But yes, idealism has difficulty in avoiding solipsism, as I’ve explained previously. It usually needs God’s help. — Banno

Well, as Simon Blackburn has said, whatever our theoretical metaphysical commitments, we're almost all realists as soon as we walk out the door.

Schopenhauer is vociferously atheist. — Quixodian

I guess in his case 'will' is a kind of god surrogate in as much as it holds our shared reality together. Like Kastrup's Mind at Large. The fact that will is understood as blind and striving (unlike God who is judgmental and aggrieved) doesn't mean it isn't the metaphysical source of transcendence and unity. Any thoughts on this?

Reflecting on the incidents led me to the idea that there are two very different types of Jesus: 1) New Testament Jesus and 2) personal Jesus. New Testament Jesus is the Jesus of scripture, the character described in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and other New Testament books. Personal Jesus is the Jesus as imagined by some person. Everyone who believes in Jesus believes in their own personal Jesus. The relation of the believer and personal Jesus is identical to the relation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to Sherlock Holmes; it’s identical to the relation of J. K. Rowling to Harry Potter. — Art48

I suspect that there's a third Jesus - that of the religious community a person belongs to. Often based on a priest's or preacher's version. Many followers are too 'frightened' to formulate their own notions and surrender to the account of a compelling and authoritative apologist or cleric. This may then come to be seen as personal Jesus, but is not one based on a significant and original interpretative act and is generally shared intersubjectivity with a religious community. In most cases, your Daves or Anns do not arrive at their Jesus without strong, persuasive influences and regular reinforcement.

I think the importance of major thinkers consists in just a very few insights central to the human condition, and the rest, all the arguments designed to justify those ideas are relatively tedious, obsessively driven filler. Of course, I am speaking only for myself.

When I read, and I do read a lot, but in a very scattered fashion, I read mainly for aesthetic pleasure. I need a story, rather than a complex argument, to hold my attention; I just have little confidence that following along, sloggin' it, with a complicated argument will yield any fruit worth the effort in the end. Life is short... — Janus

This is very interesting to me. I tend to read to catch up with things and I think my reading for aesthetic pleasure is over for the time being.

My view of complex arguments and 'high theory' is that they make almost no difference to how I live my life. I am not an academic, nor do I feel the need to remain up to date. I also don't have the disposition to follow complex arguments across scores of intractable pages. I find I'm more interested in people's presuppositions rather than the vast edifices they often erect upon these foundations.

But supposing there was a god, can we all agree that this world is sufficiently evil enough to account for an evil god? — schopenhauer1

It seems an obvious inference to make, although I would not use the word 'evil' - it's too loaded. Bracketing those supposed 'omnis', we might also posit from this observation of our lethal, broken world that any god responsible is limited and flawed - perhaps it means well but creation has its own ideas...

But frankly the world, with all its chaos, ugliness and suffering also seems exactly the kind of world you would have if there were no deities responsible or in charge.

Needless to say, there are number of games we can play to rationalise this situation - both as atheists or theists.

The salient question for me seems to be a different one - what kind of world would we expect to see if there were gods?

I think it's much broader and more diffuse than that - it's rejection of whatever is considered 'the supernatural' or even 'the sacred' (or arguably the identification of 'the sacred' with 'the natural') — Quixodian

Yes, I’ve addressed that. I know many atheists who accept astrology, ghosts, Bigfoot, etc.

I also know atheist idealists.

I think atheism is less totalising that some of the famous polemicists would have us think. Maybe it’s more the secular humanist skeptics?

I think ucarr is correct in identifying the conviction that life arises from non-life (abiogenesis) is central to that belief system. — Quixodian

Many hold to this. I wish more folks would just say ‘who knows’ and just go back to being useful. Life and consciousness are a mystery for now. It may well be the product of natural phenomena but who can say? Would we utterly reject this and insert a gods ‘holding statement’ to take care of it? Sounds like a ‘gaps’ problem.

I'm not atheist, although I have no doubt my Christian forbears would believe me so. — Quixodian

I think you probably are. What you are not is a scientistic materialist.

Would you welcome god(s) to break bread with you before making such offer to fundamentalists? — ucarr

I’m always happy to accept guests as long as they are courteous and kind. Even fundamentalists, of which my Grandmother was one.

As far as what I learned from this conversation, I'm wondering if, above all else, atheism seeks to deny necessary supplication before a dictatorial overlord in the sky via belief in abiogenesis devoid of intent. — ucarr

I wouldn't think so. Atheism is just one thing - a disbelief in gods. Some atheists believe in astrology and ghosts. Some are logical positivists. There is no atheist worldview. It's just that most of the famous ones, like Dawkins are inclined towards scientism and rail against religion.

The nature of purported gods is unknown to us, but we have a plethora of stories contained in world religions and in personal interpretations of those systems. For my money, we are incapable of making sense of this vast range of contradictory and complicated literature, but people being meaning making creatures, will almost always invent a foundational narrative to carry them through life.

I am an atheist with minimal interest in cosmology. The origin of the universe, how life came about, the nature of consciousness, are speculative and almost irrelevant to my experience of life. I am not concerned with scientistic system building or trying to explain reality. Even experts of genius struggle to grapple with these matters and disagree with each other.

For me, the arguments for or against god are of minimal significance. They are only useful in tackling the arrogance of fundamentalism - a demonstration that certainty sits on unstable foundations.

For me, belief in god is like a sexual preference - you are likely born with predilections, tastes, dispositions. I have no sensus divinitatis and if you have no capacity to take the idea of gods seriously and there are no gods around to meet, all you have left is a bunch of mouldering and sometimes complicated arguments which never quite satisfy anyone.

Settling down means accepting the good and bad of your environment; settling down means taking responsibility for your interaction with the environment. You settle down based on static premises, yet you yourself are not. Why not leave when you feel like it? Why not bask in the boundless potential of anywhere? Why not always search? Why not always discover? — Ø implies everything

I am lazy. I don't often enjoy travel. I have little interest in discovery or searching. I'm not looking for anything. I do a road trip every now and then and drive hundreds of miles into the Australian outback, but I am always glad to come home to my familiar city. I enjoy predictability. I live in the centre of a big city and a few meters from by building there is constant chaos and activity. I think a craving for novelty is probably down to disposition.

I think this is an important point and another reason why it is important to understand some philosophy rather than - and I could so easily do this - make up my own nonsense.

As a scientist, I do not know of anyone who uses a 'scientific method'. Imagine a private investigator trying to solve a case. They can build on the experience of themselves and others, but ultimately they will use whatever currently legitimate tools are available. — Richard Goldstein

This is similar to what Susan Haack argues.

There is, in short, a constantly evolving array of scientific methods, tools, and techniques of inquiry—methods, tools, etc., often local to specific scientific fields, though sometimes proving useful elsewhere, too. Insofar as these methods, tools, and techniques stretch scientists’ imaginative powers, extend their unaided evidential reach, refine their appraisal of where evidence points, and help sustain honesty, provide incentives to the patience and persistence required by scientific work, and facilitate the communication of results, they enable progress: better measurements, better theories, more sensitive instruments, subtler techniques, finer-grained experimental design, more informative terminology, and so on.

- Scientism and its Discontents Susan Haack

The physicist is a wizard who summons nuclear fire, perhaps to destroy cities, perhaps to save the world with cheap energy. The biologist tweaks the code of life, perhaps to summon pandemics, perhaps to end aging forever.

What can the philosopher offer ? — plaque flag

Since you mentioned nuclear annihilation and physicists - wouldn't it be the case that many people think philosophers have annihilated human values, unleashing relativism, hopelessness and nihilism? Scientists and experts are not much liked or trusted, but I would think poststructuralists and postmodernists have provoked as much popular outrage and disapproval as any other type of maven or wizard. Philosophy continues to slaughter gods, bringing with in the extermination of tradition and certainty. Turning cities into fireballs is one thing, but how about wiping out foundationalism and with it identity and truth... :razz:

While others could become the stuff of history? Does philosophy still contribute? When you are reading it, do you feel you are contributing? — Pantagruel

It's certainly possible to live a rich and rewarding life without making a study of philosophy. But aren't all human knowledge projects founded on presuppositions based on philosophy? Can we escape philosophy? The question seems to point to awareness - to what extent will we make the effort to examine our beliefs and values and the source of our presuppositions?

Studying and teaching philosophy does not make one a "real philosopher". Like Plato, Nietzsche is an elitist. The real philosopher is the rare exception. Whatever light the philosopher brings to the cave it remains a cave. The transformation brought about by philosophy is self-transformation. — Fooloso4

This resonates with me.

While much is made of Nietzsche’s Dionysian desires, it is the Apollonian maxim: know thyself, that is central to Nietzsche. But to know yourself you must become who you are. This is not a matter of discovery but of creation. Nietzsche takes the exhortation to become who you are from the Greek poet Pindar. — Fooloso4

Does this mean we can't really 'know' unless we are engaged in an active process of transformation? How do we know what self we should create? What is the starting point? And is becoming who we are a potential multiplicity of selves?

That's interesting -- and then, upon trying the cure we find it unsatisfactory, so we think "time to try another one" and so the loop continues. — Moliere

Sounds about right.

I think I just got stuck on philosophy, basically. I found more satisfying answers, and more importantly questions and methods, there. But also I've never really hidden the fact that my motivations come from a religious background. — Moliere

Yes, I think most things boil down to personal preferences and then, often, we select some reasoning as post hoc justifications. I never pursued philosophy, but I did read a little comparative religion and explored a range of spiritual schools 30 years ago. But I've simply found the notion of gods incoherent. The arguments against theism are just garnish. I have come to the conclusion that I simply lack sensus divinitatis - which is probably a Protestant notion more than a Catholic one.

I'm interested and forgive me if this is obvious, do you subscribe to any form of theism? Do you beleive that the universe is a created artefact by some kind of deity?

So by your argument above, a 'god' figure is an inevitability, built into the fabric of reality? Does this not mean that god is contingent and not a necessary being? If we temporarily set aside your argument, have you got a tentative backstory for why this is the case or what the meaning of all this might be?

Ha! I think that finger means, 'Up yours Death!'

:up:

Interesting. From what I know, psychology does not believe in soul or spirit or anything that is non-physical. — Alkis Piskas

Psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists - are different disciplines, with many varieties of each. Amongst the psychotherapists I've known were also rabbis, priests and minsters of religion, so atheism is not compulsory. Many are interested in spirituality and hold non-specific theistic beliefs. Many consider Jung to have been a mystic and an idealist - his archetypes - analogous with Platonic forms. Bernardo Kastrup writes about this in Decoding Jung's Metaphysics: The Archetypal Semantics of an Experiential Universe. The infamous Jordan B Peterson seems to be some kind of Christian existentialist.

But preparing a patient for death? Well, I can't even imagine how a session with the patient would look or sound like. — Alkis Piskas

some examples or references, esp. about "preparing a patient for death", from the persons included in your list? — Alkis Piskas

There are lots of bad therapists out there, just as there are many bad plumbers and philosophers. Here's one of the better ones, a small taste of the matter with Irvin Yalom talking about the issue of death and how some therapists avoid it and how it might be talked about.

That's ok. It was just obvious quip to make. Apologies.

My experience of discussing philosophy over the years has been an experience largely consisting of debates centred on umbrella terms.
— Judaka
e.g. "Philosophy" ... — 180 Proof

:up: Was going to write the same thing...

that what we need to grasp is that all we know of existence — whether of an immediate object or the Universe at large — is a function of our world-making intelligence, the activity of the sophisticated hominid forebrain which sets us apart from other species. That’s what ‘empirical reality’ consists of. After all, the definition of ‘empirical’ is ‘based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience.’ — Quixodian

That's so elegantly expressed.

So, asking of the Universe ‘How does it exist outside our observation or experience of it?’ is an unanswerable question. But there is no need to posit a ‘mind at large’ to account for it, because there’s nothing to account for. — Quixodian

Got ya. This is so interesting and what a wonderful summary you've provided. Has your view of idealism changed much in the past 2 or 3 years?

when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "non-existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one.' 1 — Quixodian

I feel like I need to smoke a continental jazz cigarette to really savor that one. I'll need some time with that one.

Tom Storm 'what we take to be material objects would have a jerky life, suddenly leaping into being when we look at them' - this illustrates one of the fundamental misconceptions of idealism in my view. — Quixodian

Mine too. I was referring to the commonplace view. Bernado Kasturp has posited that the reason his car remains in the garage after the door is closed and he is sitting with a drink is that Mind at Large allows for object permanence. He seems more Berkeley than Kant.

The whole point of idealist philosophy is to come to understand the constitutive role of the mind in the generation of experience. And you can actually see that awareness growing in modern cultural discourse, with phenomenology being one of the key tributaries of it. But Berkeley, Kant, and Schopenhauer are all significant precursors to it (god bless 'em). — Quixodian

This is an important aspect of the discussion - thanks.

To clarify - are we not talking about two distinct accounts of idealism here? The phenomenological account where we 'co-create' our reality (this would be similar to Kant, perhaps) and the more transcendental variety wherein there are no material things and a cosmic consciousness is the guarantor of reality - Kastrup or Berkeley? Can you say some more on this?

Also do you have a brief take how a Vedanta conception of reality might fit into this schema?

Firstly let me say I've really enjoyed our discussion and find your approach refreshing and positive. We don't always see things the same way, but we have managed this respectfully. Thank you.

Do you have a belief with respect to what does bring happiness? — Moliere

I don't think we can go and find happiness. I think it happens as a by-product of other thing, when you are not looking, or if you are not too jammed full of expectations and shopping lists of must haves. I also think it is possible to be 'happy' and be a bad person.

In making the argument for or against Heidegger we get to see what the values of philosophy are that people hold, though. — Moliere

Agree - this is an important point. All critical judgements in the end are in relation to held values.

Any idea why? — Moliere

Not really. Some clues for me are that marketing and advertising (totalizing approaches which dominate and lubricate our times) are predicated on making people feel deficient. We are groomed to find solutions to problems which frequently don't exist. This sits neatly upon religocultural views which in the West often construct our identity as sinners and unworthy and in need of transformative redemption. We are socialized towards guilt and self-loathing and a search for deliverance, notions which are cradled in a dynamic tension with advertising's driving narrative that 'you' deserve success and prosperity. Etc...

The rejoinder would be -- if your decisions didn't make you happier, then were they really wise or is that a strike against the philosophy? — Moliere

I don't think this is the rejoinder. There's an assumption implicit here that wisdom and truth bring happiness. I don't agree. Note, I am not saying that wisdom brings unhappiness. I would also say in parentheses that wisdom does not necessarily provide answers or solutions. It's often about developing more probative questions. No one gets out of here alive... Wisdom might involve us living with discomfort rather than with reassuring myths.

it might not reach to the levels of proper philosophy - — Moliere

I'm not sure we can make that distinction. While I agree that there may be good and bad philosophy, who is to say what is in scope and what is not? Some people think Heidegger is an empty charlatan who plays with neologisms, some think he is the greatest philosophical thinker of the 20th century.

after you come to realize that you're the one that's attracted to this or that idea, and realize the ideas don't really line up, then you start asking questions like that -- and that's when you're at least starting on the path to philosophy proper, because you're no longer just asking about yourself, but also others. — Moliere

I'm not sure how many people ever arrive at an insight like this.

people were looking for an answer, after all, so they decided to sell them one. — Moliere

I think we live in the cult of personal change and transformation - from social media influencers to Marie Kondo minimalism and the rush to embrace Stoicism. This decade it's Jordan B Peterson, 30 years ago it was Louise Hay. Naturally some people are more sophisticated and read better books, but the idea that we are unhappy, unworthy, not good enough seems to haunt many people's lives.

What else would wisdom be other than the kind of knowledge that leads one to make better decisions? — Moliere

Making better decisions may not make you happier. It might be quite disruptive. Being wise might mean knowing just how tenuous our hold on life is, just how fragile goodness is... Wisdom might bring with it insights into the human condition that lead to a more pessimistic worldview. Schopenhauer was wiser than me - and unhappier.

I'd be surprised to find philosophy resembles psychology, actually. — Moliere

No, that's too strong. I said this about the particular search for transformative wisdom I described. If you look at many popular books on self-help which borrow from philosophy and 'wisdom traditions' you'll often find the authors are psychotherapists or psychologists. Cognitive behavioral therapy borrows from Stoicism. Narrative Therapy draws from postmodern and social constructionist ideas to help clients reframe their life stories, supporting them to take charge of their identities and experiences. Existential psychology assists people to explore meaning, purpose, freedom. Gestalt psychology utilizes the work of phenomenology.

