Disagreeing with "This Is Water" 1st Blog Post

David initially states that deep down we’re all naturally self-centered. But how could we be? I disagree with this solipsism. If one lives in any type of society that requires some type of or at least some level of social interaction, then it’s pretty hard to be naturally solipsistic. One would not be able to sustain oneself if this were the case. So I think from the day the we begin to be integrated into society, we have to learn how to consider other’s thoughts, other’s feelings, other reactions to how we interact with them. I don’t think that naturally we gravitate towards solipsism. It seems to me that each us has to be altruistic. It’s unnatural for us to be solipsistic. The author also presumes that one’s individual is more real than that shared with others. There is a very common thought that is circulating amongst neo-intellectuals. That thought is that we exist, not as individuals, but as nodes, networks, and systems. That reality can only exist when experienced and communicated with others. It is often said that you can’t conceive of something for which you have no words. Reality is especially vivid when one communicates their experience with others. He also states there is no such thing as atheism which I found strange. I understand the point that he’s trying to get across, that we have to worship something even if it’s money. But atheism is defined as an absence of belief in God where “god” is typically defined as an anthropomorphic being and money, things, etc. are not anthropomorphic beings. So atheism can exist. And ‘worship’ is defined as to show reverence and adoration for something. I think that it’s certainly possible to not show reverence for something. Nihilists will typically not have adoration for anything. On the better end,  some Buddhists are not allowed to worship as that will lead to harm and suffering. And I also be so bold as to say that we get to choose how we see the world. That seems to be ultimately up to external factors. For example, if someone read this article, then they were influenced by the author and responded to neural impulses. That to me doesn’t seem to be much of a choice, at least one that’s dependent entirely on the individual.