Solipsism, Extreme Religiosity and Belief
by Andrew P. Keltner
for The GCAS Review
Introduction
Extremereligiosityis,initsnatureanextremeidealandisaformofsolipsism,bothofwhichare countertotheintersubjectivemethodsofthought.Thenaturalconnectionhere,isthattheyare diametricallyopposedtooneanother,thatbeingsolipsismandreligiositytogethercomparedto intersubjectivity.Thisisanevaluationoftheargumentativemethodsofsolipsisticbehaviorand tendenciesbyanintersubjectivedeconstructionistspointofview.WhileIunderstandthata personcannotevershowthemselvestobeatruesolipsist,itis1)themethodofthinkingand2) thehigherorderoflaw,thatisfollowedthatissolipsistic.Perhapsthisisonlyintheory,andis somethingthatshouldbeunderstoodmoreasanidealism.Albeitoneofthemostunaware self-segregating manners, an ostracisation of others and their views.
Whatthispaperaimstodoisdefinesolipsism,makeuseofempiricalstudiesofextreme religiosity,andreconcilethosetwopiecesofknowledge.Certainpresuppositionsintheworkare thatbeliefandreligionandcloselyintertwinedconcepts,asarefaithandbelief.Aswell,thereis apresuppositionthatbeliefleadstobehavior/actionandthatextremebeliefismoresubjective thanintersubjectiveandobjectiveandthatthistypeofbeliefsystemispracticallyconcerned, morenegativethanpositivebehavior/action.Finally,thereisalsoaninclusionof‘extreme intersubjective’asamodeofthoughttohighlightthedifferenceoflogicalprobabilitytotruthas comparedtosolipsism,whichagain,thispaperfindsascloselyrelatedtoextremereligiosity,or belief.
Solipsism in Ideal Form
Simplydefined,solipsismisawayapersonseestheworld.Itisthatthesolipsististheonlyone whointerprettheirmentalfunctioningandexperiences.Itisarejectionofintersubjective
tendencies,whichareinherentlynotsolipsisticinnature.Thustherecanbedoctrine,that includesandexcludeswhatitwants,solelyonapersonallevel,andonecouldevenarguethatis infactaformofdogmatismofthesoliptsmind.Whatwillbediscussedhere,willbethe similaritiesoftheIDEALISTfallaciesofsolipsismagainstthemorerationalintersubjective method,followedbyacomparisonoffallaciestothesocialcategorizationofreligiosity,and finally a brief conclusion.
Thistopiciscertainlyworthexploring,becausewhenone,oracommunity,havesucha removedsenseofbeingfromothers,suchasinsolipsism,oneisinapositionthatisinstark contrasttoanymodeofthoughtthatwouldotherwiseberationalbythecommunityandforthe community.ThispiecewilllargelybetheoreticandIwillfocusthecriticismwithexamplesfrom WittgensteinandC.UlisesMoulines,whilealsogivingnuanceddetailtothepsychological aspectsofsolipsism. Whilethiswillbearoughanalysisofthequestion‘doesextremereligiosity mimicsolipsism?’,thehopewillbeabletoeitherformahypothesisoratleastunderstandif thereismoreresearchtobedonebeforeahypothesiscanbeformed.Now,foranexampleof what is the logic and cognitive function of a solipsist.
Wecanprovethatanappleisanapplebycomparingittootherapples.Fromintuition andcommonknowledgewecandothis.Wedonothavetoproveanappleisanapplesolelyby provingitisnotabrick,orsomethingelse.But,asolipsisthastoprovetheyarewhattheyclaim tobe,asolipsist,bystatingthattheyarenotasomethingelse.Iftheyweretoprovetheyarea solipsistbycomparingthemselvestoanothersolipsist,thentherewouldbenosuchthingasa solipsist,inthatcase.So,ifasolipsistweretoproveanapplewereandapple,towhatwouldbe anotherformofthatsolipsistspersonalmind,orlackthereofamind(beingitaprojectionthe solipsistmakesforitselftoprovethathasproventoitscreationthatthereisanappleandthat thatappleisanapple)itwouldstillneedtoconvincetheotheroftheapplescertaintywith language, an intersubjective tool.
