Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?

Do you agree with the test ?

Yes
3
19%
No
13
81%
 
Total votes: 16

Circle5
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Circle5 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:29 am

Have you read the highlighted part from my english dictionary quote ?

Please enough with the BS. I do not understand why solipsist hate it so much to be called solipsist. It's just like postmodernist swearing on their life they are not postmodernist. If that's what they say in the dictionary, that is how I use the term. Don't force me to use it differenty with the moderation heavy boot.

It is ridiculous to not only see people hide behind this "but I don't believe other people don't exist, I just claim I can never know" - like this somehow makes them not solipsist. No my friends, the english dictionary says the same thing I have been saying all along: that this term applies to people who claim they can never know, not to people who claim other beings don't exist.

I am not the one who wrote the dictionary, I am just a non-native english speaker who uses it.

I would not bring that up if there weren't the big problems with the moderation recently, deleting my posts because I used the "solipsist" term in this way. I would have been just as contempt to just mind my own business and call people "solipsist" if that is what they were.

And it's not only because it says it in the dictionary. I never read the dictionary until now. I used it like that cause that's just what everybody understands it to mean. It's like that "postmodernist" word that postmodernist hate so much. No matter how much you hate a word, you can't just make it disappear or pretend like dictionaries don't exist. Those are childish postmodern tactics that adult people laugh about.
Attachments
postmodern-down-with-metanarratives-495w.jpg
postmodern-down-with-metanarratives-495w.jpg (66.75 KiB) Viewed 596 times

binocular
Posts: 5454
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by binocular » Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:39 am

Circle5 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:29 am
Please enough with the BS. I do not understand why solipsist hate it so much to be called solipsist.
Ask them.
I would not bring that up if there weren't the big problems with the moderation recently, deleting my posts because I used the "solipsist" term in this way.
So much for no metta-discussion ...
Those are childish postmodern tactics that adult people laugh about.
Then laugh about them.

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by L.N. » Wed Oct 25, 2017 3:19 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:07 am
The only thing ontopic here has been this from you:
The test is ineffective, in part because the question assumes identity view as a starting point, regardless of whether one answers "yes" or "no." The test is pointless. Labeling others in this manner is pointless.
Where you have claimed the label "solipsist" or "buddhist" or "christian" is pointless altogether because it assumes identity as a starting point and I felt no need to comment on that.
This is false. I have asserted that your question itself assumes identify view as a starting point. You have disregarded this point. In addition, it is on-topic that you are engaged in a witch hunt. My comments have not been "trolling," as you again choose to label.

My perception is that you simply are not serious about this discussion. You may be able to persuade me otherwise if you respond in a meaningful way to the following request, which so far you have ignored:
L.N. wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:58 am
I would be interested to know if you believe anybody has contributed any thoughts which have offered you any idea of what might make this not quite so simple as you present it.
My guess is that you will continue to ignore this and instead attempt to taunt/provoke others through additional name-calling and inappropriate pigeon-holing. If so, your conduct is the definition of "trolling." You may have noticed that most Members are wisely ignoring this thread you created. Probably because of your ongoing abuse of forum TOS, which I recently came to understand. For the moment, you have a slight benefit of the doubt as far as I am concerned. But I am more and more inclined to join the others who are simply ignoring your posts.

Wishing you well.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

Circle5
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Circle5 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:13 pm

L.N. wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 3:19 pm
You may be able to persuade me otherwise if you respond in a meaningful way to the following request, which so far you have ignored:.
I think you have missed this post of mine: viewtopic.php?f=16&p=442437#p442391

If you see other arguments that I have not responded to in this topic, please quote that specific argument.

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 4029
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Cremation Ground, Phrao District, Chiangmai

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Dhammanando » Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:17 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:11 pm

In my opinion, a proper test for solipsism is asking someone:

If you die, will your family, your city, this planet, etc. continue to exist ?

If they answer "yes", then they are not a solipsist. If they answer "no" or say that they don't know weather it will continue to exist or not, then I qualify them as solipsist.
Why bring the interviewee's death into it? If she is a bona fide solipsist then she won't believe that her family exist even now and so the question of whether they will continue to exist after her death will be regarded as nonsensical, being based upon a false premise.

