Tumgik
#Solipsism
lforlimbo · 4 months
Text
'Dance first. Think later. It's the natural order.'
86 notes · View notes
misszura · 6 months
Text
Patrick Jesus ? Patrick Jesus.
Tumblr media
Almost one year after this, I come back with another blasphemy 🙃
Remember to RB to help my visibility :)
If you like it, never hesitate to give me more ideas (my ask box is open and the anon is on if you don't want to expose you 😀)
67 notes · View notes
philosophybits · 10 months
Quote
If you must question, then be ready beforehand to reconcile yourself with something like solipsism or modern realism. Thought is in a dilemma, and dare not take the leap to get out. We laugh at philosophy, and, as long as possible, avoid evil. But nearly all men feel the intolerable cramp of such a situation, and each at his risk ventures to swim to shore on some more or less witty theory. A few courageous ones speak the truth — but they are neither understood nor respected.
Lev Shestov, All Things Are Possible
116 notes · View notes
creature-wizard · 1 year
Text
I just came across a manifestation/law of assumption post claiming that your parents and teachers act "the way you assume they'll act."
I'm sorry, what?
Are you saying that these people don't have free will and moral agency? Are you saying that if they hold hateful beliefs and mistreat you, that's your fault, and has nothing to do with their own personal values and choices?
Do you even see where this whole "people act the way you assume they'll act" attitude is dehumanizing? Do you see where you're effectively painting the world's population as mindless NPCs, or as puppets that merely exist as extensions of your own ego?
Do you not realize how fucked up that is?
185 notes · View notes
jareckiworld · 2 years
Photo
Tumblr media
Jan Gemrot — Solipsism  (oil on canvas, 2017)
616 notes · View notes
tmarshconnors · 4 months
Text
“A high degree of intellect tends to make a man unsocial.”
Tumblr media
Arthur Schopenhauer was a German philosopher. He is best known for his 1818 work The World as Will and Representation.
24 notes · View notes
By: Andrew Doyle
Published: Mar 12, 2024
Every human interaction carries the potential to cause offence. There are almost no words that are bereft of connotations, and even silence can be a source of discomfort. We can all therefore agree that to insulate ourselves from the possibility of feeling offended is to withdraw from society altogether. 
To a degree, it is healthy to shield ourselves from those who would wish to hurt us. We do this in our choice of friends and associates, and on social media this can be accomplished simply by ‘blocking’ aggressors. An important aspect of freedom of speech is the right not to listen. To claim that using the block function on social media is a form of censorship is akin to saying that one violates Stephen King’s free speech by not reading his novels. 
But the avoidance of conflict is a tactic that can only ever be effective when it comes to navigating a familiar landscape. In order to live a fulfilling life, we must interact with strangers about whom we know very little. There exists a broadly agreed social contract that protects us from harm, one that is continually subject to revision, but there will always be those who feel compelled, for whatever reason, to transgress the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. 
In your adult life, you have taken great care to avoid causing offence wherever possible, but you have not always been successful. This is because our thoughts and intentions are only ever communicated in a partially accurate way. Our choice of language is the most direct means to express what we know ourselves to think and feel, and even then might not best reflect our true sentiments. Even in our moments of greatest clarity, we cannot be certain that our words will be interpreted in the anticipated manner. 
When I was a boarding school teacher, one of my charges was a German pupil who had somehow managed to offend every one of his peers. He had developed a reputation for rudeness, and schoolboys are rarely willing to indulge those who are perceived as antagonists. I spoke to the German boy on a number of occasions. Although his English was strong, his utterances would often sound cantankerous or needlessly curt. For instance, rather than say ‘Would you mind shutting that door please?’ he would say ‘You must shut the door now.’ As I got to know him better, I soon began to realise that something was being misrepresented in the process of translation. In other words, we were experiencing a version of his personality that was very different from his authentic self. 
In a sense, we are all speaking our own unique dialect, even if our language is the same. This is why generosity of interpretation is always to be advised in the first instance. As Socrates observes in Plato’s Meno, given that misery is the desire and possession of evil, and that nobody desires to be miserable, there can be nobody who knowingly desires evil things. In most cases, it is safest to assume that those who commit acts of which we disapprove must believe them to be good. Similarly, opinions that we find repellent often originate from the best of intentions. Once we understand this, we unlock the potential for meaningful dialogue. 
When we are offended, we should think carefully about why we have chosen to take offence and, more importantly, whether or not the offence was meant. In many cases, those who would wish us harm are explicit in their objectives. After all, an expletive-ridden insult is unlikely to be thrown in the spirit of benevolence. But even in such instances, is it right that our personal sensibilities should be the justification for curbing the speech of our traducer? 
