just3another3normal3person
-
@Nomanarch What is the content of your life? Do you do meaningful Work with/for other people? Any major life issues? I'm trying to see something.
@NoeticJuice Just because this guy correctly uses philosophical terminology doesn't mean his theory holds any water for actual living animals. Try being a solipsist while at the front, in a factory, working to feed your family. You will Fail, get Hurt, feel Pain, and Die. Put your hand on a hot stovetop and keep it there, just because "all experience is actually in the mind". You will lose your hand. Of course your real, objective nervous system will stop you if it's working correctly. While you're at it, you should also quit Peating, because all of those dietary choices are also irrelevant when all experience is in the mind alone. Just will yourself into feeling good, bro. Go to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Or you'll have some kind of confused mentality where you just encode the perspective of objective materialism in new words, like a "dream", as a kind of emotional safeguard. Much like a basement dweller's obsession with his fundamentally superior "IQ" (or "race", for some), the social purpose of solipsism is to grant defensibility to useless dysfunction. In this way the lumpenproletariat and financial bourgeoisie is united in stifling the development of reality.
It's not incurable, but it is anti-life.
-
@Rah1woot said in just3another3normal3person:
What is the content of your life? Do you do meaningful Work with/for other people? Any major life issues? I'm trying to see something.
Not relevant to the position but I will indulge. I don't really have any major life issues. I'm young and on the right track. Last year I finished my bachelor's, this year I was admitted into a highly competitive masters program to get a very practical career with a high barrier to entry. I enjoy hanging out with my gf and friends but I derive most of my enjoyment from philosophy and health. Without continually engaging in philosophy and health, I couldn't see myself deriving sole enjoyment from others (it's as if I have a daemon that continually propels me into doing such things). However I say this all pragmatically, I don't believe in differentiated meaning/distinctions.
Regarding the post below, this conflates pragmatic adaptation with epistemic justification, and in doing so, it fails to engage with what Transcendental Solipsism (TS) actually claims. TS does not deny that pain feels painful, that people work, or that bodies burn when exposed to flame—these are appearances within consciousness, and their regularity, intensity, and consequence are all acknowledged. What TS denies is that these appearances require the postulation of a metaphysically independent world behind them. The hand burns not “in spite of” solipsism, but within solipsism—because the structure of experience is coherent, lawful, and real as experience. There is no contradiction in feeling pain while affirming that pain is a modification of consciousness. What the critic describes—factories, war, hardship, heat, sensation—is not denied by TS but precisely what it affirms: experience is real, and all that is ever present is the presentation of a world within consciousness. The accusation that solipsism is a “basement-dweller’s ideology” is an ad hominem that ignores the central point: philosophical modesty in not affirming what cannot be known. TS doesn’t obstruct living—it simply refrains from making unjustified metaphysical claims about what causes, underlies, or exists beyond the stream of lived appearances. You can fight in war, raise a family, grieve, create art, and experience joy—all while recognizing that what you call “reality” is part of a self-consistent field of consciousness. TS is not a call to retreat from life—it’s a refusal to lie about what can be known.
-
@gg12 said in just3another3normal3person:
The universe is governed by mathematical destiny.
No, it's an idealistic, platonic view.
Ray didn't like Plato - and correctly criticised his views - like in the following article: https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/howdoyouknow.shtmlSome other people just think that Plato simply didn't have the balls to see/admit that the universe is always in motion - uncertain and volatile. Therefore, he invented static forms and ideas to calm his anxieties.
The universe is in a dynamic homeostasis - constantly changing and adapting.
BTW, our world isn't in our heads - it is in the interactions between our minds and matter...
https://social-epistemology.com/2024/12/04/towards-a-new-materialism-a-comment-on-armstrongs-life-mind-and-matter-victor-de-lorenzo/ -
Not relevant to the position
That would make sense if you think that formal abstract logic outside of concrete human life itself is possible, which is at the same time the position that produces solipsism. If we instead see perspectives as flowing through actual real people (or things), who can not always be taken at their word, it is quite relevant. But I can be happy you're mostly doing fine in either case. Rather than being a broken soldier, you just haven't been to war yet. Still in The Academy.
When you fall back to a "coherent dream" or "field of consciousness" to explain the apparent consistency (i.e., recurrence into the future from the present and past) with which experience occurs, all of this is really a coded, weak way of describing exactly what materialists know as "reality". You make mere acknowledgements, but unlike materialists, you make no assertions. And again, this is all well and good until you have to develop new weapons technology to destroy the enemy before they destroy you. While you might circle back and encapsulate everything that you've ALREADY seen, including the future-predictions of your past self, as part of a "field of consciousness", you will never be able to seriously work with the future in each instant. Since you have not experienced it yet, you can say exactly nothing about it. Thus it is an inherently reactionary, past-oriented pattern of thought. The religious monotheistic concept of "faith" is exactly this faith in the thing outside which produces the future: it is a perspective that takes great energy, a certain configuration of the brain, and it is something that can waver with the constitution and spirit. There is no formal justification for faith, and yet, it is impossible to be alive without. The present configures the future. The Pilot Wave Theory demolishes the Copenhagen Interpretation. Solipsism does not offer any explanation for why even though materialism is never actually justified in each individual instant, it has always won in the past.
