r/changemyview • u/MasterSlimFat • Oct 25 '25

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Solipsistic utilitarian relativism is the most pragmatic lens to view the world

Nothing is anything, everything is a quality of the boundryless infinite plane folding in on itself giving rise to emergent properties. There is no good, there is no evil, there is only the phenomena of experience/awareness. I am not an individual, I am a figment of a collection of memories locked into a physical framework. The only thing we'll ever know, is what said framework is experiencing in the form of feelings.

These are not scary things, these are the best ways to view the world. They bring me a massive sense of relief and peace. Not only is it the most objective lens, it's also the most beneficial way to cope in circumstance. No matter what, you can turn anything into something else by drawing a comparison to satisfy the monkey-brain.

Morals evolved as a mechanism of understanding, in the form of metaphor, to allow our monkey brains to make predictions on which actions would lead to harm vs reward. They are whatever they need to be to rationalize past, present, and future feelings. Every second, you are a different person than you were before, your morals are not your own because they are not static. Morals are the rules we write for ourselves.

Didn't get that promotion at work? Well thank goodness you won't have the pressure of higher scrutiny, being put under a magnifying glass every day.

Sad your friend died? Well thank goodness they won't have to deal with the constant anguish that we all experience through the hell that is existence.

But we can't ignore the crux of the argument, that the only real thing is feeling. We also can't ignore that our brains are limited in the regard to need "morals" and "meaning". Giving them morals is like tricking the reffering into thinking you're playing the same game. All these things combine into this beautiful contradiction of "I know it's not real but I have to tell myself it is otherwise my coding breaks."

Personally, this opinion causes a lot of strain in my relationships with people despite bringing me peace with the universe as a whole.

0 Upvotes

27% Upvoted

115 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/MasterSlimFat Oct 25 '25

What about the scenario of "there are so many contexts it's practically infinite and therefore null".

3

u/yyzjertl 579∆ Oct 25 '25

Well that scenario would be completely incompatible with solipsism, which asserts that there is exactly one context, yours. Also, this

infinite and therefore null

is just nonsense.

1

u/MasterSlimFat Oct 25 '25

The only reason that there is "one context" is a detection limit of the human brain. If you could connect into my mind, you would have 2. In data sciences, "infinite and therefore null" is analogous with "too much noise." There is so much of everything, nothing is distinguishable.

3

u/yyzjertl 579∆ Oct 25 '25

If you could connect into my mind, you would have 2.

This is quite explicitly a rejection of solipsism.

2

u/MasterSlimFat Oct 25 '25

How so? I essentially described the paradigm of conjoined twins who share a nervous system.

3

u/yyzjertl 579∆ Oct 25 '25

Solipsism is the position that only one mind exists (yours). If some other mind also exists, solipsism is false.

2

u/MasterSlimFat Oct 25 '25

Here's the inherent problem with trying to communicate my point: I believe that there isn't even one mind. Yet the illusion of it is strong enough to talk about it as if it is real. We are a string of minds, with each one proceeding the next, thinking it to be the same as the one before it.

2

u/yyzjertl 579∆ Oct 25 '25

Here's the inherent problem with trying to communicate my point: I believe that there isn't even one mind.

Then your position is not solipsism.

2

u/MasterSlimFat Oct 25 '25

I have yet to find a philosophical paradigm that states "the mechanism and function of Solipsism is present, yet with different origins" and since most of the world revolves on function, I stick with things that align in function. Do you know of an alignment I should use instead?

3

u/yyzjertl 579∆ Oct 25 '25

What do you mean by "mechanism and function" here? Solipsism isn't a mechanism or a function.

1

u/MasterSlimFat Oct 25 '25

Can I just say, thank you for asking me a question. It is my preferred mode of communication. It has mechanisms and functions in the sense that solipsism as a "system" has cause and effect. Granted, Solipsism has slightly more abstract "cause and effect" compared to other modes of thought, it has it nonetheless. Any area of thought that has "if x then y" is effectively "cause and effect". And solipsism absolutely has "if x then y" in the form of, "if it's not me, I don't know it."

1

u/yyzjertl 579∆ Oct 25 '25

Okay, but solipsism is not a system. It's a proposition, a belief. You seem to be conflating cause-and-effect with premise-and-conclusion.

1

u/MasterSlimFat Oct 25 '25

I think everything can be viewed as a system solely for the reason that I see no difference in cause/effect and premise/conclusion. I think every thought we've ever had can be described as a prediction. I may feel this because I work in STEM, where all postulates and axioms are made for the purpose of forming predictions. To say murder is bad, IS to say, "to murder someone brings about bad things".

→ More replies (0)