What does it all mean?

alec

White heterosexual male
Orderite
I was having a discussion with a friend of mine yesterday and after half a bottle of whiskey, we started having those famous let's-make-the-world-a-better-place-conversations. At one point we were going over the various ways to interpret the fabric of reality. We came up with four possibilities:

[1] Open universe
You know: it all started with the Big Bang, the universe is expanding and it will continue to do so until the last star dies out and the universe is changed into a humongous impossibility. Maybe the universe will expand even further after that, or it comes to a stop - no one cares, because all that will be left, is nothingness. This is probably the most popular scientific theory concerning the universe. It's a theory that basically says: it doesn't matter a fuck what you do in life, you'll die, the sun will expand until it cooks the earth, the universe will eventually die out and everything that once was, will be gone - forever. It's also the kind of theory that makes me want to rape my female colleague, knock my boss on the head with a blunt object (preferably a base ball bat) for half an hour and slit my wrists whilst watching the twentieth rerun of a Simpsons episode.

[2] Closed universe/Cyclic universe/Perpetual return
It all started with a Big Bang, the universe expands, slows down and comes to a halt after which the gravitational forces of all the stuff that the universe consists of makes it contract, shrink together again into the same singularity it was before the shit hit the fan and it went BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! After which the same shit happens. After which the same shit happens. After which the same shit happens. And so on.
This is basically the 'scientific' twin theory of Nietzsche's idea of perpetual return: we've been here before, we will be here agin and nothing (not even that speck of dust that is now floating through the air and is lighting up in that ray of sunlight) will be different the next time through. Everyone's life is one big déjà-vu and that's what it'll always be.

[3] Intelligent design
Someone or something sentient made everything in the universe. And is lamenting himself and his creation right now, no doubt. Some call this omnipotent geezer 'God', some call him 'Allah' or some might even call him 'LGM' (collectively). Anyway, this geezer made everything and everyone and most of the time he also gave us some sort of manual that tells us how to live our lives (like the bible, the quran, the collected works of Charles Schulz, and so on).
One little petty detail that no religion has a good answer to is this: if that supergeezer created everything and everyone, than whom created him? Aha! See how crappy religion is?

[4] Solipsism
When you think about it, solipsism is basically just a variant of religion. This time it is the 'I' that is the supergeezer and that 'I' created everything and everyone. Some people actually believe this and say funny stuff like: 'When I was 8, I invented the exclamation mark' or 'Don't you think it was a terribly good move of me to put breasts on the chests of women?' Solipsists are always individualistic, have bigger than life egos and think of themselves as highly creative personalities.
Whatever, right? People who believe in solipsism can not answer this: Well, if you created everything and everyone, then whom created you?
So they loose.

That's all we could come up with: four lousy theories that try to explain how it all happened.

My question is this: do you know of yet another way to interpret the fabric of reality? And no crappy stuff like 'Oh yeah, I believe in the spaghetti god of antipasta-rhubarb-tomato-sauce' or whatever. Just something totally different from the four 'theories' I already summed up.

And: where would you place Plato's cave? Would that be a fifth theory (matrix-style)?
 
Solipsism and Plato's cave are fairly synonymous. In fact, your definition of Solipsism is flawed.

Solipsism includes the belief that you are the only being in existence and the rest are made up, yes. But just like a hawk is a bird but a bird not a hawk, this is not a fitting definition of solipsism.

The belief that "you are the only verifiable entity in reality" (I think, therefore I am, etc.) is also Solipsism, yet it does not assume no one else exists, it assumes nothing, it just states that you are sure of your own existence but unsure of that of others.
 
Well, thanks a lot for pointing that out to me, Kharn. Cogito ergo sum, duder. Right. :roll:

I beg to differ on the subject of Plato's cave, though. Plato's cave is often discussed in books about semantics as well (together with Foucault's essay on Magritte's work, Ceci n'est pas une pipe or something along those lines). Isn't it more of a metaphore for how the reality one perceives (a picture of a pipe) is merely a shadow of the real world (the pipe itself)? 'Cause I sure thought it was. I even remember having a professor in linguistics who couldn't shut up about that cave. I don't immediately see the connection with solipsism.

Oh, and that piece of text I wrote under each of those headings, shouldn't be regarded as a definition per se, you know. I know there's more to these words/ideas/theories than I jotted down. I wasn't trying to be complete or whatever.

The way I understand solipsism: one thinks that his mind or his consciousness is the only mind there is and everything else is something he made up, so these other things only exist in his head. I don't see how Descartes' adage is solipsistic, though. It isn't according to my dictionary. :D

Now that I come to think about it, maybe Plato's cave could just be another religious idea: if the only existing mind would be God's and we were mere chimeras in that mind. On the other hand: we would need minds of ourselves to come up with such an idea, so no. I feel like Plato's cave might be a good fifth theory/idea/whatever.

