Solipsism, Nihilism, Fatalism: orthogonal failure modes

Nietzsche confronts the abyss of meaninglessness

---

The Three Pathological Attractors of Thought

Re-reading Nineteen Eighty-Four, I’m struck by O’Brien’s insistence that reality is nothing more than the Party’s fiat. But the Inner Party, which sets the doctrine, is itself composed of people - so surely this definition of reality is no more than collective solipsism - which is pretty much a contradiction in terms as Winston Smith duly observes.

O’Brien pre-empts the thought, patronising Smith: “You are not a metaphysician, Winston.” 

O'Brian is once again engaged in DoubleThink.

Philosophy has long known the lure of limit-positions where consistency drives a system into effective collapse. Solipsism is one attractor, the epistemic endpoint where the existence of a separate world outside of consciousness becomes a redundant hypothesis. Push the logic of perception-as-construction too far and you end up alone, sovereign and absurd.

But solipsism is not the only edge. A second axis concerns value. If all outcomes can be questioned - if all “oughts” are groundless - the motivational landscape flattens into nihilism. There are no hills to climb, no pits to avoid, no reasons left to move. Nietzsche wrestled with it; Dostoevsky, Sartre and Camus dramatised it; late-modern culture circles it endlessly.

A third axis, less frequently articulated, concerns agency. To act requires a repertoire of futures - counterfactual alternatives one might realise. Eliminate the branching structure and you are left in the impasse of fatalism or quietism: the conviction that nothing can be changed; the paralysis of learned helplessness. Ancient Stoics flirted with the posture; modern determinists occasionally relapse into it.

So: solipsism, nihilism, fatalism. Three attractors, each the degenerate form of a necessary loop.

Why These Axes?

One way to see their necessity is through the lens of BDI (Belief–Desire–Intention) models of agency in AI, where each component has its associated modal logic: doxastic for belief, deontic/axiological for value, conative for intention. To survive in a difficult environment, an agent must hold all three in tension:

• Belief: a model of the world - corrected by feedback;
• Desire/Value: a set of utilities or obligations - distinguishing 'better' from 'worse' states;
• Intention/Agency: a repertoire of actions that open multiple futures.

Cut the tether to reality and belief collapses to solipsism. Flatten the value surface and desire collapses to nihilism. Shrink the action set to a singleton and intention collapses to fatalism. These are not speculative pathologies but the limit-cases of the three logics that structure any situated agent.

Modal logic makes the structure sharp. Each loop corresponds to an accessibility relation: epistemic, deontic, agential. Solipsism is the identity collapse of R_K: only one epistemic world, the self’s. Nihilism is the emptying of R_O: no world is “better” than another. Fatalism is the contraction of R_◇: only one successor, so that □p ↔ p across time. The attractors are nothing mystical; they are the degenerate frames of necessity.

Why They Keep Coming Back

And yet, if they are so unliveable, why do they haunt philosophy and culture?

First, because they are natural artefacts of formal systems. Anyone who plays seriously with modal logics sees what happens when the relations collapse. Solipsism, nihilism and fatalism are not exotic: they are the trivial edge-cases of belief, desire and intention.

Second, because they map to moods. Alienation feels like solipsism, despair like nihilism, depression like fatalism. These concepts give thought-shape to psychological states.

Third, because they may not be wholly false. Physics whispers fatalism through the block universe; neuroscience teaches that perception is constructed by the brain; cosmology shows no trace of objective value. Perhaps the attractors are accurate glimpses of the universe: but just not descriptions we can internalise without ceasing to function.

O’Brien embodies the danger. The Party operationalises these edge-doctrines: reality is malleable (collective solipsism); for the masses, values are empty (nihilism); alternatives are illusions (fatalism). The result is a politics of ontological terror and unlimited elite power.

The Inescapable Edges

We are left with an irony. Evolution has wired us to resist these attractors: realism, value-laden drives, and a sense of agency are vital survival tools. Yet philosophy, literature and politics continually rediscover them, because they are where consistency forces the lines to run.

The metaphor is gravitational: singularities at the edge of thought. You cannot live in them, but they shape the terrain around them. To understand them is not to embrace them but to see why they recur, why systems as different as Berkeley’s metaphysics, Nietzsche’s critique, or Orwell’s dystopia converge on unstable yet compelling endpoints.

The Party claimed to build upon the denial of reality - so plainly counterfactual, you say. In truth it built on our own fault lines: belief, desire, intention - the very logics of situated agency.