All Children are Solipsist

"The man aged in days will not hesitate to ask a little child of seven days about the place of life, and he shall live; for there are many first who shall be last, and they will become a single one." -- Gospel of Thomas

I am often sad.  Often, I just have no hope for people. 

I often think that people talk and talk about Zen, or God, or "insight", or Buddha, but they actually aren't even interested.  They are interested in adopting belief, or in becoming something (Buddhist, Christian, Monk, Master).  They are interested, mostly, in the comfort of their "place" in the world.   They are trying to define this "person", their "place", or to decorate it.

But...

This actually means they are not interested!  They have no interest in un-becoming!

So, it is all very sad.

But now I am in a good mood, because of something I read.

I just read that many development psychologists believe that all infant children are solipsist, and that, as children grow, they infer that "I" is separate from "other", and, though experience, come to see the world the way the "grown-ups" do.  In time, they differentiate "self" from "other".

Of course that is how it is. 

Still, it is heartwarming to read it in the news.

There are different sub-definitions of solipsism, although the word is sometimes tossed around as if they all mean the same thing.  So, to clarify, I am using, here,  any definition of solipsism that maintains mind as a question, and, through the existence of this question, therefore allows multiple "sentient beings". 

I don't want to get bogged down in the definition. For me, the interesting point is that, within the apparent world, young children see you and me, along with themselves, as "one".

This is a true way of seeing.

Within the grown-up world,  the infallibility of the reasoning behind solipsism keeps the idea around, lurking at the edges of thought, always.  In various forms, it has made entrances in the ideas of Descartes, Berkeley, Schopenhauer, Plato, and nearly every religious "prophet".

Ask yourself this:  What is NOT mind?


Scientists, generally,  will do anything they can to avoid the idea, as anything that hints of solipsism necessarily invalidates the importance of their lives.  Nobody would wish to look back on their years to say they studied the properties of dream-things (such would be a wasteful use of a dream indeed!). 

(Note:  children have no such baggage)

So they fight  the notion.  Scientists sometimes refute the philosophical idea of solipsism altogether by simply noting the creative output of mankind.  To them, this means there are "two or more" minds at work here. 


But this is an obtuse argument, in that it presupposes the mind-is-of-the-body-and-that-tree-is-over-there view, which is a notion that the philosophers are questioning, usually, when they bring up any form of solipsism in the first place.

And, to make things worse (better), you have two of the greatest scientists in history, going head to head, for decades, over the meaning of mankind's greatest (in my view) experimental breakthrough:

Einstein:  Do you really believe the moon isn't there when nobody is looking?
Bohr:  Yes, it's not there when nobody is looking.

I am a big fan of Neils Bohr -- not only for his genius, but for his gentlemanly ability to withstand the full force of none other that Einstein himself.  He managed to do this, for decades, generally coming out on top. 

You would not think it possible to approach the workings of the dreamer only by examining the dream-things.

You have to be a fan of Bohr.

As well, you have to be a fan of every little child.