Okay then... :roll:
 
alec said:
Well, thanks a lot for pointing that out to me, Kharn. :roll:

Yeah, screw you too.

alec said:
I beg to differ on the subject of Plato's cave, though. Plato's cave is often discussed in books about semantics as well (together with Foucault's essay on Magritte's work, Ceci n'est pas une pipe or something along those lines). Isn't it more of a metaphore for how the reality one perceives (a picture of a pipe) is merely a shadow of the real world (the pipe itself)? 'Cause I sure thought it was. I even remember having a professor in linguistics who couldn't shut up about that cave. I don't immediately see the connection with solipsism.

Percieved reality is not necessarily reality. It fits within the Solipsistic model in a limited way, since both assume the self is one thing and the percieved world another. Plato's Cave could be seen as a model of Solipsism, in fact.

Except that Plato's Cave is, as you said, mostly a religion, whereas Solipsism presents itself more as a Rational Philosophy, despite the dumbass ontological proof of God.

alec said:
The way I understand solipsism: one thinks that his mind or his consciousness is the only mind there is and everything else is something he made up, so these other things only exist in his head.

No. No it isn't. Solipsism is defined as any and all philosophies that hold that the self is the only thing that can be verified. Your theory is just one of the set. What am I, a broken record? Try reading what I said and digging up some reference material to confirm/disprove it before going "Thanks for pointing it out"

Trying to define a philosophy through a dictionary is a bit inane, but let me counter with the online dictionary:

sol·ip·sism Audio pronunciation of "Solipsism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slp-szm, slp-)
n. Philosophy

1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

See? One or the other. The theory you states is #2, the theory covering that theory in a wider scale is #1, which includes Descartes.

Descartes was definitely, some say the first, Solipsist (though his self-contradictory philosophy of course goes un-Solipstistic at points too. Such a fool, that man)

alec said:
On the other hand: we would need minds of ourselves to come up with such an idea, so no.

That is just an assumption, not a logical conclusion.

There are even philosophers that argue that I think therefore I am is not very logical. Though I forgot how they went about it.
 
Okay, okay, I get it, kid. There's no need to be so goddamn touchy because I forgot some lessons from way back into the past, now is there? Anyway: it's still solipsism, isn't it? So I rule! 8)

Ha.

Oh, and thanks for the links, kid. They might be useful.
 
[2] for me, with a dash of how dictionary.com defines [4].

What goes up must come down, but you get to decide where to throw it.
 
Never having read anything about Plato's Cave allegory except what Plato himself wrote I probably shouldn't voice an opinion, but.... you guys have some weird takes on it.
 
We could all be someone's imagination.

We could all be a program in a gigantic game world.

Meh, I just hope next time around I'll be programmed with a better set of eyes. Fucking glasses.
 
Intelligent ... Solipsism

Intelligent ... Solipsism



alec's quest de jour:
... And: where would you place Plato's cave? ...

160 knowable locations!
http://www.platoscloset.com/platoscloset/myarticles.asp?P=7116&S=7408&PubID=4364

url copy:
Plato’s Closet® is all about being fashion savvy ....


Does tailoring, and or, improving one's self image, improve the self's imaging?

In the context, the confines, of Plato's .... Closet ...

Do the clothes make the man? - I - posture and strut on the runway, this stage of ... of ''livin' large'', therefore - I - am. '''Too sexy for my shirt ... ''''

Are the shadows of doubt, the flickering, distracted wave patterns of a lurking fashion fascist? Thus, the sturm und drang of dancing dualities. Or did your Mom just dress you funny?

In the tedious tango of YES'S and NO'S ..... can one seek the sanctity of - one - MAYBE?

The zero's and one's conceive a trinity.

Wait.
Is that your mother callin' , ... , a matriarchal intercession or a designed misdirection?





4too
 
[2] Closed universe/Cyclic universe/Perpetual return
It all started with a Big Bang, the universe expands, slows down and comes to a halt after which the gravitational forces of all the stuff that the universe consists of makes it contract, shrink together again into the same singularity it was before the shit hit the fan and it went BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! After which the same shit happens. After which the same shit happens. After which the same shit happens. And so on.
This is basically the 'scientific' twin theory of Nietzsche's idea of perpetual return: we've been here before, we will be here agin and nothing (not even that speck of dust that is now floating through the air and is lighting up in that ray of sunlight) will be different the next time through. Everyone's life is one big déjà-vu and that's what it'll always be.

This is basically the idea I have, except with other ideas with it. Not only is this the pattern of existence (big bang, seasons, ages, mortality, entropy), but it can include a "God" if you don't try to define "God".

What I mean is, like the idea of Tao, there a great force or energy guides everything. You can go with this or not, but people who try to flow with the "divine wavelength", Tao or whatever, tend to live happier, more fulfilling lives.

That's just my idea, you will think whatever you wish of course but it helps me see it that way and gives me some purpose or drive to live and be happy.
 
It gets even better when you include alternate universes, and multiverse(s) theories.

What I mean is, like the idea of Tao, there a great force or energy guides everything. You can go with this or not, but people who try to flow with the "divine wavelength", Tao or whatever, tend to live happier, more fulfilling lives.

Psft... Taoism is so copying The Force.
 
Well, I'd go for #2, if only because I don't believe in infinit growth.
 
Back
Top