And why bring cities and planets into it? Solipsism is a position taken regarding the alleged existence of other minds. It's logically compatible with any number of different views about the physical world.
Circle5 wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:11 pm
Do you believe this is valid test to label one as solipsistic ?
Since it seems you are only allowing "yes", "no" or "don't know" as admissible answers, clearly the test is useless. All three of these answers will show that the person is not a solipsist:

"Yes" = My family do exist now and will continue to exist after I die.
"No" = My family do exist now but will cease to exist after I die.
"Don't know" = "My family do exist now, but I don't know whether they will continue to exist after I die.

Might we then say that a solipsist is anyone who declines to give one of these three answers?
Unfortunately no, for there are other possible grounds for rejecting the question than solipsistic ones.

Circle5
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Circle5 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:27 pm

Dhammanando wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:17 pm

"Yes" = My family do exist now and will continue to exist after I die.
"No" = My family do exist now but will cease to exist after I die.
"Don't know" = "My family do exist now, but I don't know whether they will continue to exist after I die.

Might we then say that a solipsist is anyone who declines to give one of these three answers?
Unfortunately no, for there are other possible grounds for rejecting the question than solipsistic ones.
Greetings B. Dhammanando. I am happy you brought this up since you are an intelectually honest person that I have trust will reply to my answer and not juggle around or ignore it. I have seen that argument made my Retrofuturist before and it my opinion that is a twisting of Buddha teachings to justify solipsism, based on word-jugglerly, totally ignoring the intention of what Buddha actually tried to say with that. The fact that Retrofuturist is actually twisting that sutta to such a degree and using that as an excuse is just another proof that he is a solipsist.

What Buddha mean there is obvious for any honest person, and I trust you to be an intellectually honest person too B.Dhammanando. Let us look at the world from this angle: all that existed in the past exist no more. Whatever exist now, 1000 years from now will exist no more. Therefore, looking from this angle, we can conclude that nothing really exists since all will vanish and not even the memory of it will continue to exist. It will be like nothing even existed in the first place.

But from another angle, things exist right now. "Who ever sees the appearence of the world can not claim it doesn't exist". There are things existing right not in the present moment, therefore it is impossible to say things don't exist. This post of mine exists. My computer exists. Retrofuturist exists, etc. It would therefore also be wrong to claim things don't exist.

In other words, things exist but they are impermanent. It is in this way that Buddha mean that quote, not in some funky way wanting to say that things both exist or half exist or that he agrees with the solipsist position that "we can never really be sure" that has been arrived at through a totally different thought process than that of the Buddha. The conclusions might look similar, but they are meant in a totally different way.

I am sure if we were to ask the Buddha, he would answer that his family members and other people will continue to exist after he dies, not forever but for a specific period of time. Notice in my question I did not ask if their family members will continue to exist untill forever, that would have been ridiculous.

In my opinion, it does not take a Bobbi Fisher IQ to understand what Buddha mean by that sutta. What I have wrote in this message is also consisted with Retrofuturist most hated sutta, SN 22:94, a sutta he has twisted in 4-5 different ways in this topic : viewtopic.php?f=13&t=29724&p=439781#p439804
Read all pages till the end to see what Retrofuturist had to say about that sutta.

I have trust in your intellectual honesty B.Dhammamundo. What is your opinion about all this ? Is what Buddha meant to say in line with what I said in this topic (that things exist but are impermanent) or is it in line with the way Paul Davy understand that sutta ? If it is the second (though as I said, I don't believe you capable of such silliness) then in that case what is your opinion about SN 22:94 B.Dhammanando ?
Last edited by Circle5 on Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Circle5
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Circle5 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:30 pm

I will also post Retrofuturist most hated sutta over here, SN 22:94, for everyone to see if what Buddha meant by that quote is "things exist but are impermanent" or something different, something more close to Nanananda or other such teachers.
“And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist? Form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, and I too say that it does not exist. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, and I too say that it does not exist.

“That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist.

“And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists.

“That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists.
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.94

Based on these 2 suttas, would the Buddha be such a person to answer that he can not know for sure weather his family members will continue to exist for a specific period o time after he dies, or weather they even exist in the first place ? :smile:

What do you think B.Dhammanando ?

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19977
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:41 pm

Greetings,

"Most hated sutta", hey? Boy you trot out some sheer nonsense Circle5. The way you blatantly lie and misrepresent me topic after topic is a disgrace. Have you no shame or decency?

For anyone who actually would like to know what I think of SN 22.94, I have recently discussed SN 22.94 and Circle5's puthujjanistic interpretation of it, beginning here, iin which his "distortions, manoeuvres, and contortions" were met with the appropriate sutta-endorsed response...

Image

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Circle5
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Circle5 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:34 pm

That topic was getting so silly that it's probably the only time I ever stopped to reply in order not to embarrass someone in front of other forum members even more than you did. I said, "ok, he probably got it and feels embarrased, no need to push even further so that he will keep trying to justify the silliness said before and say even more silliness". But I see you did not get it.
and Circle5's puthujjanistic interpretation of it
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: If by putthijjanistic interpretation you mean not reading a kilometer of Nanananda ideas into the sutta, then indeed I will always be considered a putthijanna by the existentialist buddhist sect.

The problem of things existing or not is totally absent from Buddha teachings. In 10.000 pages of sutta pitakka, we only have those 2 suttas spoken before about the problem. For them, just like for us, it was pretty much obvious that things exist but they are impermanent. There is no hint in 10.000 pages of sutta pitakka that Buddha has some super complicated ideas about existence of things, similar to the existentialist buddhist sect that appeared in recent times in the west. There are simply no such things in the 10.000 pag of sutta pitaka. Weather existentialist buddhist ideas are correct or not, that can be debated, but claiming such ideas have any basis in the sutta pitakka is pretty ridiculous. We only have those 2 simple and straightforeward suttas about weather things exist or not.

I am sure if we are to take a sutta about Bhrama and twist it in a gruesome way, we can make a case for God existing and Jesus being that god and etc., reading a kilometer of christian ideas into that sutta. But would that be an intelletually honest thing to do, or one based on strong clinging to views ?

I repeat, there are only 2 suttas about existence of things in 10.000 pages of sutta pitakka and they are very straightforeward ones. It's hard to fit a kilometer of the modern exisitentialist buddhist sect ideas into them no matter how hard we might try. If you know more suttas about the existence of things that you feel can be twisted other than those 2 please let me know.
Last edited by Circle5 on Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19977
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:38 pm

Greetings,
Circle5 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:34 pm
That topic was getting so silly that it's probably the only time I ever stopped to reply in order not to embarrass someone in front of other forum members even more than you did. I said, "ok, he probably got it and feels embarrased, no need to push even further so that he will keep trying to justify the silliness said before and say even more silliness". But I see you did not get it.
Ironic, given how you're vastly out-numbered in terms of how you interpret solipsism, and in terms of how your endeavours to smear Nanananda, myself et.al. as solipsists get no traction, and indeed outright rebuttals from members both here and at Sutta Central... including venerable Dhammanando above.

But sure, let's just say we disagree... oh, and that I'm not embarrassed. 8-) If you think you can make a logical argument for your positions, without resorting to straw-men, lies, and blatant misrepresentations then go for it! It would certainly be a step up from the "silliness" you've presented in this and every other topic where your perverse obsession with solipsism and smearing others (in violation of the Terms of Service, specifically 2d & 2f) has dominated conversation.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Circle5
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Circle5 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:44 pm

Vastly outnumbered here or at suttacentral ? The existentialist buddhist sect is very small and criticized by all who are not part of it. It is so small nobody even took it seriously among famous monks. Only B.Bodhi bothered to write a letter of criticism about it. Most people also accuse it of solipsism, besides the more proeminent accuses regarding the 1 life interpretation of patticasamupada: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/ve ... m/2990/126

Since it's own name is "existentialist buddhism" or "phenomenological existentialism" - it's hard to escape the label of solipsism if we use the english dictionary deffinition for it, not the Retrofuturist definition for solipsism. Note the highlighed part. It does not say "believes other people don't exists", it says "claims you can never be sure".
British Dictionary definitions for solipsism Expand
solipsism
/ˈsɒlɪpˌsɪzəm/
noun
1.
(philosophy) the extreme form of scepticism which denies the possibility of any knowledge other than of one's own existence
Again, it's just like the postmodern issue with the label and hatred of dictionaries:

Circle5
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Circle5 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:50 pm

Appearently there is even a topic here about weather there is a difference between existentialism and solipsism:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... of-reality
And many more topics like that on quora.