Now,ifwearetoproveassolipsiststhatanappleisanapplefromcommonknowledge andintuitionthatwehavemadeupbythepowerwehaveassolipsists,thenweshouldbeableto provethatwearesolipsistsasintheothersofourbeing.Thatis,eitherourmindisnon-existant
orexistentonlyasinourmindsarealsoourselves(ofes)assolipsists.Whichinaccordancewith the following quote would seem, reasonably so, to be an incredible feat to do to another person.
“[Thesentence]‘Aisaphysicalobject’isapieceofinstructionwhichwegive onlysomeonewhodoesn’tyetunderstandwhat‘A’means,orwhat‘physical object’means.Thusitisaninstructionabouttheuseofwords,and‘physical object’isalogicalconcept[...].Andthatiswhynosuchpropositionas:‘There are no physical objects’ can be formulated.”1
Canoneimaginethis?Apersontoconvinceyouthatyouareoftheirmind?Andoftheir truebeliefsystem?ThiswouldbeanundertakingofreadingthewholeLibraryofBabel. However,thisisnotthepreferedmethod,onlyanexampleofthemore“humanistic”irony intended approach that could be taken.
Ifasolipsistweretoarguethattheirbeliefscomefromasolipsisticbackground,thatis thattheirbeliefsarecompletelyselfmade,thatcouldbetrue,butthatdoesnotnegateothers’ existence.Doestheinheritanceofthethoughtofsolipsismimplythattemporalityofshared consciousnessandthoughtdoesnotexisteither?Forthesolipsistmusthavecreatedthe backgroundofmindsthatifitisintheirheadtobeasolipsistthenalltheprecedinginformation ofwhattheyhavelearneduptotheir“present”isalltheirowncreation.Meaning,theyare responsiblefor“creating”thepeoplebeforethemandusingan apriori andareverse ad infinitum explanation.Furthermeaningtheyarealsobyvirtueincharge,ormentallycapableof sub-consciouslyintellectualizingsucheventsasthebigbang,historyingeneral,orwhatever narrativeoftheircosmologicalview,ethicalview,etc.thattheyhaveastheirprincipal foundationsinthought.Whichbringsanewsetofquestions:whatdoesitmeanforasolipsistto arguewiththemselves!?Tohavethatinnerreflection,thatinnerdialogue.Orisitthattheinner minddoesnotdothis.Certainlythiswouldseemassomesortofpathology.Aswell:whatofthe eventsof noumenon,thatthesolipsistdoesnotrecognize?Dotheseeventssimplynotexist?Or ofthenoumenonthatitdoesnotknow?Ordoesthatnotexist?Isitratheraformoflivingwhere:
1 (Wittgenstein, Ludwig, G. E. M. Anscombe, and G. H. Von Wright. On Certainty. New York: Harper & Row, 1972. Print.)
‘whatisbehindmeandIcannotseedoesnotexist’?Meaningthatthesolipsistisinfactin chargeofsuchphysicalphenomenaasreflection.But,iftheywereatruesolipsist,couldnotthey notmakenoumenonforwhichtheywillnotknow?Thusaparadoxiscreatedforthem.These questionscanbeanalogizedwithastorybyC.UlisesMoulinesduringaspeechofhisatthe MunichCenterforMathematicalPhilosophy.ThestoryinquestionisbySpanishwriterPedro Calderon de la Baca and is titled “LIFE IS A DREAM”.
