On Wisdom and Method: A Question of Virtue

There is an overwhelming propensity for people to declare that wisdom is a byproduct of age - a concept not completely incorrect to avow, yet a little shortsighted. To my mind, sheer physical deterioration and wear and tear of the body do not arrogate the path. If one were to ask a group of people around them, it would be highly probable for participants to claim naivety as the antithesis of wisdom. Although this can be true, I feel as though one could be paying too much by way of compliment to the elderly if they attribute this noble quality to everyone. Wisdom is not an axiomatically obtained characteristic of aging; there are many individuals who exhibit this plain fact. One of the most salient reasons for this misfortune is the lack of familiarity with a concept that I believe is just as valuable a method to attaining the subject at hand - self reflection. 

Though this may seem to be a bit platitudinous upon reception, introspection is a necessary activity for personal growth. It may be cheap and overstated to say that intelligence does not equate to wisdom, yet one can approach this honorable quality by appealing to academia. One of the noblest traditions in my opinion is the philosophical - the method which sired humanity's most respectable and fruitful system - science. Philosophy encompasses and addresses a myriad of different considerations: ethics, epistemology, existentialism, cognitive science, personal maturity. These are but a few of the topics with which philosophical inquiry tangles. Maturity includes perseverance and modesty, thus it is mandatory to not only constantly question the world around you but also your own motives. This ties in with the running trope that I have previously asserted and established - the supremacy of how to think over what to think. In essence, mental acuity and enlightenment is better defined by doubt and humility than by regurgitation of rapidly memorized information. 

Banal, I know. Yet ironically I can only speak from personal experience. Ever since I adopted skepticism, strove to accept uncertainty, and acknowledged the importance of intellectual honesty, I have witnessed incalculable improvements in the quality of my life. Like any another human being, I fence daily with my ego and the over-sized adrenaline glands in my brain that try to impede and misdirect my ambitions. Crosses we all must bear, and stamps of our lowly origins that cannot be so easily subdued, let alone eradicated. Herein lies a conclusion that I believe to be wise; there is more honor in accepting the existence of circumstances that reside out of our control, than to arrogantly combat their reality and profess integrity in doing so. Perhaps another trite statement, yet I leave my reputation in the safekeeping of the audience - because to foolishly attempt otherwise would violate reason and result in pure strife. The stoicism derived from that recognition is invaluable, yet my mammalian mind will always struggle to absorb its truth. This does not indicate the failure of the method, but rather the shortcomings of the agent. We should remain diligent and determined, surely an admirable quality will arise - maybe just the virtue we have been seeking.

Yours to consider, a fellow primate

On Islam and its Emergence in the West: The Compelling Figure of the Son of Mary

On Islam and its Emergence in the West: The Compelling Figure of the Son of Mary

As I have discovered through conversation and research, it would seem as though Islam is the fastest growing religion that this marble has to offer. To my mind, this is an alarming question for not only its societal and moral implications, but it also appeals to my curiosity intellectually. To many Christians and Westerners alike, the interests and beliefs held by Muslims are either impertinent or too frightening to investigate. Yet I feel as though it warrants some research and inspection, for one of the most salient and controversial figures in all of human history makes a guest appearance in this narrative as well. Jesus, the veritable son of god and the sacrificial lamb for the Christians, does not have his character monopolized by Paul's visions. Here I will attempt to briefly address some tenets of Islamic faith that I think are relevant to the discussion. Islam makes it an article of faith to believe in Jesus as a prophet of Allah, who was specifically designated to deliver a message to Ban' Israil (the people of Israel, or the Jews). Constantly referred to as Isa Ibn Maryam or Isa alayhi salaam (Jesus son of Mary or Jesus peace be upon him), he was said to have a carried a revelation known as Al Injil, or, the Gospel. The overwhelming consensus among Muslims is that this message was lost amidst history due to corruption and human interpolation to the unalterable word of god (a topic for another day). Thus, the only remaining authentic recording of Jesus' words in the Bible are those which agree with Koranic claims. A rather presumptuous and incoherent method of discerning the truth, nonetheless it is the way in which many Muslims espouse their beliefs. 

In the Islamic tradition, Jesus shares many similar characteristics and life experiences to that of the Christian Jesus - yet they are in no way identical. The Koran states that Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary in the middle of the desert (probably during the summer months) next to a date tree. Verses from Surah Al Maryam state that she endured such an intense pain, she wished herself dead. After much suffering and toil, the prophet was born and Allah replenished Mary's energy with fallen dates and by creating a stream of water adjacent to her from which she could drink. Contrary to the first miracle of Jesus in the Bible (The Wedding at Cana where Jesus purportedly turned water into wine for party consumption), Jesus' first miracle in the Quran involves him speaking as an infant and professing the veracity of his prophecy. This occurs after several Jewish clergymen accuse Mary of being impure for having a child out of wedlock. In addition, there are repeated injunctions against worshiping anyone other than Allah, and Jesus is mentioned in context several times. Different verses assert the blasphemy behind ascribing a son to almighty god, and how the squalor of this claim is so wretched that it causes various meteorological and natural anomalies to take place. Of course, there is also the promise of departing into ever-lasting fire for maintaining the Christian faith. 

Another major distinction between the faiths includes the alleged crucifixion and resurrection of the Nazarene. There are discrepancies and schisms here among Muslims as to what exactly occurred during the latter stages of Jesus' life, but the majority believe that Allah saved him from the ignoble and naked death of the cross by raising him to the second heaven where he currently resides with his cousin, John the baptist (Prophet Yaya alayhi salaam). This was feasible by extracting Jesus through a window in his home and (in some narrations) likening the countenance of Jesus onto Judas Iscariot, and having him killed in Jesus' place. Some schools of Islam (like the Ahmadiyya) state that Jesus was crucified, but did not die and was nursed back to health by a doctor while he was in the sepulcher. The whole point behind the rejection of this narrative is to state that Jesus is in no way divine, the vicarious redemption of humanity through a blood pagan sacrifice is immoral, that there is no such thing as original sin, and that a god should not need an intermediary through which one can pray and to whom one can appeal for guidance/salvation. All of these repudiations are more than accurate in my view. Of course I am not and will never be a Muslim, but these are essential and worthwhile meditations for Christians of any stripe to consider. 

Finally, there are a few distinctions made between miracles and the nature of their power. Muslims believe Jesus blew into a clay bird and caused it to fly, cured the sick, and plays a special role in Qiyamma (judgment day) all by god's permission. In essence, Jesus was an instrument and conduit through which Allah demonstrated his might - the Nazarene can of his own self do nothing (John 5:30). The last of these three claims is not blatantly stated in the Quran, but is drawn from the equally respected tradition of the Hadith (the supposed sayings of the prophet Muhammad). One of which addresses Sayyidina Isa returning on the final day, as he descends from the clouds on the arms of two angels onto the hill of Damascus. Here, it is said that Jesus (adorned will golden and wet hair) will join the remaining and scanty number of Muslims left behind the gates and will join the throng in prayer behind the twelfth Imam -Al Mahdi. Following tales describe Jesus opening the gates to invite the vast army of Al Masih Al Dajjal (the Anti-Christ) in for a battle. It is alleged that upon sight of the Son of Mary, the Anti-Christ will attempt to flee but will instead disintegrate. Ensuing battles will involve those against the vast swathes and hordes of the armies of Gog and Magog, in which even Jesus will be helpless. Upon the final day of judgment, Allah will ask Jesus if he told the people to worship him and his mother (a tenet that as far as I know is not a belief among Christians) and Jesus will reply in denial and assert his doctrine of one god and submission to his will. Herein the Nazarene will kill the swine, break the cross and impose the Jizya (taxation of non-Muslims in Muslim lands). It is claimed that he will live for 40 years as a just ruler under Sharia and die, then to be buried next to Muhammad in Medina.

I make mention of all this scripture to make my final point - that I think the alluring character of Jesus of Nazareth is persuading Westerners to convert to Islam. Islam offers new tales about Jesus and in a way solves the omnipresent trinity problem. Islam's fanatic certainty and militancy placates and appeals to those who want to be governed over, and who think that Christianity has become too lenient in its political influence. A sentiment with which I do not completely agree, but I will always be thankful for any semblance of the dissipation and disintegration of religion from civilized society. Islam's apparent confidence pleases the credulous, and in the process provides Christians with some new editions of their favorite graphic novel hero. Ironically, many of the myths are simply semi-literate plagiarisms and hokey rehashes, but the watered-down sequels get the job done. 

Anything to keep the ascetically immoral rabbi and eccentric hippy in the mix.

As always, check your purpose, and in this case - Jesus'

Yours truly, another mammal

  

On the Superiority of the Naturally Transcendent

On the Superiority of the Naturally Transcendent: How Religious Spirituality Ineffably Limits the Infinite

The false and meretricious offerings of the supernatural are plain when referred to the pursuit of knowledge. The idea that faith and invocations of spirituality retain a monopoly on the euphoric is absurd, and embarrassingly easy to discredit. The false solace of faith renders its adherents ecstatic - at the notion of not being able to question and/or remotely decipher the nature of the Godhead. This admission is obscene, and advocates to not only accept irresistible ignorance, but to revel in it and champion its cause. 

There is a strong tendency for many people to concede the human imagination is limitless - although invigorating and partially true, it is in direct contrast with the preachment of religion. The consolations offered and happiness derived from skepticism are valid and honorable contributions to inquiry. Musing at the fortune and convenience of our presence in the erratic behavior of nature is indescribably more valuable than presupposing one's place as the object of a predetermined divine itinerary. In addition, the simultaneous experience of sobering humility along with the paradoxical corollary of the recognition of the supremacy of human reason and inquiry is nothing short of sublime. This prideful nobility will always supersede the servile ignorance and false modesty attributable to the faithful. There can be no discovery of one's happenstance existence and ancillary invocation of intellectual curiosity, if one adopts a mentality that promotes sufficiency of knowledge and condemns further speculation. 

Their metaphysical claims and backward teachings are dishonest and will forever be the enemy of truth, beauty and wisdom. Rather presumptuously yet indirectly, they discourage appreciation and harmony drawn from the natural realm, lest one be accused of idolatry or paganism. Worship, submission, and credulity fulminate and nurture fear, while demonizing reason and dialectical honesty. The provisions of the supernatural are concocted and false; they will forever be the subordinate offspring of arrogant insularity. The beauty and substance of nature and its indifference to our vitality will always create elegance in thought and written word. To reject this turgid gift is not only a grave error, but inadvertently disrespects the donor. In a cruel irony, the indifference of nature will deprive someone of their growth both physically and intellectually - if you too heavily dispute reality and substitute it with monolithic tales of the spiritual. 

Value nature for what it is and do not take your place in it for granted - as mammals, of course.

Impotent Arguments Against Non-Belief, and Cultural Misconceptions Held by the Faithful: Part 2- A Short Inquiry on Intellectual Honesty

Impotent Arguments Against Non-Belief, and Cultural Misconceptions Held by the Faithful: Part 2- A Short Inquiry on Intellectual Honesty

When I hear theists make remarks about there knowledge of god/s, the fanatic certainty with which they convey their statements makes my gorge rise. On its face, a person would typically consider the arrogation of morality by the faithful to be a more dangerous proposition. However I would argue that their claims (prior to addressing morality) about their justified belief in said figures is equally if not more perilous. In essence, I would submit that the maintenance of intellectual honesty and its affections in reality (as Spinoza would say) may presuppose and supersede any of the ethical qualms in terms of concern. This is simply because people are claiming to know or have justified belief in something that is fundamentally unknowable and undetectable by humans, and then championing the idea as an axiomatic truth that necessitates inclusion in a school science curriculum.There has never been any adequate evidence supplied to warrant the belief in a god, and many of the rationalizations used are full of logical fallacies, contradictions, and superfluous assertions.