Reading what people write there is just like reading Nanananda view of things. It's pure existentialism, not buddhism. It just has a buddhist label on top of it, like "secular buddhism".
Last edited by Circle5 on Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19977
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:51 pm

Greetings Circle5,
Circle5 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:44 pm
The existentialist buddhist sect is very small and criticized by all who are not part of it.
:strawman:

No one is talking about Existentialist Buddhism here (except you).
Circle5 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:44 pm
Most people also accuse it of solipsism
So "most people also accuse [existentialist buddhism] of solipsism", do they? Or do you mean that most of your sock-puppet accounts accuse existentialist buddhism of solipsism?

:toilet:
Circle5 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:44 pm
Since it's own name is "existentialist buddhism" or "phenomenological existentialism" - it's hard to escape the label of solipsism if we use the english dictionary deffinition for it, not the Retrofuturist definition for solipsism.
:strawman: :redherring: :toilet:
Circle5 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:50 pm
Appearently there is even a topic here about weather there is a difference between existentialism and solipsism:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... of-reality
And many more topics like that on quora.
There's nothing wrong with being interested in Philosophy, but my perspective is not founded upon Western principles like existentialism, solpsism, post-modernism etc... it is founded in the suttas. If you prefer Philosophy to Dhamma, maybe you might wish to frequent Quora more often? Maybe your inane ramblings might get more traction there? Maybe?...

All in all, if this constitutes your best efforts at making an argument in favour of your position, I hope you'll excuse me in saying it's rather weak, to say the least. Just more "distortions, manoeuvres, and contortions"...

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4392
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by SDC » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:54 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:34 pm
It's hard to fit a kilometer of the modern exisitentialist buddhist sect ideas into them no matter how hard we might try. If you know more suttas about the existence of things that you feel can be twisted other than those 2 please let me know.
Do you realize the primacy you grant these ideas by constantly trying to criticize them? You and you alone gave them the name "existential Buddhist". All that was ever said in the slogan for Path Press is "an existential approach...". You started calling it a sect when barely anyone follows these ideas. You make it so much more than it is. You are a card player: you are overplaying your hand. It is almost as if you are an undercover supporter of these ideas and you go around pretending to "debunk" them so you can advertise their availability. Has that ever occurred to you that you are marketing these ideas and keeping them relevant? You keep it in the spotlight.

If all you do is repeat yourself, people are going to stop listening.

Circle5
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Is this a proper test for solipsism ?

Post by Circle5 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:01 pm

From what I read in that topic, existentialism is similar in some ways to buddhism regarding it's conclusions, but very far apart regarding the ways to reach those conclusions and what they actually mean by them.
In some ways existentialism is a little like mysticism in that it strips away layers of assumptions to see things "as they are." The conclusions may be different, but to read the famous park bench scene in Sartre's La Nausée is to encounter a mystical apprehension of unadorned reality. That unadorned reality does exist outside and beyond the self...but at the same time the self can dissolve into it, as just one more component of the gnarled, brutal mess of existence. And that's precisely why Sartre incurs nausea in that apprehension: the hugeness, the lostness, the utter annihilation of significance of the self in that moment, as it is so obviously just an arbitrary part of the whole - like a tangle of roots or a clump of dirt - that the disorientation is overwhelming.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... of-reality
So we have "life is meaningless" that is a conclusion shared by buddhism and we also have "ego has to be annihilated" and the mergence of the self within the big mess of existence. This is an idea different than buddhism, but it's not necessarily hinduist monism as ToVicent said. It is only standard existentialism.

So how can we make this look like buddhism, while being the same existentialist stuff with all of it's tenets ? We just claim Buddha said all of this too but people misinterpreted him for 2000 years because of the 3life interpreation of pattica that actually should have been 1life. Then we say that who ever reads and agrees with this existentialist stuff becomes a sotapanna. And then we say that who ever merges the ego with the rest of existence, destroying the boundaries between internal and external (as the other topic in general discussion is debating) attains nibbana.

It's so standard existentialist stuff only with a buddhist label, same as "secular buddhism". And of course we have the belief that there is a self, cause how else can we have this mergence between internal and external ? We even have the most fundamental Buddha teaching, repeated countless times throughout 10.000 pag of sutta pitakka totally ignored cause we don't really need buddhism, we need existentialism + the pleasure of considering ourselves sotapannas.

How exactly is Nanananda different than existentalism when it comes to fundamental tenets ? It's the same stuff. No wonder this is called "existentialism buddhism".
Last edited by Circle5 on Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests