Individualism vs. solipsism

[wynn]

So you want us to discuss how these two ideas relate to each other without defining them?

That's like asking someone to clap with one hand. You must define the terms if you wish to have a discussion about their nature.

It is precisely in contrasting different ideas about individualism (and solipsism) that I hope to get an interesting insight.

What do you take "individualism" to be?

The conviction
that one is "one's own person";
that one has autonomy;
that there are things that truly are oneself or one's own, and these things include thoughts, emotions, body, possessions.

[wynn]

I think that Wynn's using a rather peculiar philosophical definition of 'individualism'. I'm not really familiar with it, but 'epistemological individualism' in this sense appears to be the view that psychological facts about a person hold true independently of the person's physical or social environment.

Not only that.

When I consider much of popular psychology (which is rather influential, hence my focus on it), personal coaching in lifestyle and business, I get an eerie feeling when they talk about all that how you should focus on your own needs, figure out your values, your life mission, your boundaries and so on, as it seems that they are operating out of some superhuman, superideal notion of individualism which sounds nice enough in theory, but seems indefensible philosophically and empirically.

It is too bad that those psychologists, consultants, life coaches etc. tend to be so reluctant to actually discuss their ideas about individualism.
Just recently, I attempted to discuss this with some counselors, but they wouldn't have it. These people simply dogmatically believe that they are truly existing individuals, while at the same time, they believe that the self is a mere epiphenomenon with no substantial existence ...

But most of our psychological states, our ideas, beliefs, emotions, propensities, values and so on, are obviously associated in large part with our surrounding environment. We have ideas about the world and employ terms with extra-psychological references. The natural-language concepts that we use to model and to express our ideas are learned from our societies and they have their own histories.

Exactly. So much for individualism.

Individualists in this oddly-strong sense would presumably have to deny all that. And that would indeed make them something very close to solipsists. Wynn's probably right about that.

(I'm not sure where this odd sense of individualism comes from or what its philosophical context is. Maybe it's intended to be kind of a reductio-ad-absurdem of Cartesian-style subjective phenomenological thinking or something. Again, I'm not sure.)

But wherever it comes from, it's not the definition of 'individualism' that I'm using, and it isn't what most people appear to mean when they use that word.

What are poems like these about -


I Love Being Me
by Gemma Hayton

I can't run the fastest
I can't swim the sea
I can't type the quickest
but I love being me

I can't kick a ball
or even climb a tree
I can't roll in the grass
but I still love being me

You see, this is my life
as others would see
they don't know what it's like
to really be me

So next time I'm about
rolling down the street
don't think of me disabled
but someone cool to meet

I have lots I can teach you
I have loads I can share
you will never gain my wisdom
if you just point and stare

So maybe I can't run the fastest
maybe I can't kick a ball
but I wouldn't change being me
not for you, not at all

*

Self-Dependence
By Matthew Arnold

Weary of myself, and sick of asking
What I am, and what I ought to be,
At this vessel's prow I stand, which bears me
Forwards, forwards, o'er the starlit sea.

And a look of passionate desire
O'er the sea and to the stars I send:
"Ye who from my childhood up have calm'd me,
Calm me, ah, compose me to the end!

"Ah, once more," I cried, "ye stars, ye waters,
On my heart your mighty charm renew;
Still, still let me, as I gaze upon you,
Feel my soul becoming vast like you!"

From the intense, clear, star-sown vault of heaven,
Over the lit sea's unquiet way,
In the rustling night-air came the answer:
"Wouldst thou be as these are? Live as they.

"Unaffrighted by the silence round them,
Undistracted by the sights they see,
These demand not that the things without them
Yield them love, amusement, sympathy.

"And with joy the stars perform their shining,
And the sea its long moon-silver'd roll;
For self-poised they live, nor pine with noting
All the fever of some differing soul.

"Bounded by themselves, and unregardful
In what state God's other works may be,
In their own tasks all their powers pouring,
These attain the mighty life you see."

O air-born voice! long since, severely clear,
A cry like thine in mine own heart I hear:
"Resolve to be thyself; and know that he,
Who finds himself, loses his misery!"

*

I am my own person
by Kody Weeda


I am my own person no one rules over me but god.
I am singular not plural.
I'll take a piece of advice but never a command.
I think a controlled life is rather bland.
Why be a puppet on strings?
When you can be a bird with glorious wings.