Inthestoryaprinceisheldprisonerbyhisfatherafterafortunetellerdescribesthatthe princeisexpectedtobeahorriblefutureleader.Hisfatherlockshimawayinatowerandhe onlyhasawindowtolookoutof.Heistaughtthelanguageandtheconceptofdreams.Heis taughttheconceptofdreamssothatwhenheisreleasedfromhisprisontotestwhetherthe fortunehewastoldistrueornot,hecanbeputbackintotheprisonandthinkitalladream,in caseheshouldcausemuchtroublewhenoutside.Shouldhebeputbackhewillalwaysthinkof hisdaysoutasdreams.Thiscreatestwomathematicalsequencefortheprincetofollow.The first,iswhatwewillcallaT-sequence,whichcanbeseenasT=<n,n+2,n+4,n+6,....>,and second,theP-sequence,whichcanbeseenasP=<n+1,n+3,n+5,....>.Thesearerepresentations ofalternatingdays,whereonedaytheprinceisinthetower,andanotherdaywhereisinthe palace.Now,hecanmakesenseofeachsequence,butnottheircombinedalternatingformula, <n,n+1,n+2,n+3,....>.Heseesbothsequencesrelativetooneanother,andifoneisreal,thenthe otherisadream,andvice-versa.Hedoesnothowever,showwhichsequencehefavorstobethe ‘real’sequenceandconcludesthatbotharefictional.Now,whilethisdoeshaveadegreeof probability,thereareonlytwodifferentsequences.So,whatoftheactivesolipsistwhohasthe libertyoffreemovementandknowledgeofhistory?Surelyeachsetting,temporality,location, degreeofinteractiononthemicroandmacrolevelavailablethroughoutalltime,mustbeanew sequence.Logicwouldfollowthatthismuchincreasesthelevelofimprobabilitytoinfinite proportions.Wecanuseinfinitybecause,asthetheoryofquestioningthatthesolipsistwould havetogothrough,totrulyprovetheirpointwouldhavetoensureallexhaustedpossibilities-it isperhapsforthisreasonthatphilosophershaveonlydiscussedtheideaofsolipsismas problematic.Andthisalso,isperhapsinsighttodemonstratethatthoseactingsolipsisticallyare
notinanyway,shape,orform,actingphilosophically.Whichwouldmakesense,philosophyis the love of wisdom, while solipsis is the doubt of wisdom that is not self generated.
Now,forargument'ssake,letussaywedofindwhatthesolipsisthastosayissufficient forallourneedstobelievethem.Which,forclarification,wouldbeconvincingalllivingbeings thatthesolipsistinquestionis,inaveryliteralsense,thealphaandomegaofreality,ofwhich weareonlyimaginations.But,thiswillneverbesufficientenoughtosatisfyeveryone.Aswell, evenifthereisthethought,thattheoretically,thissolipsistwouldhavetheanswerfor everything,therewouldstillneedtobeananswerfortheentitiesaskingthequestions.Soatbest, thesolipsistisonlytwoforcesworkingtodisproveitself.Itisaninteractiongoingonbetween figureoneandfiguretwo-insidethesolipsist,thequestionerandtheanswererofaninfinite cycle, a great showing that there is a duality in the perfect demonstration of the solipsist to itself.
However,ifthisdoesnotsufficethesolipsistthentherestillexiststheproblemof languageforthesolipsist.AsRichardBoydwritesin OntheCurrentStatusoftheIssueof ScientificRealism,“(type)term t referstosomeentity e justincasewherecomplexcausal interactionsbetweenfeaturesoftheworldandhumansocialpracticesbringitaboutthatwhatis saidof t is,generallyspeakingandovertime,reliablyregulatedbytherealpropertiesof e.”2 Svenifthesolipsistsays,thatofthequestionerandtheanswererrelationship,thatitisvoidof interpretationasanythingotherthanbeingasolipsist,thefactthatlanguageisusedto demonstrate this, refers to the outside as ‘other’.
Solipsismatit’sbest,isagrandioselookatyourselfopposedtoothersasanexertionof autonomy.Somewhatafalsesteptowardsbeingauthentic,asanexistentialistmightdefine authenticity.Itisauniquestandingastheonlyindividualwhocanunderstandthemselvesina space/timecontext.Anunderstandingofobjectsandsubjectsbeingboileddowntoone understandingrepresentedinonepersonwhohasjustdiscoveredthephenomenonofthinking solipsisticallyandthinkssolipsisticallymorefromintriguethanfrombelief.Astanceperhaps comparabletoDescartesradicaldoubt.Atitsworseitisasickenedandverbosestatementthat onlyyouarematter,inthesenseofbeingthepowerovermatter.Theonlydifferencebetween thesetwosimilarstatementsishowpositiveornegativetheactionsofthesolipsistare,upon
2 (Boyd, Richard N. "On the Current Status of the Issue of Scientific Realism." Methodology, Epistemology, and Philosophy of Science (1983): 45-90. Print.)
otherentities.Thusgivingtheonlywaytocreditasolipsististobeonewhoisnot.Disproving theirsolipsism.Theideaofsolipsismisveryreal.Theideathatyoucanthinksolipsisticallyis verypalpable.Thatyouaretheonewhomakesyournarrativeandmoralsandopinions,without theunderstandingofothers.Andthatlossofunderstandingandclosingyourselfofffromothers, theabsenceofanintersubjectivelifestyleisquitesimilartoreligiousdogmaand fundamentalism. Which we will look at next.
Extreme Religiosity and Belief
Religiosity,beingastrongadherencetoreligiousvaluesandreligioustendenciescan explainitselfinseveraldifferentfashions.Now,sociologicallyspeaking,inreligiositythereare severalcompetingcategorizationsofwhichreligiouspeoplefallinto.Wewilllookatandfocus on three schema. 3
First,isthemannerofcognition,whichisdividedintotraditionalorthodoxyand particularisticorthodoxy.Traditionalorthodoxyissimplyorthodoxy,inwhichthepractitioner submitstopreviouslyheldbeliefsandcustoms,quitesimplythisisanintersubjectiveapproach tothecognitionvalue.Particularisticorthodoxyisaformofindependentorthodoxy,inwhichthe customsandpopularlyheldbeliefsmightbemanipulatedforamoredesiredoutcomebythe practitioner(s).Thisismuchmoreinlinewithasolipsisticapproach,asasolipsistcouldbe consideredapureparticularistforallthosenotionsthatproblematizetheirwayofthinking. Particularismisalsomoreresponsibleforirresponsibleinterpretationsofbeliefs,beingthatitis manipulatedforanoutcome.Now,thisisnotnecessarilythestandard,howeverthisiswherethe religiousoutliersarefoundinreferencetotheirinterpretation,andthisiswhereextreme religiousinterpretationisfound.Itdoesnottakeabigstudytoknowthiscommonsensetruth. Extremists,religious,political,etc.actinwaysthatgoagainsttendenciesandcreateparticular manners of interpretation.
Secondiscommitment.Thisisdividedbetweencommitmenttothechurchortothe spiritual.Ofcourse,thepersonofextremebeliefacceptsspiritualityovercommunity.Andwhat thismeansisthelargercommunityasawhole,opposedtotheclosercommunityofwhattheyare
3 (Cornwall, Marie, Stan L. Albrecht, Perry H. Cunningham, and Brian L. Pitcher. "The Dimensions of Religiosity: A Conceptual Model with an Empirical Test." Review of Religious Research 27.3 (1986): 226. Print.)
wantingtobeorareinfluencedtobespiritually,whichisthenichecommunitythatthespiritual practitionerwillfallinto,whichisagain,theoutlier.Giventheparallelbetweenintersubjective thoughtandsubjectivethought,onebeingthecommunityandonebeingspiritual,thesolipsist certainly lies within the spiritual realm. In the spiritual realm, the last two requirements read:
“d. I am willing to do whatever the Lord tells me. e. Without religious faith, the rest of my life would have
no meaning.”4
Thesetworequirementshavebeenshowntobefoundationsofthoughtpatternsthatarisein extreme religious behavior and show a separateness from the community as a whole.
Third,isbehavior.Thisisdividedintoreligiousandparticipatorybehavior.Inthis category,thereligious(versusparticipatory)behaviorhasrequirementsthataswell,donot necessarilydrawawayfromthecommunityandanintersubjectiveoutlook,buttheydofind themselvessupportingindividualisticandbeliefcenteredthought.Someare,“IliveaChristian life.IseekGod’sguidancewhenmakingimportantdecisions.Frequencyofpersonalprayer.Itry hardtocarrymyreligionoverintoallmyotherdealingsinlife.”tonameafew.Whiletheseare notinherentlysolipsistic,imaginereplacing‘Christian’with‘solipsistic’,‘God’with‘my’, ‘personalprayer’with‘self-thought’,and‘religion’with‘personalbeliefs’.Whatshouldbe learnedisthatthereisatendencyforoutliersofreligioussocializationtosharesomeimportant tendencieswithsolipsists,andvice-versa.However,thereisalackofintersubjectivemotivation canshowapatternofbeliefandactionamongreligiousactionsandsolipsisticthoughts.While the words are different, function and intention seem very similar.
Itisherethatwecanseethereispotentiallyaprobleminfalseequivalence.Itwouldbe hardtopointtoanindividualandstatethatwhilethatpersonisactinginreligiosityandtherefore issolipsistic,themoreimportantthingtoconsideristheidealnature.Thatis,thatthereare commonalitiesoftendenciesinmodesofthinking.Forweseethepersoninthehyper-religious senseis:1)particular-pickingandchoosingattheirwill;2)commitmenttochurch,not community-sensiblytheactofnotrecognizingthechurchasacommunity,butdefiningthe churchthroughwhat‘God’saysorfaithdictates;and,3)religious,notparticipatorybehavior-
4 Ibid.
thatis,personalizingreligion.Whatweseeforthepersonofextremereligiosityisasubjective interpretationoffaith,whilewithasolipsisticpersonweseeasubjectiveinterpretationof knowledge.Wecanthenaskwhattheequivalenceof‘faith’and‘knowledge’.Obviouslywe haveHegel,Derrida,Bergson,andotherstocontendwiththisissue,butforsimplicityandtime, now,Iwillofferasimpleandbroaddefinitionoftherelationship.Faithispartlybasedon knowledge,andknowledgepartlybasedonfaith.Theyarenotmutuallyexclusive,butarenot mutuallydependent.So,inpracticalterms,theyhaveageneralrelationship.Thatis,theycan supportorrefuteeachother.However,whatweseewiththeextremereligiousandsolipsistsis thatthefaithinknowledgeexclusivelysupportingtheidealswhichtheindividual,orgroup, decided to have their faith, subjective faith, in.
Problems in Intersubjective Extremism
Ifwehaveapreferencetowardstheideologicaloppositeofsolipsism,whichinfact,wealso cannotprovewrong,thatisastatementlike:‘mineandallothermindsexistandweareonlya repetitionofpreviouslygainedknowledgeandsenseswhichcyclesthroughourheads.Wemake roomforwhennewinformation,muchlikeafilingcabinetthattakesinnewfiles,andaddtothe comprehensivecontent.’Now,unlikewithsolipsismwecanattempttoprove,toagreatdegree thatthisistrueasmuchasitisforeveryoneelse.SomesortofexaggeratedFauerbach-inism, thatis,wearefilledwithgeneticcontent,thenmaterialandmetaphysicalcontent,then ideologicalcontent,andhavealwaysbeenvesselsofpreviousknowledge.So,furtherwe imaginetorevertbacktosomeoftheearliestofhumansandeventheirancestors,quite reasonablythen,thesamehappened.Itisthetheorythat‘mybraintakesininformationthatcan goasfarbackastwomoleculesjoiningtogetherbillionsofyearsagoandformingsome compound of my brain.’
Whatisgoodaboutthisideaisthatthehighestandlowestformsofintellectcanbe understoodwithinthisevolutionarilypragmaticdesignbyunderstandingsocialandbiological interactions.Whereaswithsolipsismtotrulybeaccepted,whichitwouldonlyeverbeaccepted ultimatelybythesolipsist,allproofandanultimateandomnipotentknowledgewouldbethe burdenofdoubtthatrestsonthoseshouldersthatarenotreal.Simplyput,themostextreme
versionofintersubjectivitycannotbeprovenfalse,whiletherewouldbeproblemsinthe languagewewouldusetopursueit,itcannotbeprovenfalse,butitcannotbeproventrueeither. Thisistrueaswell,forsolipsism,ittoocannotbeprovenfalse,butcannotbeproventrue.Where theproblemliesinwhotheburdenofproofison.Fortheextremeintersubjectivity,itis everyone.Forthesolipsist,itistheindividual.Now,considerhowharditistoprovefora collectiveofhumansthroughallspace/timetoprovehowweactuallyarewhatweare, essentiallythestudyofphilosophyitself,thenconsiderthedegreeofdifficultywhencomparing thattotheburdenofthesolip.Ifweconsiderthepersonofextremebelief,orextremereligiosity, tohavesimilartraitsasthesolipthenwecanunderstandthedegreeofcognitiveindifference, distance,bias,etc.thatliesinthatmannerofthought.For,whilethetwomightseemdifferent, thinkofthesimilaritiesandoftheparallelsthattheyfollow.For,thisisnotmerelyatheoretical problem,butanextremelypracticalone.For,itisnotuncommonknowledgethatpersonof extremeconviction,belief,religiosity,extremelysubjectivepeople,arebytheverydefinitionof extreme.Which,theoretically,isnotsomuchaproblem,infactitissometimesabenefittobe so. But, when extreme belief is put into extreme behavior, herein lies potential problems.
Conclusion
Whilesolipsismismoregroundedinphilosophicalthoughtandcanbeahighly theoreticalendeavortounderstand,thefactthatitcannotholduptocommonknowledgenor extreme,yetrational,refutationoflanguagemeaningandquestion/answerdualityshowsthatit followsverycloselytothesameproblemsextremereligiousbeliefdo,inthatextremereligious beliefisagainstthetradition,church/community,andparticipation,againstcommonknowledge andcannotholduptorationalinterrogation.Fromwhatwehaveread,itisclearthatwhileyou donothavereligioninallformsofsolipsismandthatinallextremereligiousbeliefthereisalso notabsolutelysolipsism,therestillisenoughconnectiontoviablesaythatwhenunderstanding one,youcanunderstandtheother.Fromthat,asphilosophersunderstandingtherecognition behindsolipsisticthought,wecanunderstandthecognitionwithinextremereligiousmovements. IfapersoncanobstructDescartes(whodidadmitthattherewasoneotherentity,thatbeingthe
evildemon)intoapuresolipsisticmind,thenonecanobstructtheBible,BhagavadGita,and Quran into a pure individuated belief.
Furtherunderstandingforthistopicwouldbebenefitedbyunderstandingthelinks between‘faithandknowledge’and‘beliefandbehavior/action’,andgenerallyamoreclarified understandingofthoseconceptsinnominalisticallyandplatonically.Aswell,certainstudiesthat wouldbenefitthiswouldbe:1)findingsthateithersupportorrefuteextremebeliefleadingto extremebehavior;and,2)studyifintersubjectivemethodsleadtomoresubjectiveorobjective behavior - both an empirical source and rational inquiry.
Bibliography
● Borges,JorgeLuis,ErikDesmazières,AndrewHurley,andAngelaGiral. TheLibraryof Babel. Boston: David R. Godine, 2000. Print.
● Boyd,RichardN."OntheCurrentStatusoftheIssueofScientificRealism." Methodology, Epistemology, and Philosophy of Science (1983): 45-90. Print.
● Cornwall,Marie,StanL.Albrecht,PerryH.Cunningham,andBrianL.Pitcher."The DimensionsofReligiosity:AConceptualModelwithanEmpiricalTest." Reviewof Religious Research 27.3 (1986): 226. Print.
● Lévinas, Emmanuel. In the Time of the Nations. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1994. Print.
● Petrescu,Alexandru."TheIdeaofGodinKantianPhilosophy." Procedia-Socialand Behavioral Sciences 163 (2014): 199-203. Print.
● Wittgenstein,Ludwig,G.E.M.Anscombe,andG.H.VonWright. OnCertainty.New York: Harper & Row, 1972. Print.
● Soultorment27."IsThereanExternalWorld?Realism,Solipsism,Skepticism& Positivism." YouTube. YouTube, 10 Nov. 2013. Web. 05 Feb. 2017.