Ray Peat's quote on the topic: https://bioenergetic.life/clips/3aec8?t=5347&c=100
-
@Nomanarch The critique misunderstands Transcendental Solipsism (TS) by conflating pragmatic coherence with metaphysical commitment; TS does not deny the predictive regularity of experience, nor the functionality of acting within a temporally structured field—it simply suspends judgment about what, if anything, exists beyond consciousness. Weapons work, physics works, and materialism functions—but this says nothing about what is, only about what appears to work within experience. To claim that materialism “wins” because it yields practical results is to mistake instrumental success for ontological truth. TS acknowledges that experience unfolds in lawful, intelligible ways, but it does not elevate that intelligibility into metaphysical realism. The invocation of faith admits materialism’s own lack of epistemic ground—what TS refuses is the pretense that consistency and utility justify belief in an unexperienced substratum. Pilot Wave Theory and quantum mechanics remain patterns within consciousness, not windows into the noumenon. TS is not irrational—it is radically epistemically restrained, refusing to assert as real what cannot be given. Where materialism masks belief as knowledge, TS remains honest about what is—and is not—justified.
-
it simply suspends judgment about what, if anything, exists beyond consciousness. Weapons work, physics works, and materialism functions
Because the future is unconscious, yet physics always explains it as it self-develops, this statement is a contradiction. Physics REACHES INTO the unconsciousness that is the future itself.
utility justify belief in an unexperienced substratum.
You can say this in writing, but you will simultaneously never jump from the top of a tall building in life, because even though you haven't experienced the fall yet, you do actually know it will come unconditionally. And if you did do it, given some light assumptions, I can say with certainty that you would fall and die.
I'm not misunderstanding your view. I'm just pointing out that it's worthless, restrictive, and masturbatory. In the same way that "physics works" even though there is no real reason to have faith in it, this view is designed to "not work". It's basically the ideology of the self-interested cancer or yeast cell -- both "valid" forms of life, but objectively lower than the human being, which is structured as the collaboration of energetic differentiated cells. Do you think that each individual cell in the human body is solipsistic? I think all of this becomes very clear as a worker in an organization and gets murkier the less you do in life.
-
@Rah1woot Your critique mistakenly conflates pragmatic regularity with ontological justification. That physics "works," that we predict our death upon jumping from a building, or that tools function, are all features within the field of consciousness—they demonstrate internal coherence and the stability of experiential patterns, not the independent existence of a mind-transcendent reality. Transcendental Solipsism (TS) does not deny the reliability of experience—it denies that such reliability justifies metaphysical inference to an unexperienced substratum. Your analogy with falling presupposes that predictive certainty entails ontological realism, but TS holds that certainty is a structural feature of consciousness itself, not proof of a noumenal world. Calling TS “worthless” or “masturbatory” simply means you expect philosophy to function like ideology—to motivate, to organize, to provide existential fuel. TS refuses this. It is not designed “to work” in the world but to clarify the limits of what can be claimed. That this strikes you as “nonfunctional” only shows how deeply the conflation of epistemic modesty with political disempowerment has sunk in. TS isn't solipsistic in the ordinary sense—it doesn’t say “only my mind exists”—it says: nothing outside the given is justified. Everything else is projection.
-
It is not designed “to work” in the world but to clarify the limits of what can be claimed. That this strikes you as “nonfunctional” only shows how deeply the conflation of epistemic modesty with political disempowerment has sunk in.
Yes. I am not really interested in anything that doesn't work, almost by definition. Unlike you I do not recognize any cavities and divisions in my reality. One cannot hold any kind of garbage idea, even if it calls itself "transcendental", without poisoning the metabolism. Philosophy is politics is art is nutrition is me is you is mitochondria and biology and the citric acid cycle. It's all one and the same. Nothing comes at the expense of something else. A formal logic for "epistemic modesty" does not exist in its own right but is something that informs everything else here.
nothing outside the given is justified. Everything else is projection.
Exactly right. And yet it is only projection that always produces the next set of givens -- the atomic bomb. Without projections of this kind there is no life.
You accuse me effectively of being too much involved in my own life. I might accuse you of the opposite, obviously it comes across in the way you say "The critique" instead of "your critique", etc, and never appreciate "TS" as being a position you concretely happen to hold instead of something floating in the aether. The difference is that I can use materialism to improve my actual life, whereas I cannot use solipsism to do anything. The same goes for you. As an actual living animal, I only care about the former. With my advanced political technology I happen to know that you too are an actual living animal. To deny yourself this will produce only pain and confusion. Which is a Bad Thing.
-
@Rah1woot Your response assumes that because projection is generative—i.e., it produces technologies, systems, “the next set of givens”—it is therefore epistemically justified. But Transcendental Solipsism isn’t a theory that denies the power of projection; it demarcates the boundary between what is projected and what can be known to be real. That boundary is not arbitrary—it is the very condition that keeps metaphysical discourse intelligible. To treat “life,” “politics,” “nutrition,” and “philosophy” as seamlessly continuous may be existentially satisfying, but it is conceptually muddled: it collapses certain distinctions that are necessary for any coherent epistemology (while a philosophical system can maintain that such distinctions are illusory, one must first engage with them to get off the ground). Yes, material projection drives history—but without a critique of its epistemic grounding, all you are doing is committing to a metaphysical realism by default. TS does not prevent you from living or creating; it prevents you from smuggling ontology into experience without warrant. The refusal to justify metaphysical projection is not a nihilism—it is a critical stance that refuses to confuse utility with truth. Your commitment to “political technology” does not refute TS; it simply chooses to bypass epistemic responsibility in favor of pragmatic assertion. That’s fine, but call it what it is: a leap of faith, not a triumph of reason.
-
That’s fine, but call it what it is: a leap of faith, not a triumph of reason.
Will do, have been. Have a nice day.
-
Great thread gg. It's funny how these things work out.
-
@ThinPicking why do you try to bully me
-
why do you try to
Not True but interesting. If you use the block function I'd still comment with contrary to the following because this is a forum.
-
T ThinPicking referenced this topic