In part, this is the inevitable corollary of years of risk-averse parenting and teaching strategies, as well as the implementation of anti-bullying measures that have a tendency to catastrophise. As Greg Lukianoff argues, ‘People all over the globe are coming to expect emotional and intellectual comfort as though it were a right. This is precisely what you would expect when you train a generation to believe that they have a right not to be offended. Eventually, they stop demanding freedom of speech and start demanding freedom from speech’. An overdiagnostic culture has reframed distress and emotional pain as forms of mental illness, rather than aspects of a healthy human existence. To feel upset is not an aberration; it is a sign that we are alive. 
Let us consider what exactly it means to be offended. There is little doubt that the feeling of offence arises from the disconnect between how things are and how we feel they ought to be. We can be offended by phenomena that do not directly impinge on our lives because they violate our sense of justice. More commonly, we are offended by matters that relate specifically to ourselves. Our pride is injured when we believe that someone holds us in low regard and, as status-seeking primates, we are bound to feel deflated when disparaged. 
Once offence has been taken, there are two likely reactions: we might feel that the slight was deserved, and that we should modify our own behaviour in order to avoid similar incidents in the future; alternatively, we might decide that the fault lies with the offender. In these cases, we might seek an apology, retaliate through criticism or mockery, or seek to stop this person from speaking. It is this latter impulse that explains the appeal of censorship as a means to safeguard the feelings of ourselves and others. 
To recognise that there are aspects of existence that offend us is not to suggest that the feeling of offence is meaningless. There is nothing wrong with being offended, and it can often spur us into action when it comes to redressing injustice as we see it. That said, if the source of our offence is a general discomfort that others do not behave or speak in accordance with our own specific values, we are engaging in a kind of solipsism that is best avoided, not least because there is no end to the endeavour. This is the kind of mentality that sees people take umbrage on behalf of others, an increasingly common phenomenon by which speech is judged to be ‘offensive’ even when there is no evidence of any offence being caused. 
A compulsion to change the world around us to suit our personal sensibilities is evinced by the tabloid columnist who calls for a film to be banned, the heckler at the comedy club who is outraged at the topic of the joke, the member of staff at a publishing firm who threatens to strike over a ‘problematic’ author, the student activist who sets off fire alarms to prevent a visiting speaker from upsetting his peers. We understand the impulse because we all feel it from time to time. However, to make the leap from the natural revulsion we experience at certain alternative worldviews to actively silencing them is to surrender to the authoritarian tendency. By doing so, we degrade ourselves by subordinating our reason to baser instincts. 
This is an excerpt from Free Speech and Why It Matters. You can buy the book here. It’s also available as an audiobook.
9 notes · View notes
zooptseyt · 1 year
Text
I've said it in other terms already but it's probably a bad sign for culture and society that solipsism is casual mainstream pop philosophy that a bunch of youth unwittingly buy into and a common slang/joke is referring to others as NPCs, reflecting reality through media to justify an individualistic worldview that reduces people to subhuman status for the simple crime of existence.
This is an interconnected issue. As our social existences have grown to be so prominently rooted in the internet rather than reality, we have seen internet culture shift from self selected communities to highly influenced algorithmic streams focusing not on finding others but on playacting the self. We no longer curate social circles but our own reflections, which no longer stem from our own internal selves but a series of desires to conform. Kids don't go to the internet to try and portray their reality, they go to the internet to learn how they want to exist, be it via tiktok algorithms giving them hollow ideals for fashion and life, or via the youtube algorithm curating right wing self help political philosophy.
Though it is nigh impossible to remain untouched by the media that shapes our post-modern world, we can still work to find ourselves outside of it and be authentic. And as the shifting culture we have, moved by the internet (which, yes, is itself moved by humans moved by the internet in an infinite recursion of influence) towards fascist thinking ("others aren't really human, my main concern is myself, things used to be better, people who act weirdly outside of the acceptable societal parameters are morally worse") i think we have some sort of duty to reject it as best we can, to be our authentic selves without resorting to individualism, reject the push to conformity while wholly embracing the humanity of others and loving them on principle.
124 notes · View notes
distintaexpresion · 7 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
20 notes · View notes
radio-no-head · 29 days
Text
Tumblr media
8 notes · View notes
loaexmachina · 10 months
Photo
Tumblr media
Room of Swords fanart, in which Gyrus is just to gay for hyperbolic doubt.
52 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media
62 notes · View notes
isaacisunsure · 6 months
Text
Two solipsists meet.
One says to the other, "I've heard you are also a solipsist! How grand!"
The other looks shocked. "You too? I thought I was the only one!"
12 notes · View notes
yonicfemcel · 7 months
Text
Tumblr media
16 notes · View notes
masonmczero · 4 months
Text
It's solipsism Saturday
Tumblr media
8 notes · View notes
dawninday · 2 months
Text
solipsism
creation of figures
endowment of reason
lack of understanding
fear of what i have created
fear of who i am
unsure complexity
amassed thought
simple neurons
firing endlessly
thought decays
existence fades
destroy what was made
end all thought
reality exists to me
not to you
you
my reality
fading with sleep
6 notes · View notes