 As I am sure many of the non-believers are familiar with, there are arguments made with appeals to cosmology, ontology, and teleology. I will try to address some of the claims that have been made in each of these categories, and in doing so attempt to discredit them. Primarily, there is the 'First Cause" argument that suggests the need for an initiator who set everything into motion. Many believers will make appeals to ideas such as the watchmaker fallacy or ill-considered arguments such as the law of cause and effect. The irony being that in the First Cause argument there is much special pleading, arrogance, and ignorance fallacies occurring. Evidently, one risks being subjected to the infinite regression problem; in which, if one implements the law of cause and effect, one must then demand the origin of a god and his/her creator. Much of the time, the response to said issue is the assertion that a god is immaterial, does not have a creator, and as such terminates need for any further inquiry. Since the scientific method and the balance of empiricism and rationalism is the best pathway to truth that humanity currently has, it follows that this is a necessary tool to examine extraordinary claims. The idea of human beings possessing tangible evidence for an entity that is supposedly "immaterial" (a concept that is at best incoherent) is self-contradictory and absurd. The only evidence we have ever had of anything tangible and testable in the history of reality has been material. We as a species have never encountered anything immaterial, and such an event would violate its own premise. Any time someone demonstrates an item, it by definition is manifested in existence. it is no longer undetectable or supernatural. Many believers will deflect questions regarding the special pleading of infinite regression not applying to a deity by saying that it is ridiculous and incomprehensible for material/the universe/reality to arise from non-existence. In essence, the "Something from nothing" trope. My position along with many other non-believers does not include espousing such an idea, and for good reason. Philosophically, as the Pre-Socratic Parmenides addressed quite well, any efforts to test such a hypothesis are impossible. For if someone were to invoke and label something as nothing to constitute the source from which the test would begin, one would necessarily be introducing something. Nothing and non-existence are abstract concepts and as such are not entities that can be manifested or called upon in reality. In short, there is no way to try to substantiate or evaluate this idea. Therefore, the rational position is to assume that we cannot know or ascribe belief to the position that something can or cannot arise from nothing, and as such it is superfluous and fruitless. In addition, this retort by believers is nothing more than an attempt to jeer non-believers and say that our position is just as absurd as their own. As such, they assume that we are on equal footing, which they do not realize is a grave insult to themselves. The non-believer's position on this matter usually involves the following (most of the time): we do not know the origins of our cosmos for certain. The Big Bang model has proven to be a substantiated and credible theory about the inception of our universe and its expansion thenceforth. As far as I am aware, everything since the occurrence of the Big Bang has been widely considered to be the beginning of the natural realm. This is a sufficient and consistent account, and scientists have yet to derive a hypothesis about any further questions of abiogenesis that qualify as a theory. Ensuing questions include inquiries about what occurred before the Big Bang, or what caused this anomaly to occur. The first concern is definitely better answered by a scientist, and I would assume they would answer with an assertion of non-knowledge. I would attempt to answer this philosophically as best as my meager efforts could muster. The idea of asking what preceded the Big Bang may in fact be an ill-formed and unintelligible question. Seeing as the Big Bang brought about the existence of the natural realm, the implementation of the concept of time to measure reality occurred contemporaneously. It may be nonsensical to include a concept in your question that is necessarily imbued with an aspect of time, when the notion of time only began with the Big Bang. Words such as before, preceding, earlier and others all convey aspects of how we measure time - these may not be so easily applicable or sufficient to press further than their limits. Nonetheless, I do not claim that is an adequate or even consistent response to the question; merely the result of ruminating and some research on the topic. 

