Not at all. The reasoning is based on working on the ideas. — MoK

If X is based on Y, then X is not Y. Reasoning is not ideas. Reasoning is a thought process. Ideas are images and concepts.

Reasoning is not ideas. — Corvus

I didn't say that.

Reasoning is a thought process. — Corvus

How is the thought process possible in idealism?

I didn't say that. — MoK

You are connecting reasoning process to ideas as if they are necessary, but they are not.

How is the thought process possible in idealism? — MoK

You see drink in a cup, and think it is coffee. The idea of drink in a cup itself doesn't tell you truth or falsity on your thought. You must drink and taste it to be able to tell it is coffee or tea. Truth or falsity is only possible by your judgement on sense perception (in empirical cases) or thought process (in analytic cases).
Images and concepts themselves don't tell you about coherence of reality.

I would brand this way of seeing the world and perception as Ideal Realism — Corvus

"Ideal Realism" as described sounds like the existing term "Direct Realism" (Wikipedia - Direct and indirect realism)

Even the Direct Realist can dream and imagine.

Even the Direct Realist can dream and imagine. — RussellA

But what does Direct Realism say about the existence of unperceived objects? In Ideal Realism, unperceived objects such as the country of Australia or the object Eifel Tower don't exist until observed or perceived.

Ideal Realism also says that we perceive the world with experience via the bodily sense organs loaded with ideas, not direct. Bodily sense organs in human body are not just physical perceptive organs, but they are supported by rational ideas with inferring capacities.

When we are looking at a cup with drink in it, we are not only simply seeing it (like Direct Realism, which ends there), but also looking for evidence and qualities which are the premeditated or inferred drink i.e. coffee or tea. Coffee will look darker in colour than tea, and when drank, it will have the taste of coffee, not tea. All perception is accompanied by the rich mental states and operations backed by experienced and reasoned ideas.

Therefore Ideal Realism is not simple naive Direct Realism.

When I say that ideas are material, I do not mean that they are physical, but a third option between the mental and the physical that respects the identity of each one. And this is provided by the idea of sign. An idea is a meaning that has a relation to other meanings, according to which it is itself a signifier. And this makes it possible to understand something as the language in which you transmit ideas to other people. If the idea did not exist as a sign within a system of signs we could not speak of transmission from one person to another (since in Communication you are being affected by the signs of another person). Moreover, the fact that an idea belongs to a system of signs ensures its ideality (that it is something that persists even beyond the subject who thinks it). In this sense ideas are as material as any sound within the transmission of ideas) but not in a physicalist sense, but in a very different sense.

In Ideal Realism, unperceived objects such as the country of Australia or the object Eifel Tower don't exist until observed or perceived. — Corvus

I don't think that Australians will be happy to know that they don't exist because an Ideal Realist in the Kerguelen Islands has never heard of them.
===============================================================================

Ideal Realism also says that we perceive the world with experience via the bodily sense organs loaded with ideas, not direct. — Corvus

This sounds like the existing term "Indirect Realism" (Wikipedia - Direct and indirect realism)

I don't think that Australians will be happy to know that they don't exist because an Ideal Realist in the Kerguelen Islands has never heard of them. — RussellA

Any objects or world unobserved don't exist. They are imagined or believed to exist.

This sounds like the existing term "Indirect Realism" (Wikipedia - Direct and indirect realism) — RussellA

Indirect realism's problem is using sense data as the medium of perception, which doesn't make sense. Sense data is ambiguous in terms of its legitimacy of the meaning, implication, origin, uses, and existence. It is a muddled and confused claim.

When I say that ideas are material, I do not mean that they are physical, but a third option between the mental and the physical that respects the identity of each one. — JuanZu

Idea can be different types i.e. ideas as mental representations, images of the physical objects, meanings of the words, and ideas as resolutions or answers to the problems, and indeed ideas as words themselves and symbols and signs. But here we are manly talking about mental representations i.e. images and concepts in our minds.

Any objects or world unobserved don't exist. They are imagined or believed to exist. — Corvus

Why should I believe in the existence of an object in the world that I have never observed existing?
===============================================================================

Indirect realism's problem is using sense data as the medium of perception, which doesn't make sense. — Corvus

It may be that your problem with Indirect Realism is, as you said on page 1: "You end up having 2x copies of every object in your perception, and wonder which one is the real object."

But this is not the case for the Indirect Realist. There is no medium of perception. There is just perception.

When the Indirect Realist perceives the colour red, for example, they are not perceiving a representation of the colour red, they are directly perceiving the colour red.

Anything otherwise would lead into the homunculus problem of infinite regression.

