idealism, or the role of the mental in constructing (our?) reality, seems inevitable once you spend enough time philosophizing.
I am the center of the universe, and everything else moves around me."
"I am the center of the universe, and everything else moves around me." - how am I to disprove this to myself? — Pneumenon
Exactly. Anyone understands that solipsism is the logical conclusion that one reaches after having philosophized enough (and to say that someone has philosophized enough is to say that logic was involved) about idealism.I should also mention that this seems more like Solipsism, than Idealism. — Alvin Capello
They rummage around their mental locker looking for something they can know that is not in their own minds, and find nothing. — Pneumenon
Well, yeah. Idealism is weird.Really weird. — praxis
I dunno. Probably the same as an idealist would being that they believe that little minds exist in the cells and atoms of their bodies.I wonder how a Preformationist would explain evolution. — praxis
What I had in in mind - and of course this isn't systematic, which is why it's in the misc forum - is how idealistic philosophy seems to proceed. Berkely, for example, rummages around his mind looking for something that isn't mental, can't find anything, and declares that all is mental. — Pneumenon
Of course, many idealists are also more sophisticated than that. They rummage around their mental locker looking for something they can know that is not in their own minds, and find nothing. Accordingly.... you get the picture. — Pneumenon
A thought: idealism, or the role of the mental in constructing (our?) reality, seems inevitable once you spend enough time philosophizing.
On the other hand, that mind is intrinsic and underlies everything, is exactly what creatures with minds would say. Especially after they spend a lot of time thinking.
"I am the center of the universe, and everything else moves around me." - how am I to disprove this to myself? — Pneumenon
I wonder if trees believe everything is bark. — Harry Hindu
A thought: idealism, or the role of the mental in constructing (our?) reality, seems inevitable once you spend enough time philosophizing. — Pneumenon
A thought: idealism, or the role of the mental in constructing (our?) reality, seems inevitable once you spend enough time philosophizing. — Pneumenon
this is true, although, this forum isn't exactly teaming with critical thinkers, so most here will probably disagree. unfortunately, today, most who have degrees in philosophy are postmodernists or empiricists and thereby have about as much knowledge about ontology as the uneducated laymen. it's almost impossible to have a conversation with them because once you ask them to give support for their presuppositions, they no longer want to discuss the topic.
All ideas and minds are existing objects, according to idealism. — Alvin Capello
You need to change this to entity as opposed to object.
According to idealism, not all objects are spatially extended objects; meaning, that there are both spatially extended objects, and objects that are not spatially extended.
According to idealism, objects are sensible concepts, some objects do not exist because contradictions can exist as concepts, or rather, objects of awareness, but they cannot become actualized as spatially extended objects.
I will be releasing the book on it soon. I have found a method that essentially makes philosophy into a science, and allows us to ascertain all the questions concerning metaphysics which have hitherto remained unanswered.
An entity is just an existing object, so effecting this change would make no difference either way to the argument. — Alvin Capello
What do you mean by spatially extended here? If it means extended in an independently subsisting spatial reality, then the object is not an idea, thus this would not be coherent with idealism. If you mean existing in the spatial faculty of the mind, then the object is indeed an idea, and thus an existing object (or an 'entity', if you prefer). Leading into your next point, viz. — Alvin Capello
According to idealism, objects are sensible concepts, some objects do not exist because contradictions can exist as concepts, or rather, objects of awareness, but they cannot become actualized as spatially extended objects.
This means that, because sensible concepts are entities (according to idealism), even if the sensible concept is not spatially extended, it still exists as a sensible concept,and thus it still exists. And since all objects are sensible concepts, as you claim, then all objects exist. But many objects do not exist. Therefore, we must reject the notion that all objects are sensible concepts. — Alvin Capello
Can you let me know when that happens please? :smile: — Alvin Capello
And it brings Kant to mind. What would he have said? He could perhaps acknowledge (at least the possibility) that the mind is a fold in the fabric of reality. — Pneumenon
You need to clarify your definition of "object" here.
it's not the case that, if a concept exists in the absolute mind, that it must become actualized in space as a sensible concept relative to sense perception. what keeps concepts in the mind of the absolute from being sensible concepts in relation to perceiving subjects is intentionality. This is a very important point in regards to your argument. All objects that exist, exist, but not all objects exist in the spatial sense; only those that are willed to exist in a spatial sense, exist.
It's rather hard to define in terms of other things, because objects are the absolute baseline of my philosophy. But if I have to give it a shot, I would say that an object is anything that can possess properties and stand in relations. Some objects, like horses, exist; while other objects, like unicorns, do not. Make no mistake though, unicorns still have four legs, fur, manes, etc. in exactly the same way that horses do; they just don't exis — Alvin Capello
I'm willing to grant on your own terms that concepts can exist in the absolute mind without becoming actualized in space. But if a concept (or object, as you mentioned earlier) exists in the absolute mind, then surely it exists. I'm claiming that many objects do not exist at all, in any sense of the term. Idealism does not allow for this; hence it must be rejected. — Alvin Capello
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.