The complimentary question to this previous example invokes an entity or force that propelled the Big Bang to take place. This hypothesis has never shown any adequate evidence to be considered testable, and is completely unnecessary. Seeing as the infinite regression motif would inevitably recur here, it does not provide any more insight into the origins of existence. This hypothesis holds no explanatory power and is essentially the attempt to explain a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery. In addition, it violates Occam's Razor in the notion that the Big Bang is already a sufficient theory to explain existence. Of course we will continue to inquire and seek out answers to satisfy our curiosity and thirst for knowledge, but they will need to be adequate and corroborated ideas that can be measured and can actually provide new information. Finally, with regards to the cause and effect argument, it is paramount to state that it is inconsequential and inconsistent to compare artificially made products with the natural world. In essence, poor attempts at trying to draw comparisons between a building necessarily having a builder, or a car necessarily having someone there to assemble its components, cannot be intelligibly contrasted with nature. It once again incites more insoluble questions than answers, and is not required. 

Other arguments that suggest the fine-tuning of reality are inept and ill-considered. Our universe is not here to work perfectly just to satisfy our desires and needs, and that is demonstrable through the chaotic characteristics of the cosmos. We inhabit a planet that can support life some of the time on some portions of its surface. It is a blatant display of arrogance to suggest that everything is here bearing us in mind, or to suit our necessities. Everyday explosion, implosion, collision and entropy govern the universe. This is demonstrable by means of our technology and surveillance of small pockets of reality. An example of such an instrument would be the results provided from Edwin Hubble's telescope. We happened to have been fortunate enough to not be struck with any astronomical calamity in recent history, but that in no way guarantees or suggests our invincibility or even protection by some magical supervisor and conductor. In paraphrasing Neil De Grasse Tyson, this type of thinking is a result of a species whose lifespan is foolishly glorified and really does not even denote a speck of time on the universal calendar. Pattern seeking in this regard has duped a large number of our brothers and sisters into thinking that everything is designed with us as a central and integral component. Egocentric behavior, entitlement, and special privilege are just a few of the incorrect and harmful conclusions that can be drawn from such a mentality. If religious history is any indicator, there is more than enough proof to validate such an assertion. Something that I fortunately cannot say for anything supernatural proposed by the faithful.

Maintenance of intellectual honesty is a must. So as always, check your purpose - mammals.

Impotent Arguments Against Non-Belief, and Cultural Misconceptions Held by the Faithful: Part 1- A Short Inquiry on Morality

Impotent Arguments Against Non-Belief and Cultural Misconceptions Held by the Faithful: Part 1- A Short Inquiry on Morality

There is a tendency (albeit not compulsory and unilateral) for believers, theists and deists of many kinds to think that their counterparts hold some questionable positions on morality, cosmology, and intellectual honesty. For the sake of this screed, I shall address only the first topic in this entry, and in an extremely abridged form. I entitled this piece proportionately - for many of these ideas could not be further from the truth. It is often heard said by devout believers that atheists possess no ethical compass, and that there is no source from which they can draw an objective standard about the characteristics of good and evil. Aside from being a fantastic piece of presumption and an exhibition of wickedness, this mentality has obvious flaws. Dostoevsky addresses this in his exemplary novel "The Brothers Karamazov" in which the youngest of the bunch (also the moral idiot of the book) suggests that if god exists we must do what he wants, and that if he does not we can do whatever we like. This is a stereotypical position held by people who swallow their morality in tablet form - a.k.a the ten commandments. There is actually not much that can be drawn from the ten commandments that actually is moral, pertains to ethics, and that could not be intuited and practiced by any decent human being. Furthermore, if there is anything to be extracted and implemented into everyday life, its authenticity is more than likely not attributable to the bible. The first three injunctions address the characteristics of this desert enamored deity, and his personal insecurities. The first of which enjoins that you shall observe no other gods before him - which evidently has an obvious paradox within it. This would imply that the god of Abraham does indeed acknowledge the veracity and existence of other pagan and none Jewish deities. If anyone has ever read any semblance of Jewish, Christian, or Islamic literature or scripture, they would know that this directly irreconcilable with the tenets of the faiths. It also speaks volumes about his lack of self-confidence; "be my fan or forever suffer the dire consequences which are supposed to demonstrate my love for you." The second and third commandments also declare that thou shalt not produce any graven images, and to observe the Sabbath appropriately. Finally, I feel as though it would be superfluous to censor speech, lest someone be accused of taking a name in vain. A declaration that I still to this day do not understand. At risk of being accused of engaging in reductio ad absurdum, it would seem as though Yahweh's self-esteem issues have gotten the best of him - as he now despises any artwork and the right of those to have a day off from the work and toil with which he so generously endowed Adam for a crime he did not commit. The idea of his predilection against artistry is also baffling. It is often heard said that man is made in the image of god (I would argue the corollary, which would explain the overwhelming number of them and their anthropomorphic shortcomings) and thus is indeed a representation of big brother himself. Would that not imply that our countenance and physiology is a walking blasphemy? Or did Jesus simply not consider this amidst his bizarre and evil preachment? In a cruel irony, the idea of Jesus being a walking god also violates general precepts that are intuitive to Jewish text. Maimonides, a twelfth century Jewish philosopher who was well educated in the Talmud and lived in Spain, addressed this concept directly. He said that any notion of the Nazarene merely being considered to be the messiah was a heinous slander, and therefore the ensuing events that allegedly occurred toward the end of his life were not simply warranted, but mandatory as a fitting punishment. While I do not think I could push myself that far on this subject (that an eccentric rabbi made some seemingly bold claims about himself), I do think that anyone who espouses such an opinion of themselves is in direct conflict with the success of society. To me, the idea of any primate proclaiming himself to be divine is a very deep form of profanity and insult. Banal statements such as honoring one's father and mother are axiomatic positions one should try to uphold, provided the circumstances allow it. There is no mention of care for children, or injunctions against slavery or genocide; all of which are divinely approved and encouraged in Exodus 20 and 21, where Moses and his brood so righteously pillage the Amalekites and Midianites only to keep the young virgins for themselves. This seems much more like an attempt at justifying a wicked ideology, and is reflective of the male driven society and its inhabitants comprised of illiterate pastoral goat herders. 

However, let us not digress. Other commandments dictate aversions to murder, theft, adultery and perjury - and neither I nor any other civilized human being needed Moses in order to recognize this plain fact. Following pronouncements lump in women with chattel as mere property that should not be coveted. I do not think I need to spell out the injustices here: mainly that women hold the same value as livestock, and the lack of specification in "coveting". Of course it is wrong to steal someone else's property, but coveting implies a desire for a material good and thus can be used as an economic spur to do better. Accompanying rules state that one should not bear false witness against their neighbor - which actually does demonstrate some nuance and is a respectable assertion. Of course, this still in no way confirms the ancillary claims in the Decalogue as being morally correct, or any of other statements in the bible as being valid or true. The eleventh commandment which actually has nothing to do with holy books, is the golden rule. This idea actually does have roots in the Analects of Confucius - and Confucians rather nobly realize that this moral maxim in no way helps validate any of their other beliefs. 

It comes down to this - Christopher Hitchens issued a challenge to many different individuals on this topic. In order for there to be come sort of credibility to the argument of ethics being a derivative of the bible, one would have to meet the following request. Name a moral action performed or ethical statement uttered by a believer, that could not be done by a non-believer. Now consider its supplementary question - can anyone think of a immoral action done or statement made only in the name of faith - and no one has a problem providing a response. This may be a bit reductionist, but it is an essential meditation. 

To conclude, it is more than likely the case that our moral positions (which are not monolithic and will not persist eternally without alteration) are the outcome of our progress as a species and a necessary byproduct of our human solidarity for the flourishing of our societies. My advice, do not act considerately in aspirations of achieving a divine reward or obviating a divine punishment. It's dishonest and evokes suspicion about the integrity of one's benevolence - even in the slowest mind.

Morality is result of our efforts and growth as evolving creatures, religion attempts to hijack it - and rather ineptly at that.

As always, check your purpose, mammals.

On Solipsism and its Impertinence: The Unintelligible Exegesis of Reality

On Solipsism and its Impertinence: The Unintelligible Exegesis of Reality

Solipsism on its face seems to be a rather innocuous and almost laughable proposition. While I would maintain that the latter quality in some way does describe its nature, it would be deeply shortsighted to suggest that it is harmless. This incoherent proposition dictates (in essence) that there is no such thing as objective reality - everything is the byproduct of subjectivity and everyone creates their own version of the truth and perception of the universe. This is an attempt to render all ideas and methodologies to mere opinion, and therefore there is no need to analyze their validity. This a very dangerous ideology that promotes and values ignorance and zeal for apathy. One salient way in which one can see how this a blatant pillaging of intelligence, is the idea that reason and logic are also futile. Since this overarching perspective on reality mandates that everything can and will be reduced to subjectivity, the idea of methodologies that best enable us to make sense are discarded. 

How so? Reason is a faculty that we should all appreciate and respect, as logic is a method without which we could not survive. However, if one were to even insinuate that everyone possesses their own version of these systems (an incoherent tenet at best) then their noble attempts at trying to reach tentative positions that are most likely to be objectively correct, is nullified. By proxy, this would also apply to the best method on which humanity depends and operates daily - science. The philosophical balances of empiricism and rationalism have birthed this noble discipline, which has provided us with innumerable innovations spanning from health care all the way to technology. Epicurus first (so far as we have a record) established this in the days of ancient Greece, whose mantle was then adopted and improved by Lucretius and his beautiful philosophical inquiries in De Rerum Natura. Through much inquiry, dialectic, and experience, our species managed to conceive and implement a practice so exemplary. Yet once again, some individuals would rather prefer to impose an incomprehensible and irrelevant way of thinking based on unfounded assertions and mental masturbation. These are the writhings of madmen, and as Marx professed in his critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right when describing an equally depraved ideology "Sighs of the oppressed creature". Alas, take heart fellow naturalists. Their own ramblings collapse upon themselves quite easily and do not hold up well against scrutiny. There are endless paradoxes and fallacies involved, a few of which include: the invocation of reasoning in an ideology that negates its purpose, being completely unverifiable and unfalsifiable, and violating Occam's Razor. In order to derive such a conclusion about reality, one must use their thinking faculties to arrive at it. This is an invocation of reason, and if anyone agrees with your proposition, this transgresses the rule against the existence of objectivity. Also, much like another totalitarian ideology which is still praised and permeates throughout our globe today, none of its claims can be examined. There is no method that can produce substantial and consistent evidence or a lack there-of through rigorous testing; this would imply something upon which various individuals could concur as being objectively focused in practice. Finally, (when paraphrased ineptly by me) the first half of Occam's razor dictates that if there is a simpler sufficient explanation to describe a natural phenomenon or idea, always use it over one that is more complex. The second half describes a habitual correlation between the increase in amount of assumptions that are needed to be made in order to support the idea, and the likelihood of its inaccuracy. In essence, the solipsistic argument is superfluous and holds virtually zero explanatory power. This method thinking is at best impertinent, and in the very least, harmless. 

The reason for its ethical bale is due to the mentality one could potentially espouse regarding their fellow humans. If one were to assume that they are the architect and central core of their own universe (making one out to be a minor god), they are paying far too much by way of compliment to themselves for a species that shares 98% of its DNA with a chimpanzee - pacé, chimps. Even though they would not accept the scientific discovery that proposes our relationship with every other living being on earth, the fact remains unscathed. Feeling as though you engendered your own reality can lead one to feeling superior to others as mere pawns for pleasure in your plot. This is obscene arrogance even when it is not acknowledged by a solipsist, an even more wicked when it is. 

In short, check your purpose - mammals.