That's why I say that all forms of realism are grounded in idealism. — Metaphysician Undercover
When a body is caused to accelerate, it may continue to accelerate long after that cause has ceased acting. — Metaphysician Undercover
Now you mention it, I don’t recall Kastrup saying much about Kant, but I think Kant, Schopenhauer, and Kastrup could comfortably fit under one umbrella, so to speak. — Wayfarer
Bertrand Russell has a chapter called World of Universals in his early Problems of Philosophy, which I often refer to. — Wayfarer
Bertrand Russell: Consider such a proposition as 'Edinburgh is north of London'. Here we have a relation between two places, and it seems plain that the relation subsists independently of our knowledge of it.
The empirical reality of objects is grounded in the fact that they conform to the universal and necessary structures of cognition (space, time, causality, and so forth). — Wayfarer
….the exact difference between Kant’s transcendental idealism and classical idealism. — Tom Storm
The actual distinction Kant makes is between empirical realism and transcendental idealism..............................................For Kant, empirical realism means that objects of experience - the phenomena we encounter in space and time - are real within the empirical domain. When we perceive a tree or a rock, these objects have objective reality as appearances. — Wayfarer
So you can be reassured that the ship is securely next to the quay and physics will prevent it from moving. You can decide where the relationship is — Ludwig V
I’m still not entirely clear on the exact difference between Kant’s transcendental idealism and classical idealism. Kant isn’t really saying that everything is consciousness, is he? He’s saying that there is something out there (we can't apprehend), and we shape our experience of it through our cognitive apparatus and this we experience as phenomena/reality. Which sounds similar to some of the perspectives you have offered. Thoughts? — Tom Storm
Well said, except a minor quibble, — Mww
I agree that it it seems plain that Edinburgh and London exist in different places independently of our knowledge of them.
The concept "relation" certainly exists in our mind, in that I know that Edinburgh is to the north of London.
But is it the case that relations exist independently of the mind? — RussellA
In B276 of his Critique of Pure Reason, in his Refutation of Idealism, he attempts the proof of his theorem "The mere, but empirically determined, consciousness of my own existence proves the existence of objects in space outside me." — RussellA
I see that you have decided that the relationship is between the ship and the bollard. Good choice. Now, can we agree that the relationship between Glasgow and Edinburgh is between Glasgow and Edinburgh and vice versa?The ship is not secured because of the relationship between the ship and the bollard, otherwise no rope would be needed. — RussellA
But for me Bradley's mistake is thinking of the relation as if it were an entity in its own right - an object corresponding to R. — Ludwig V
I see that you have decided that the relationship is between the ship and the bollard. — Ludwig V
But then, how can the relationship "next to" be between between the ship and the quay? It is true that we can see that the ship is next to the quay, and you might choose to describe that as having the ship and the quay and the relationship between them in your mind in some sense. But that doesn't mean that your mind has created any of them. In any case, it can't be literally true. Your mind is not a spatial object - it occupies no space whatever. The physical substrate of your mind is in your brain (though I prefer to say that it is your entire body). Whichever it is, there is no room for the ship or the bollard and consequently not for the relationship between them.Perhaps that is what I am trying to say. A relation is a concept in the mind rather than an object in the world. Relations exist in the mind, not the world. — RussellA
The meaning of the expression 'everything is in consciousness' is elusive. It is often taken to mean that its adherents say the world is all in the mind of the perceiver - everything is in my consciousness. But that leads to problems of solipsism. — Wayfarer
This process of world-creation is actually going on, all the time - it is what consciousness is doing every second. Becoming directly aware of that world-making process is key. As I've mentioned, I learned about Kant from a scholarly book comparing Buddhist and Kantian philosophy (ref). — Wayfarer
The general, rather than the exact, difference reduces to an investigation of the faculty, thus the role of, and limitations imposed on, pure reason, as that which provides the principles for proper thinking, re: in accordance with logical laws, hence the name “transcendental” as a modified doctrinal idealism. — Mww
Your mind is not a spatial object - it occupies no space whatever. The physical substrate of your mind is in your brain (though I prefer to say that it is your entire body). — Ludwig V
But then, how can the relationship "next to" be between between the ship and the quay? It is true that we can see that the ship is next to the quay, and you might choose to describe that as having the ship and the quay and the relationship between them in your mind in some sense. But that doesn't mean that your mind has created any of them. — Ludwig V
Very good. What's your criterion for something to exist in the world? Colours, for example, occupy space - admittedly in two dimensions - and have definite locations. — Ludwig V
This statement is incorrect according to Newton’s first law of motion (the law of inertia). — Wayfarer
Kant in Critique of Pure Reason would agree that realism is grounded in idealism, in that the pure intuitions of space and time and pure concepts of understanding are the a priori conditions of experience.
But Kant would also agree that idealism is grounded in realism, in that there have to be experiences before they can be categorized by the pure intuitions and pure concepts. — RussellA
I don't think that this is the case. From Newton's Second Law, F = ma. If there is no force, then there can be no acceleration. — RussellA
The mind structures experience. — Tom Storm
The point is that universals are not “in the mind” — not mere thoughts or conventions. — Wayfarer
But "bored" is not the only perception you might have with Mary. Did you perceive her as standing in front of you, or looking out the window, or talking to someone else. And did it occur to you that your understanding that she is bored might be erroneous?However, I may perceive Mary is bored because she is wearing bright clothes and you may perceive that Mary is not bored precisely because she is wearing bright clothes.
If perception refers to understanding, the situation becomes very unclear. How can anyone know what is in the mind of God if everyone's perceived understanding of the same situation is probably different. How can anyone ever know Mary's true state of being.
Mary's "to be" can never be known if "is to be perceived" means perceived in the understanding. — RussellA
I won't argue with that.This suggests that the mind, which depends on a brain, which has a physical size, should be able to cognise spatial relations. — RussellA
... or, alternatively, that one of them is further away than the other.The observer perceives that one person appears taller than the other. — RussellA
The mind does make mistakes, but it is a lot cleverer than that. It judges the size of distant objects by comparing their height with other objects in the field of vision. It knows the actual height of the other objects, so it can work out the height of the unknown object.The mind has created the perception of a height difference, even though a height difference does not exist in the world. — RussellA
Wherever they are.Where does the relation between their heights exist in the world? — RussellA
The relation between their heights doesn't change depending how far away a given observer is.If the relation between their heights existed in the world, then it wouldn't change dependent on how far the observer was standing away form them. — RussellA
No, it suggests that the observer exists in the world.The fact that the relation between their heights is relative to the observer suggests that the relation between their height exists in the observer not the world. — RussellA
Nowhere. Neither can it be discovered in my brain or my mind. Where do your eyes tell you it is?Where in an electromagnetic wavelength of 700nm can the colour red be discovered? — RussellA
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.