That's a limited view of idealism. — Tate

I've noticed that as a serious flaw in this thread. Idealism is represented as "mind alone exists". In reality, idealists are mostly dualists. In general, most monists are materialists.

This is from Stanford:

Within modern philosophy there are sometimes taken to be two fundamental conceptions of idealism:

1.something mental (the mind, spirit, reason, will) is the ultimate foundation of all reality, or even exhaustive of reality, and
2.although the existence of something independent of the mind is conceded, everything that we can know about this mind-independent “reality” is held to be so permeated by the creative, formative, or constructive activities of the mind (of some kind or other) that all claims to knowledge must be considered, in some sense, to be a form of self-knowledge.

I've noticed that as a serious flaw in this thread. Idealism is represented as "mind alone exists". In reality, idealists are mostly dualists. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting. Which of the famous idealists are dualists? Isn't the notion that 'all which exists is mentation' eg, Schopenhauer, a monist claim? Number 2 is Kantian, right? I heard Kastrup say he doesn't consider this to be idealism as such. What's the distribution of 1's and 2's?

:grin: Indeed, the greatest problem with discussions about idealism is to induce idealists to express their view clearly.

So you’re opposed to every monism and would suggest instead some kind of dualism or pluralism? — Michael

Monisms don't seem to be useful of informative except for emotional associations. Do we need a replacement ? Do we need that kind of grand statement in the first place?

If we must pick one, maybe just the pre-metaphysical pluralism of ordinary life ? There are sidewalks and promises and planets and clowns and neutrons.

is idealism largely sustained by intrinsic flaws in old-school materialist arguments and misunderstandings about realism, or does it stand alone as a reasonable hypotheses in its own right? I suspect the former. — Tom Storm

:up:

"There are many types of idealism, but generally the universe is made up of more than just the content of my consciousness."

I still can't see how that can be proven. Solipsism is like a funnel we're sliding down, grasping at ropes (theories) that might pull us out of it. But they always break. Without a really good argument, solipsism wins by default. Sad.

"One problem for those idealists who hold their view because they claim we cannot know about anything "outside" our own minds - roughly, phenomenalism - is how they can know about other minds, which are also "outside" their own mind." - Banno

In one sentence you encapsulate my whole argument/issue.

Maybe I need to use more 5-10 syllable words....

still can't see how that can be proven. Solipsism is like a funnel we're sliding down, grasping at ropes (theories) that might pull us out of it. But they always break. Without a really good argument, solipsism wins by default. Sad. — GLEN willows

I don't find solipsism to be sad. I'm not sure why I haven't won the lottery yet, but I guess I have my reasons.

I'm also not sure how I can exist without an Other for contrast. It seems I need the Other for my own existence, so it doesn't matter if I call it real or not.

Chomsky said "real" is just an honorific anyway, like: "real potatoes" as opposed to fake ones. In other words, we're in 'language on holiday' territory.

There really is no choice; if we want absolute 100% certainty, we'll all havta be solipsists. Only if we lower the bar of certitude can we engage with materialism. It's like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - more sure we are, less materialistic we are and less sure we are, the more materialistic we are (somethin' like that).

We so others (from the outside) as creatures with eyes and ears and noses and brains. If we check in their skulls, we don't expect to find a soul, not with the naked eye. We trust that a man without eyes is blind and that a man without a living brain is not present at all but only a corpse.

I suggest that this third-person POV lends an initial plausibility to what I'll call the enclosure theory.

Within this theory, we think of atoms or waves banging against nerve cells, causing the brain to put on a magic show for (or as) the ghost in the machine. The ghost knows what it means to say, even if the words are hard to find, because meaning, like sensation, is ectoplasmic ghost stuff. The 'ghost' or 'soul' is 'behind' or hidden in the body in some strange way...just as meaningstuff is 'behind' or hidden in the words that carry it.

It's not hard, though, to describe experience in its entirety as meaning-structured sensation. So somehow it becomes plausible that only the ghost is real ! Despite its birth in a third-person point of view. The source of justification of the view was atoms/waves that 'really' exist for all of us banging away at our individual nervous systems, so that a colorblind or nearsighted person will talk and act a little differently...see the 'same' things differently. But if the sense organs and the atoms and waves are all just entities in a dream, the whole theory of the dream loses its plausibility. And if I'm not a self among others trying to be trustworthy and trust the right people, the whole concern with truth and reality and certainty no longer makes sense.

There really is no choice; if we want absolute 100% certainty, we'll all havta be solipsists. — Agent Smith

I must disagree. Solipsism is a bold and counterintuitive thesis. That's what I've been trying to argue.

It's an historical curiosity that such an outlandish claim came to be seen as the only safe starting point.

You appeal to logic and certainty, implicitly social, while claiming in terms of them that it's not safe to believe in the foundations of logic and certainty, which is a shared world in which community members can be mistaken or dishonest.

Chomsky said "real" is just an honorific anyway. Like: "real potatoes" as opposed to fake ones. In other words, we're in 'language on holiday' territory. — Tate

If nothing is real, everything is.

I'm also not sure how I can exist without an Other for contrast. It seemsI need the Other for my own existence — Tate

Just as left needs right, I need you.

:up: :up: :up:

Why would you disagree? Isn't it quite clear that, in line with solipsism, the only thing we can be certain about is our own self, that too as somewhat nonphysical, à la Descartes? Of the material world, one can entertain its possibility (only) by compromising on our certainty, oui?

Why would you disagree? — Agent Smith

I think I've been making a decent case within this thread. In my last big post, I tried to acknowledge what tempts us to find solipsism plausible. But I then go on to show how it collapses.

Here's a summary. The concepts of logic and certainty (and concepts themselves! ) are inherently social. Claims and arguments to the contrary are performative contradictions. If you debate this with me, that implies acknowledgent of norms that both of us ought to respect, along with a share world that we can be right or wrong about....

I don't buy into Wittgensteinism which, as far as I can tell, you're trying to peddle here.

How can we discuss other minds when the existence of other minds is exactly that which is thrown into doubt? There are ways to counter your point and counterpoints but for some reason I don't like them all that much.

P. S. Wittgenstein opined but, as per credible sources, never argued!

Isn't it quite clear that, in line with solipsism, the only thing we can be certain about is our own self — Agent Smith

So the following wasn't a joke?

if we want absolute 100% certainty, we'll all havta be solipsists — Agent Smith

I wish it were!

If you really don't see it, then maybe you're not aware of how certain you actually are of our existence. We don't need proof for the things we're most certain of. That's pretty much what certainty is.

I for one am glad that I'm not trapped in your head.

Wittgenstein opined but, as per credible sources, never argued! — Agent Smith

Not true. If you read Witty yourself, Smith, you will find various kinds of inquiries & suppositions which occasionally include (reductio) arguments against commonplace nonsense like e.g. the private language argument.

I don't think we need to make this about Wittgenstein, even if he was one of many to point out typical confusions on this issue.

As far as I can tell, you did not respond to any of my points (I don't think your offhand remarks about Wittgenstein count.)

If you really don't see it, then maybe you're not aware of how certain you actually are of our existence. We don't need proof for the things we're most certain of. That's pretty much what certainty is.

I for one am glad that I'm not trapped in your head. — Jamal

You've then missed the point of solipsism, oui?

What was said was for you and you alone. — Morpheus

The private language argument sweeps under the rug the fact that philosophy, in fact and all human discourse, is characterized by disagreement rather than concurrence, an indication of, in my humble opinion, that private languages do exist. Whence all this war s.l.?

I don't think we need to make this about Wittgenstein, even if he was one of many to point typical confusions on this issue.

As far as I can tell, you completely failed to respond to any of my points — Pie

That is true! Apologies. However, you didn't make an argument. Solipsism is one, oui?

However, you didn't make an argument. — Agent Smith

I've made several, but no worries.

I've made several, but no worries — Pie

Solipsism basically boils down to cogito ergo sum (re René Descrates). The only truth that we're absolutely sure of is our own existence as minds. The rest of what we experience, the so-called material world, including but not limited to other minds, could be a hallucination/illusion.

How do you respond?

All discursive "disagreements", my man, presuppose shared (public) practices (language games). Refute that statement with a counter-example. :smirk:

You've then missed the point of solipsism — Agent Smith

No, I'm guessing you just misinterpreted my use of the phrase "our existence", by which I meant the existence of me, Pie, 180, and everyone else aside from you.

All discursive "disagreements", my man, presuppose shared (public) practices (language games). Refute that statement with a counter-example. — 180 Proof

Well, if other minds could be nothing more than my imagination, the concepts public, sharing, etc. are null and void, oui?

Temet nosce. — Oracle of Delphi

No, I'm guessing you just misinterpreted my use of the phrase "our existence", by which I meant the existence of me, Pie, 180, and everyone else aside from you. — Jamal

Ok. I defer to your better judgment.

Ok. I defer to your better judgment — Agent Smith

I don’t want your deference. Go read some philosophy.

I don’t want your deference. Go read some philosophy. — Jamal

On it!

:roll:

:chin: