic universe.

I'm returning to this thread after almost a year.

I have come to the conclusion that God is the only true solipsist. However, given that God can do anything imaginable and unimaginable (omnipotence), there is a way to counter her solipsism. I am going to utilize a naive understanding of epistemic logic to this goal of showing that God is both a solipsist and not a solipsist. I welcome anyone to comment on the coherence of this pseudo-proof, which I am working on formalizing. This will be an informal proof of showing that God is capable of being a solipsist and not a solipsist, both at the same time.

Now, given that God is omniscient, and knows everything since she is one and the same with the world itself. The world is everything that is both the case and not the case. By "the world" I intend to mean, that God inhabits every possible world that may or may not be actualized.

The hinge proposition that allows me to assert that God is a solipsist is the following: "A solipsist cannot doubt". Now, given this proposition, the implication is that a solipsist cannot doubt due to living in a world full of certainty. Where there is a certainty, doubt cannot arise. Furthermore, given certainty, this implies epistemic closure, which any skepticist would decry as heresy. However, omniscience implies epistemic closure in any given set of world'(s) or singular world.

The flipside is reconciling omnipotence with omniscience. If God is indeed a solipsist, then she cannot doubt per the above. Yet, God is omnipotent. So, how does one, in some sense, escape the boundaries of absolute omniscience, or epistemic closure? The answer is that God is not an individual agent since she is equated with the same knowledge of inhabiting every possible world. Thus, God's knowledge is not limited to one possible world; but, an infinite many. Thus, God has the ability to expand her knowledge to infinite many possible worlds.

Thus, I conclude, and this is the important part, that if God is equated with the sum total of all possible worlds, then she is still a solipsist. Therefore, either God is a solipsist under this assumption or the other alternative, that God transcends the world in an unimaginable, unspeakable, and ineffable sense and is not a solipsist. Or to put this more succinctly, God cannot attain (absolute) epistemic closure, given that this would imply solipsism.

Any thoughts, criticisms, and questions welcome.

What do you mean by that, God is not a realist? — Pussycat

No, God is a solipsist. He/She/It literally cannot doubt. God cannot doubt. I can provide an epistemic proof that for any solipsist, epistemically they cannot doubt.

Chimppigs degree of masculinity and effeminate qualities causes much confusion. It has the power to confront the ubermensch in its eternal reoccurrence.

Yes, you understand the ChimpPig.

Is ChimpPig that which begets ChimpPig? — Couchyam

Yes. ChimpPig begets PigChimp. It never ends.

By blaspheming the hyphen or separation — thedeadidea

Chimp-Pig

Continuing the memetic argument for Chimppig as a necessary intellectual artifact so that Man does not like the smell of his own farts to bottle as fragrance... ChimpPig is necessary for the survival of our species.. by everyone accepting chimppig we give redemption... — thedeadidea

Yes, PigChimp or ChimpPig is a relic of our past. How does one address it is a conundrum?

Yeah, and here I take my bow and leave with some semblance of dignity.

Trump comes off to me as a human being, although with flaws, just like anyone else. Clinton and Biden have their prerogatives and frankly I'll come off as a loon but their are deeply entrenched in special interests and the "deep state".

*Goes and takes his meds*

And voting for the best candidate would be the best course of action. — S

Yeah, define best... Go figure.

I think he's secretly a communist — Benkei

:love:

Although, I should say that neo-cons like Bush and the like, fundamentally hate Trump for sabotaging Jeb's chance at the Bush dynasty. So, too the Clintons hate him for dashing their chance at their own dynasty.

If anyone can think of anything that makes more sense, please post it. — tim wood

Here's my take from my plebian perspective. Trump is trying to imitate Reagan through adherence to neo-conservative economic thought. There's also a lot of libertarian sentiment in his philosophy of governance. Also, he has a lot of humanity in him, which other people don't really notice or are biased about him being on team red. He hasn't started any new wars, wants us to direly go back to the moon. Is very concerned about the American public, although some might say in a misguided manner. Psychologically he displays traits of an antisocial personality with a tinge of paranoia... He trusts Russians more than his own advisors, which is worrying to say the least. He has a very short attention span and is obsessed with the media, which is where he derives most of his "stable genius" insights.

The fundamental mistake about Trump is that he thinks that the American government should be run like a business, which is his area of expertise. But, the simple fact is that he is quite inept and unqualified for the job. You're going to hate me for saying this; but, if it comes down to a decision between Biden or Trump, I would pick Trump. As others have said Biden is Hillary with a penis.

The mechanisms and implications of this are my focus. — schopenhauer1

As far as I'm aware it's a matter of our sentience and intelligence that allows us to adapt and change our behavior. We have a unique feedback mechanism along with memories that can be altered in perception. I don't know where you might be able to find an adequate answer to this question based on facts as the field of cognitive science is constantly being reinterpreted. But, your focus should not be on the hippocampus, which is not unique to humans; but, rather the higher brain functions such as the frontal cortex and prefrontal cortex.

There's also the matter of religion and belief. Some animals display advanced behavior such as mourning over the dead. Such as elephants, chimpanzees, and primates in general.

Then there are the obvious ties between Nazi Germany and their reification of the Holy Roman Empire, along with their crusade against the Jews.

https://www.quora.com/If-the-Roman-Empire-was-the-First-Reich-and-Nazi-Germany-was-the-Third-what-was-the-Second-Reich

As in the case of Nazi Germany, the Jews were being blamed for all sorts of societal ills, but the Nazis were not fundamentalist Christians who were trying to settle an age old dispute about messiah killing. — Hanover

I've researched the issue about ties between the Nazi leadership and Christianity, and what I've found is that Hitler exploited Christianity to further his appeal to the German public. I'm not that aquianted with fascism and religous belief; but, I suppose Christianity was looked over much like Orthodoxy was overlooked in the USSR.

Some interesting food for thought:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/04/hitler-messiah-complex-secret-british-intelligence-report
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/hitler-created-fictional-persona-to-recast-himself-as-germanys-savior-180967790/

http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gcc_politics.htm


http://alamoministries.com/content/english/Antichrist/nazigallery/photogallery.html

Besides the probable critique that this is a "false" dichotomy, what are the implications as to human nature? Also, how did this decoupling occur over time between survival through instinctual mechanisms and surviving through cultural learning mechanisms? — schopenhauer1

The thread lacks focus. Could you distill what you're trying to get at?

I don't know if this is psychoceramics, or not. Someone tell me how anyone could trivialize social dynamical insight into a matter of psychoprofundity and extreme stereotypical thinking.

Get back to the fields and sing! — unenlightened

I think I'll continue wallowing contently while puffing on my cigarette.

*Wallows with grace*

One sees what one is, what one is made of, that it is the drama, that it is the past that one replays, and that there is nothing else to one's substance than this melodrama, and one is always hiding the void from oneself and from others. — unenlightened

OK, now we are talking about identity consolidation, am I correct? And, if I am, then I don't see how any escape is possible, as you say. It's all there in the background. The coal burns nicely, and nobody cares about the smoke until they have to breathe it, or until the "frog" croaks from the heat. I can see where this is going, but, I suppose that there is no cathartic tabula rasa that one might want to find in the grace of God or in some monastery or even in the ecstasy of nirvana found in meditation.

But, if the issue is forming and developing a healthy and sound identity, with ego boundaries firmly established through social norms and the roles we thus play, then doesn't your analysis collapse on itself and digress into some quasi-nihilistic insight? After all these years interacting with you, and trying to find some guiding theme in your philosophy, I am coming to the conclusion that you either want us to digress into a state of an atavistic emotive reactionary motivating force that would 'direct' us or a Nietzschian derivative of logotherapy. Am I mistaken here?

I'm going to profess my antipsychologist view on the matter, and welcome any criticism.

I feel as though some memories cannot be assimilated into one's being, such as profound trauma, sexual abuse, extreme neglect, even bullying.

Now, people tend to focus on these rare events that have happened in their mind/body/spirit, and in some sense get stuck or fixate on them. What results from this is most likely all the aforementioned woes of existence. The solution cannot be found in reliving the past or perpetuating it according to emotive reasoning or rationalizations.

The solution, I think, is to simply encode new memories and keep on moving forward. Someone might say, that this is wishful thinking or easier said than done; but, there really is no way; but, forward.

Perhaps, this is what you were getting at @unenlightened? Because as it stands we are in a swamp of these "rationalizations". Yes, there is nothing more genuine and authentic than one's feelings; but, from my readings on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, they can be detrimental in dictating or reinforcing negative habits or cognitive distortions.

It might indeed 'hurt China', but China does not pay the tariffs. — Wayfarer

No, nobody is forcing US consumers to buy Chinese products, despite their products perhaps being cheaper than US products or European products. I mean, when you go to the grocery store or buy an appliance, are you always going to choose the cheapest product, or even appealing to your patriotic sensibilities of the sticker "Made in the USA"? That the whole schtick with nativist tendencies of any previous or future president of any country.

And, claiming that Trump is dumb or stupid or inept, really does the discussion no good.

China does not pay the tariffs - the receiving country pays them. — Wayfarer

No, this isn't entirely true. It hurts China by decreasing demand for its products within the US. This is like econ 101, so I think you understand the point, along with my previous post.

Trump mistakenly believes that China pays the US tariffs on goods exported to the USA. — Wayfarer

I'm not quite sure that's true. In basic economic terms, the goal is to impose a deadweight loss cost on products originating from China, supposedly bolstering the competitiveness of American products. That was the intention of imposing tariffs.

However, given the example of steel, China has an absolute advantage due to being the sole country that has such cheap labor and the capacity to satisfy world demand. So, as you say, the deadweight loss is actually hurting US interests from my perspective.

Supposedly, we can compensate by importing goods from Canada and South America; but, China is pretty hard to beat in the commodities market.