Could anyone clarify the distinction between Objective and Absolute Idealism? — Salah

"Idea X" is objectively true (epistemology). "Idea Z" is absolutely real (ontology).

This sounds like a homeowrk question, but ok. I define does notions a bit different than 180 Proof does. I think the differentiation is made by Hegel himself actually when he described Firchet's system as subjective idealism, Schelling's as objective idealism and his own as absolute idealsim.

In his view, Fichte, localized the relation we have in the world too much in the 'I', in the subject. Every experience for Fichte is localized in consciousness and so the world as it appears to consciousness is the world as it is. Philosophy therefore is the reexamination of self cosciousness, what does consciousnes do when it constructs a world out of its data.

Schelling in turn prioritsed the objective side. Consciousness is only consciousness within a world that develops itself within a certain way. As far as I know Schelling coined the term 'world spirit' to indicate that the world develops in a certain rational kind of way and from this development emanates the structures and institutions that define our reality, law, the state, science etc.

Hegel tried to reconcile the systems of Fichte and Schelling stating that it is neither subject, not object that should be prioritized, but that these are terms that themselves develop from the way the that thinking (the idea, or 'the movement of the concept') develops. The subject and object are different and at the same time essentially the same, or at least springing forth from the same source (the absolute). The difference between the two is both ineluctable and untenable. It is untenable, because we know consciousness is consciousness of a world and in itself it is empty. What is given is given to it by the world (object) that it examines. At the same time though we can never see ourselves as merely part of that 'world spirit', we also take ourselves as different from it. 'The world' does not exist, only my world exisst. So between subject and object there is a tension of different, but also a realization of identity.

The difference in a nutsell being that for Schelling and his objective idealism, subjectivity is encompassed by the objective and itself mostly illusory, delivered to the whims of objective reality, while for Hegel the subjective and objective are both poles that should not be absolutised. They stem from a unity, a world that is itself both subject and object, comprising an inner tension as it moves and develops in an objective way. but does not do so whimsical, but self reflectively, through our work and objectification within it (in domains like work, science, religion, law).

This sounds like a homeowrk question, but ok. I define does notions a bit different than 180 Proof does. I think the differentiation is made by Hegel himself actually when he described Fi[chte]'s system as subjective idealism, Schelling's as objective idealism and his own as absolute idealsim. — Tobias

Too much nuance, my friend, for somebody else's homework. :smirk:

Too much nuance, my friend, for somebody else's homework. :smirk: — 180 Proof

True 180, but I needed the jogging.... has been ages since I dealt with this stuff. And I am a procrastinator at heart... Now back to grading someboy else's homework...

From my point of view, I think, according to Ockham's razor that both Objective and Absolute Idealism are the same:

- One absolute being.
- the Objective things are present Objectively, but not Materially.
- The One absolute being is both the Perceiver and the Perceived.

Hegel tried to reconcile the systems of Fichte and Schelling stating that it is neither subject, not object that should be prioritized, but that these are terms that themselves develop from the way the that thinking (the idea, or 'the movement of the concept') develops. The subject and object are different and at the same time essentially the same, or at least springing forth from the same source (the absolute). The difference between the two is both ineluctable and untenable. It is untenable, because we know consciousness is consciousness of a world and in itself it is empty. What is given is given to it by the world (object) that it examines. At the same time though we can never see ourselves as merely part of that 'world spirit', we also take ourselves as different from it. 'The world' does not exist, only my world exists. So between subject and object there is a tension of difference, but also a realization of identity. — Tobias

:100: One of TPF's rare educations-in-a-paragraph. Thank you!

From my point of view, I think, according to Ockham's razor that both Objective and Absolute Idealism are the same:

- One absolute being.
- the Objective things are present Objectively, but not Materially.
- The One absolute being is both the Perceiver and the Perceived. — Salah

Thanks @tim wood :)

Care to unpack these sentences because theymake no sense to me. Do you think that for absolute idealists things are not materially present?

Very interesting breakdown. I'll have to get around to Schelling and Fichte especially, someday. Now I have a vague notion of what they're arguing for.

Much appreciated.

As far as I can tell, objective idealism is the belief that the universe is both the perceived and the perceiver (there's no issue with the law of identity) and absolute idealism is the stance that the perceived is the perceiver and also that the perceived is not the perceiver (the law of identity is violated). I never really gave idealism much thought but I just found out it's all about a/the subject (the perceiver, the observer).

I suppose absolute idealism is about being faithful to idealism proper but also addressing realism.

Tobias: I really want to understand the difference between Objective and Absolute Idealism. Please show me the difference in simple words.