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? — Tom Storm
Indeed, the greatest problem with discussions about idealism is to induce idealists to express their view clearly. — Banno
Metaphysician Undercover missed the next section of that quote which explained that 1 is ontological idealism and 2 is epistemological idealism. An epistemological idealist can be an ontological dualist/pluralist (e.g. Kant). — Michael
:up:Empiricism taken literally. Formal construction of an umwelt from sense data. — bongo fury
Without taking the divine seriously, we cannot understand the #1 idealism, as the mental constituting the foundation of reality. Then "the mental" becomes human thought, and idealism appears to be monist. — Metaphysician Undercover
Doesn't Schopenhauer qualify as a #1 without a divine foundation? His notion of a blind, striving, instinctive Will, which is not metacognitive, isn't really a god analogue, is it? — Tom Storm
Philosophy is not exegesis. — Banno
Pie why is that incoherent? — GLEN willows
But true or false, I don't see how it's relevant. — Metaphysician Undercover
External reality' means (roughly) that about which one might be deceived. The possibility of deception on this matter is also its impossibility. — Pie
It seems to me you're assuming outside minds in your attempt to prove they exist. Is this not a flawed thesis? What I'm arguing is how can you prove they exist in the first place, BEFORE we even get to social settings and language? — GLEN willows
I'm trying to point out that the very notion of proof already drags in a social setting and a language and a world that one can be right or wrong about. — Pie
I know it's counterintuitive but so is much of philosophy. — GLEN willows
Yep. It can't be proofs all the way down; at some stage there must be an acceptance. — Banno
Eventually solipsism becomes a parlour game. One's engagement with others puts the lie to the pretence. — Banno
Oh I know - consciousness hasn't been explained by any theory or any kind of scientific proof. It's just my belief science WILL explain it, and that yes mind=brain (or to put it another way - consciousness will be an emergent property of the brain). But let's leave that - I already got trashed for that on a previous thread. Actually I had two discussions and the first ended with "You have a lot to learn my friend. We eat materialists for breakfast here." Wow. On the second I had a few materialist allies.
Off road...sorry. — GLEN willows
Not even "Sense organs and brains locked in skulls" - those could be mere sense-impressions too. — GLEN willows
Hume and Kant imply it, yet it's far out? That's one of my points. These massive figures in the philosophical canon, Hume, Kant and I would add Descartes, all have theories that diffuse reality, and can logically lead to solipsism. And yet it is still considered a "far out" option. — GLEN willows
Yes I think we can end here. Sorry that you'd usually "not bother discussing it" but that seems to be the prevailing attitude. Thanks for engaging me and providing good reading and videos. — GLEN willows
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.