*

I am my own person
by Sapphire

I am my own person
Hear my words
Listen to my plea
I'm a teenager with a heart, an ambition
See me as I see me

Look at my face
You'll see nothing wrong
Look at my body
You'll see I'm quite strong

I'm not gonna go and get pregnant
Or give it up to a guy I don't know
I have my limits, until I get married
The gift of my virginity to bestow

I'm not gonna go smoke pot
Because of the pain that's in the heart
I'm smarter than that
I'll repiece myself together, even when I'm torn apart

Don't judge me
I have a plan for my life
I am the next generation
I have a dream in my sight.

I am my own person
As you can see
What I'm doing, what I have done
Is what makes me, me

Remember this:
No matter what I go through
No matter what the strife
No matter the mistake, or even if I worsen
I have a life
I am my own person

*


I am myself at all times
by Jo Hazelhurst


I am myself at all times
Let’s see which ‘me’ I will be.
I want to tell you I am myself at all times.
You will see me as together, confidant, and wise.
I want to tell you this part of me you see is the Real Me.
The rest is all a lie.
This way you hold me in your vision as someone to admire.
I will allure you with my promise of my charisma and my charm.
I will allure with my magnetism that I have all the answers to speak.
I will allure that I am the one you seek.
This way I look good and seem right.

I want to tell you I am myself at all times.
You will see me as insecure, scared and unsure.
I want to tell you this part of me you see is the Real Me.
The rest is all a lie.
This way you hold me in your vision as someone who is small.
I will allure with my promise of fear and victim hood.
I will allure you with my neediness that says Save Me or Beat Me.
Depends which one you seek.
This way you look good and seem right.

This ego of mine spins webs of deception
That will dance a dance with that ego of yours.
Yet neither holds the truth into the window of my soul or yours.
They speak more about the wounds and rewards of our karma.
The seeds we have sown and reaped.
Both binding.
My soul is like yours.
Too pure to need to be seen by you or me.
My soul is quiet.

*

-?

We aren't insisting that all of our psychological states exist independently of everything that's outside our own personal psychologies. In fact, it's precisely the fact that so many of the psychological facts about us do appear to be shaped in some large part by our unique histories, surroundings and contexts, that results in each of us being different and unique individuals.

That kind of individualism is merely circumstantial, epiphenomenal. That is not real individualism; real individualism should come from within.

[Balerion]

I've already provided my own working definitions and expressed my view that individualism has little or nothing to do with solipsism. Others have done much the same thing.



Or else she needs to accept the definitions that we're using.

Yes, that's right. I didn't mean to imply that you (and others) hadn't done just that, nor trying to gloss over your points. When I join a discussion, I tend to have tunnel vision with the person I'm talking to. I assure you my comments were not meant to belittle or dismiss your arguments, but rather trying to get Wynn to tell me what she meant by it.

The conviction
that one is "one's own person";
that one has autonomy;
that there are things that truly are oneself or one's own, and these things include thoughts, emotions, body, possessions.

Okay, fair enough. I don't see how that really encroaches upon solipsism, though. Solipsism from a philosophical standpoint is the belief that only oneself exists, or that only oneself can be shown to exist. This leads, naturally, to the more common meaning of the term, which is a sort of extreme self-centeredness.

One can recognize their own autonomy without believing it to be of more important than someone else's. I can possess my body and my emotions without believing that only my body and my emotions are of value.

[Gustav]

One can recognize their own autonomy without believing it to be of more important than someone else's. I can possess my body and my emotions without believing that only my body and my emotions are of value.

setting up a strawman

[wynn]

One can recognize their own autonomy without believing it to be of more important than someone else's. I can possess my body and my emotions without believing that only my body and my emotions are of value.

My Declaration of Self-Esteem - "I Am Me"
by Virginia Satir



In all the world there is no-one else exactly like me.

Everything that comes out of me is authentically mine because I alone chose it.

I own everything about me; my body, my feelings, my mouth, my voice, all my actions, whether they be to others or to myself - I own all my triumphs and successes, all my failures and mistakes, because I own all of me.

I can become intimately acquainted with me. By so doing I can love me and be friendly with me in all my parts. I know there are aspects about myself that puzzle me and other aspects that I do not know, but as long as I am friendly and loving to myself, I can courageously and hopefully look for solutions to the puzzles and for ways to find out more about me.

However I look and sound, whatever I say and do, and whatever I think and feel at a given moment in time is authentically me. If later some parts of how I looked, sounded, thought and felt turn out to be unfitting, I can discard that which is unfitting, keep the rest, and invent something new for that which I discarded. I can see, hear, feel, think, say and do - I have the tools to survive, to be close to others, to be productive, and to make sense and order out of the world of people and things outside of me.

I own me, and therefore I can engineer me - I am me and I am okay.




If this is not solipsism, then I don't know what is.
(Granted, she notes that there exists a world outside of her; but as long as she claims that all her thoughts and feelings etc. are her and her own and all that really matters, then acknowledging the outside world and other people is a mere administrative formality.)

[Gustav]

its settled then
you do not know what solipsism is

as for virginia....

In all the world there is no-one else exactly like me.

pathetic fool glomming on to the fraction of a percent that may or may not be unique

Everything that comes out of me is authentically mine because I alone chose it.

that song you are singing...i wrote it, bitch

[Balerion]

If this is not solipsism, then I don't know what is.

Exactly. You do not seem to know what solipsism is. Self-worth and self-esteem are certainly not it.

[wynn]

Exactly. You do not seem to know what solipsism is. Self-worth and self-esteem are certainly not it.

Self-worth and self-esteem based on what?
On assuming as self things that couldn't possibly be one's self or owned by one's self?

And what on earth does it say about Satir that she chose to get old, get ill and die? Because according to her ideas, those things would be something a person chooses.

[Balerion]

Self-worth and self-esteem based on what?
On assuming as self things that couldn't possibly be one's self or owned by one's self?

I have no idea what you're asking here, nor its relevance to the discussion.

And what on earth does it say about Satir that she chose to get old, get ill and die? Because according to her ideas, those things would be something a person chooses.

That's not at all what she says. She's talking about being self-aware so that she can make herself the best possible version of herself. The whole bit about how she comes across is a crystalline example of that: "However I look and sound, whatever I say and do, and whatever I think and feel at a given moment in time is authentically me. If later some parts of how I looked, sounded, thought and felt turn out to be unfitting, I can discard that which is unfitting, keep the rest, and invent something new for that which I discarded." That's all about understanding others' perception of oneself and making the necessary changes.

Nowhere in this does she say she or imply that she can choose whether or not to get old and sick and die. If you want to be a literalist about it, of course the choice of whether to see your next sunrise is always up to you, but I don't think that's how you meant it.

[wynn]

I have no idea what you're asking here, nor its relevance to the discussion.

A man, here referred to as Aggivesana, Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son, went to challenge the Buddha:


/.../
As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "I would like to question Master Gotama on a certain point, if Master Gotama would grant me the favor of an answer to the question."

"Ask, Aggivessana, as you see fit."

"How does Master Gotama discipline his disciples? Or what part of his instruction is generally presented to his disciples?"

"Aggivessana, I discipline my disciples in this way; this part of my instruction is generally presented to my disciples: 'Form is inconstant. Feeling is inconstant. Perception is inconstant. Fabrications are inconstant. Consciousness is inconstant. Form is not-self. Feeling is not-self. Perception is not-self. Fabrications are not-self. Consciousness is not-self. All fabrications are inconstant. All phenomena are not-self.' This, Aggivessana, is the way in which I discipline my disciples; this part of my instruction is generally presented to my disciples."

"A simile occurs to me, Master Gotama."

"Let it occur to you, Aggivessana."

"Just as any seeds that exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation, all do so in dependence on the earth; or just as any activities requiring strength that are done, all are done in dependence on the earth; in the same way, Master Gotama, an individual with form as self, taking a stance on form, produces merit or demerit. An individual with feeling as self... with perception as self... with fabrications as self... with consciousness as self, taking a stance on consciousness, produces merit or demerit."

"Then, Aggivessana, are you saying, 'Form is my self, feeling is my self, perception is my self, fabrications are my self, consciousness is my self'?"

"Yes, Master Gotama, I'm saying that 'Form is my self, feeling is my self, perception is my self, fabrications are my self, consciousness is my self.' As does this great multitude." [4]

"What does this great multitude have to do with you? Please focus just on your own assertion."

"Yes, Master Gotama, I'm saying that 'Form is my self, feeling is my self, perception is my self, fabrications are my self, consciousness is my self.'"

"Very well then, Aggivessana, I will cross-question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think? Would a consecrated, noble-warrior king — such as King Pasenadi of Kosala or King Ajātasattu Vedehiputta of Magadha — wield the power in his own domain to execute those who deserve execution, to fine those who deserve to be fined, and to banish those who deserve to be banished?"

"Yes, Master Gotama, he would wield the power in his own domain to execute those who deserve execution, to fine those who deserve to be fined, and to banish those who deserve to be banished. Even these oligarchic groups, such as the Vajjians & Mallans, wield the power in their own domains to execute those who deserve execution, to fine those who deserve to be fined, and to banish those who deserve to be banished, [5] to say nothing of a consecrated, noble-warrior king such as King Pasenadi of Kosala, or King Ajātasattu Vedehiputta of Magadha. He would wield it, and he would deserve to wield it."

"What do you think, Aggivessana? When you say, 'Form is my self,' do you wield power over that form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'?"

When this was said, Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son was silent.

A second time, the Blessed One said to Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son: "What do you think, Aggivessana? When you say, 'Form is my self,' do you wield power over that form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'?"

When this was said, Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son was silent a second time.

Then the Blessed One said to him, "Answer now, Aggivessana. This is not the time to be silent. When anyone doesn't answer when asked a legitimate question by the Tathāgata up to three times, his head splits into seven pieces right here."

Now on that occasion the spirit (yakkha) Vajirapāṇin [Thunderbolt-in-Hand], carrying an iron thunderbolt, was poised in the air above Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son, (thinking,) "If Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son doesn't answer when asked a legitimate question by the Blessed One up to three times, I will split his head into seven pieces right here."

The Blessed One saw the spirit Vajirapāṇin, as did Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son. So Saccaka — afraid, terrified, his hair standing on end — seeking shelter in the Blessed One, seeking a cave/asylum in the Blessed One, seeking refuge in the Blessed One — said to the Blessed One, "Let Master Gotama ask me. I will answer."

"What do you think, Aggivessana? When you say, 'Form is my self,' do you wield power over that form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'?"

"No, Master Gotama."

"Pay attention, Aggivessana, and answer (only) after having paid attention! What you said after isn't consistent with what you said before, nor is what you said before consistent with what you said after.

"What do you think, Aggivessana? When you say, 'Feeling is my self... Perception is my self... Fabrications are my self... Consciousness is my self,' do you wield power over that consciousness: 'May my consciousness be thus, may my consciousness not be thus'?"

"No, Master Gotama."

"Pay attention, Aggivessana, and answer (only) after having paid attention! What you said after isn't consistent with what you said before, nor is what you said before consistent with what you said after.

"What do you think, Aggivessana? Is form constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, Master Gotama."

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, Master Gotama."

"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, Master Gotama."

"...Is feeling constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, Master Gotama."...

"...Is perception constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, Master Gotama."...

"...Are fabrications constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, Master Gotama."...

"What do you think, Aggivessana? Is consciousness constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, Master Gotama."

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, Master Gotama."

"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, Master Gotama."

"What do you think, Aggivessana? When one adheres to stress, holds to stress, is attached to stress, and envisions of stress that 'This is mine; this is my self; this is what I am,' would he comprehend stress or dwell having totally destroyed stress?"

"How could that be, Master Gotama? No, Master Gotama."

"That being the case, Aggivessana, don't you adhere to stress, hold to stress, aren't you attached to stress, and don't you envision of stress that 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"How could that not be the case, Master Gotama? Yes, Master Gotama."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....035.than.html

[wynn]

That's not at all what she says. She's talking about being self-aware so that she can make herself the best possible version of herself. The whole bit about how she comes across is a crystalline example of that: "However I look and sound, whatever I say and do, and whatever I think and feel at a given moment in time is authentically me. If later some parts of how I looked, sounded, thought and felt turn out to be unfitting, I can discard that which is unfitting, keep the rest, and invent something new for that which I discarded."

That's all about understanding others' perception of oneself and making the necessary changes.

Where does she say anything about others' perception of oneself, or about heeding other people's criticism of oneself?

[Balerion]

A man, here referred to as Aggivesana, Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son, went to challenge the Buddha:

So rather than expand upon your idea, and tell me exactly what you meant in your own words and in plain English, you are going to ask me to divine some kind of meaning from this silly fable?

It's enough to make one think you don't really have a clue as to what you're talking about.

[Balerion]

Where does she say anything about others' perception of oneself, or about heeding other people's criticism of oneself?

Are you serious?

"If later some parts of how I looked, sounded, thought and felt turn out to be unfitting, I can discard that which is unfitting, keep the rest, and invent something new for that which I discarded."

[wynn]

Are you serious?

"If later some parts of how I looked, sounded, thought and felt turn out to be unfitting, I can discard that which is unfitting, keep the rest, and invent something new for that which I discarded."

Again: Where does she say anything about others' perception of oneself, or about heeding other people's criticism of oneself?

Do you really think that a person can think of something as "unfitting" only if perceived as such by other people?

So rather than expand upon your idea, and tell me exactly what you meant in your own words and in plain English, you are going to ask me to divine some kind of meaning from this silly fable?

It's enough to make one think you don't really have a clue as to what you're talking about.

And the sense of surety with which you reply makes me think that you are dead-sure you are enlightened.

[Balerion]

If you'd rather have a tantrum than a discussion, feel free. But leave me out of it.