What the Indirect Realist does believe is that there is something in the world that has caused them to perceive the colour red, but it is unknowable whether this something in the world is actually red or not. The Indirect Realist reasons that it is not, but cannot know for sure.

In a sense, the colour red that is directly perceived is a representation of the unknown something in the world, which may or may not be the colour red.

There is only one object of perception for the Indirect Realist, and that is the direct perception of the colour red.

You are connecting reasoning process to ideas as if they are necessary, but they are not. — Corvus

Reasoning is an analysis of ideas.

You see drink in a cup, and think it is coffee. The idea of drink in a cup itself doesn't tell you truth or falsity on your thought. You must drink and taste it to be able to tell it is coffee or tea. Truth or falsity is only possible by your judgement on sense perception (in empirical cases) or thought process (in analytic cases).
Images and concepts themselves don't tell you about coherence of reality. — Corvus

I asked, how is coherent thought possible in idealism?

The idea of sign to which I refer is that of "being in the place of something else ready to be interpreted by a context". So you can understand ideas as a kind of sign. For example when you think of rain there is a representation in which you can think of that object rain: you think of clouds, lightning, umbrellas and other things that are not directly present that nevertheless give meaning to that idea and not only that but constitute it.

Without this possibility of the sign (that of being in place of something else...) ideas could not be transmitted. But above all, it is thanks to this that it achieves the characteristic ideality of the idea: its repetition. Be it in someone else's head, in writing, in an archive, in a painting, in a paper, in our world, etc. For example if you think of an idea that another person gave you, that idea is present in your mind but it is no longer present in the mind of the other person.

I asked, how is coherent thought possible in idealism? — MoK

Idealism is not for coherent thoughts. It is a way of seeing the world. Idealism says your mind, the representation in your mind is real. The coherent thinking comes from the principle of logic, reasoning, inference and observation on the things happening in space and time which are your intuition.

Why should I believe in the existence of an object in the world that I have never observed existing? — RussellA

You don't need to. You are free to believe what you want to believe, and that is what belief is about.
But if you believe that Australia exists even you have never been there, it is likely your belief must be based on what you read, were told and saw on the media.

What the Indirect Realist does believe is that there is something in the world that has caused them to perceive the colour red, but it is unknowable whether this something in the world is actually red or not. The Indirect Realist reasons that it is not, but cannot know for sure. — RussellA

Doesn't sound it has a point in saying that something has cause but they don't know what the cause is.

For example if you think of an idea that another person gave you, that idea is present in your mind but it is no longer present in the mind of the other person. — JuanZu

It sounds like one aspect of idea. What I was meaning with idea was a way of seeing the world. It is all in our mind. What we see, notice, think, reflect, imagine, draw, and remember in our mind i.e. the whole contents in the mind are ideas, and they are real.

You end up having 2x copies of every object in your perception, and wonder which one is the real object. — Corvus

Maybe the human mind is a metaphysical Xerox machine. It inputs an original (Real) experience and outputs one or more copies (Ideas, memories,conceptual images). Normally, we have no difficulty distinguishing the real thing from the copy.

But, sometimes, when we don't have the original for comparison, we may mistake the ideal copy for the real original. That's why some legal Xerox machines add a note or code to the copies saying "this is a copy". Unfortunately, for philosophers, nature has provided no easy way to discriminate the direct experience of a thing from the indirect re-experience (remember from memory). Remember the old recording tape ad : "is it real, or is it Memorex?" :smile:

Doesn't sound it has a point in saying that something has cause but they don't know what the cause is. — Corvus

It would be like a doctor refusing to treat someone in pain with a broken leg until they knew the cause of the break.

It is a brave statement that there is no point in Indirect or Representational Realism, and philosophers such as Aristotle, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza and Bertrand Russell were mistaken.

Normally, we have no difficulty distinguishing the real thing from the copy.

But, sometimes, when we don't have the original for comparison, we may mistake the ideal copy for the real original. — Gnomon

In Kant's transcendental idealism, what we are seeing is appearance, and the reality is hidden in noumena. In Hume, what we see is impressions of the external world, not the world itself. In Schopenhauer, the world is representation and will of us. Hence we are not experiencing the reality as is at all. :)

It would be like a doctor refusing to treat someone in pain with a broken leg until they knew the cause of the break. — RussellA

There would be no cases such that the cause of break is unknown in medical incidents.

It is a brave statement that there is no point in Indirect or Representational Realism, and philosophers such as Aristotle, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza and Bertrand Russell were mistaken. — RussellA

Not really. Their systems are not denied here. Rather, the OP is based on their systems, but seeing the world in a different way like Husserl and Merlou Ponty have done.

There would be no cases such that the cause of break is unknown in medical incidents. — Corvus

I doubt that the cause of a medical condition is always known.

Even though the broken leg has a cause, the doctor is treating the broken leg, the doctor is not treating the cause of the broken leg.

When I perceive the colour red, I perceive the colour red regardless of any cause.
===============================================================================

Not really. Their systems are not denied here. Rather, the OP is based on their systems, but seeing the world in a different way like Husserl and Merlou Ponty have done. — Corvus

You may not deny Indirect and Representational Realism, but you infer there is no point in them.

Doesn't sound it has a point in saying that something has cause but they don't know what the cause is. — Corvus

I doubt that the cause of a medical condition is always known. — RussellA

There would be always possible causes when the cause is uncertain. But there is no absolute unknown causes.

When I perceive the colour red, I perceive the colour red regardless of any cause. — RussellA

It sounds like a tautological statement, which doesn't convey any knowledge.

You may not deny Indirect and Representational Realism, but you infer there is no point in them. — RussellA

The point of idealism or materialism is to define what the ultimate reality is in the end. But IR and DR seem to just make vague statements on how they perceive via unknown causes or directly. They just end there. So what is the ultimate reality? They don't seem to be interested in it. Hence no point.

You are connecting reasoning process to ideas as if they are necessary, but they are not.
— Corvus
Reasoning is an analysis of ideas. — MoK

The world just present to you as it appears. It doesn't tell you reality is true or false. You perceive what is given and presented to you. You must gather up the ideas you perceived, and organise your thoughts, and come to your own judgement on its coherence or absurdity.

Please don't confuse ideas and coherence of the reality. They are different category of existences.

It sounds like a tautological statement, which doesn't convey any knowledge. — Corvus

The statement "When I perceive the colour red, I perceive the colour red" is a tautological statement.

The statement "When I perceive the colour red, I perceive the colour red regardless of any cause" is not a tautological statement.

Suppose someone perceives the colour red. Both the Indirect and Direct Realist would agree that something in the world caused their perception.

The Direct Realist says the person is directly perceiving the cause of their perceiving the colour red. The Indirect realist says that the person is only directly perceiving the colour red.

Saying "When I perceive the colour red, I perceive the colour red regardless of any cause" is distinguishing Indirect from Direct Realism.
===============================================================================

The point of idealism or materialism is to define what the ultimate reality is in the end. But IR and DR seem to just make vague statements on how they perceive via unknown causes or directly. They just end there. So what is the ultimate reality? They don't seem to be interested in it. Hence no point. — Corvus

A bold statement that neither Indirect nor Direct Realism are interested in the nature of ultimate reality.

Indirect Realism is about the limits of knowledge of ultimate reality. Direct Realists do believe that they know ultimate reality.

The statement "When I perceive the colour red, I perceive the colour red regardless of any cause" is not a tautological statement. — RussellA

It sounds an empty statement as well as tautology too. What do you mean by "regardless of any cause"? Why is it relevant to the point?

A bold statement that neither Indirect nor Direct Realism are interested in the nature of ultimate reality. — RussellA

It is a fair statement, not a bold one.

Indirect Realism is about the limits of knowledge of ultimate reality. Direct Realists do believe that they know ultimate reality. — RussellA

What are the ultimate reality for these folks in detail?

Idealism is not for coherent thoughts. — Corvus

I asked whether idealism can explain the coherence in reality. Yes, or no? If yes, then how? If not, then it is not the proper metaphysical theory of reality!

Please don't confuse ideas and coherence of the reality. — Corvus

I am not confusing two. Please see the above post.

What are the ultimate reality for these folks in detail? — Corvus

Presumably the same as for the idealists and the materialists.

The point of idealism or materialism is to define what the ultimate reality is in the end. — Corvus

I asked whether idealism can explain the coherence in reality. Yes, or no? — MoK

Do you mean you cannot understand your own perception?

If not, then it is not the proper metaphysical theory of reality! — MoK

Why do you think it is the case?

Presumably the same as for the idealists and the materialists. — RussellA

You haven't answered the key point question.

What do you mean by "regardless of any cause"? Why is it relevant to the point? — Corvus

But not simply in our minds. but, as it were, ideas extend their existence beyond the mind, reaching the minds of other people, books, recordings, hieroglyphics, etc. In that sense they are extramental things, insofar as they transcend or transcend the finitude of our mind. This is because their being is always contextualized. That is to say, their being depends on the relation with other things, and these relations as relations between signifiers extend their reality beyond the mind, contextualizing it. Think of how many times a book has given you an idea, or the words of another person, a painting, etc. This means that ideas are contextualized in and by an extramental world.