And what's up with this "appealing"? What are the aesthetics of ideas, if any? Or is it mere attachment and accident? — Moliere

Not sure exactly what you are asking here but it's my belief that people are generally drawn to ideas they already agree with. In other words, we don't readily move outside of our wheelhouse - but what we might do is enlarge our repertoire. I also think we can find ideas 'attractive' in an aesthetic sense.

And if philosophy's purpose is to bring people to happiness, then there's no need for the happy person to learn philosophy. But life has a way of bringing pain, and we have a way of making ourselves miserable, so the philosopher offers possible salves for the injured if they come to want them. — Moliere

I find this interesting and I read similar sentiments to this fairly often. But I personally would never associate philosophy with a search for contentment. I can see it as a search for 'truth' or 'wisdom' or an attempt to discover what someone can reasonably say about reality, but i don't associate these with resolving unhappiness or bringing fulfilment. What I sometimes hear in these discussions is a description of a project to cannibalise various bits and pieces of philosophy (generally that which appeal to one's values) and then create some kind of syncretistic self help tool that resembles psychology for the most part.

Where in psychiatry or psychotherapy appear the subjects of "caring for soul" and "preparation for death"? — Alkis Piskas

Lots of psychiatrists and psychotherapists specialise in these subjects (famously Victor Frakl, Irvin D Yalom, Carl Jung, Eugine Gendlin) These subjects are the bread and butter of therapeutic work - it's not all chemical treatment and evil practitioners, no matter what the movies and TV shows say.

Got ya.

I was referring to spiritual practice. Are you saying this is the same as 'intellectual self awareness'?

I gave my definition - activities that promote self-awareness. — T Clark

No I meant I don’t know what it means. Your definition doesn’t resonate with me so much.

You call it projection, I call it empathy. I think it's the source of our ability to care for each other. — T Clark

I was referring to something different. A lack of empathy. Specifically those who arrogantly assume that their truth, their experience has to be everyone else’s. They tend to project their beliefs onto others. Maybe my wording was ambiguous. It’s a pet hate of mine - “I see the world like this, therefore you must too.”

This task would be for my own interest, not necessarily for the interest of others but I’m sure some would take an interest in these ideas. — Dermot Griffin

That makes all the differnce.

I see your point. But I think the idea of “well-meaning or messianic others” is exactly what I think the problem is. — Dermot Griffin

The problem for me is it is not readily apparent how one determines one from the other - except in the most obvious and egregious of examples.

I personally see theism as an aid to living well but I don’t blame people who don’t believe in a Supreme Being. — Dermot Griffin

I get this. I guess theism can bring you to Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Donald Trump, so it's not always clear what theism implies. Most theists think they have the right reasons.

There needs to be a rational inquiry into what constitutes a good life, a life that knows how to navigate suffering and find meaning rather than the fads that we find in the self help community. — Dermot Griffin

You make it sound easy.. :razz:

Yeah, I can see that. Humans are such emotional creatures, so attached to our own experiences and projecting these upon others that I also wonder how it is we can also collaborate so well and care for each other.

Again - I find only profound agreement. :pray:

I am not irritated. I was considering my own personal reasons.
I will keep my wondering to myself, as requested. — Paine

Apologies if I was rude. I thought you were wondering 'what my problem was' and found this a curious reaction.

Do you have a way to relate philosophy to living and what makes you so interested in the subject?

This may be sloppy reasoning, but I tend to think that things like a belief in god and an interest in philosophy are dispositional or akin to sexual attraction - you can't help what you're into.

I think that resonates quite well with me.

I've toyed with involvements in spiritual organizations, but I have never been a committed believer in any of that. I came to it, because I hoped for the kind of transformations via meditation or other exercises that I had experienced via painting, drawing, writing, reading, playing and listening to music, hiking and camping in the wilderness, lovemaking and of course psychedelics and entheogens, only more sustained, but I was ultimately disappointed. — Janus

Sounds like you put in a lot of field work. That's good. I spent much of the 1980's and early 1990's with Theosophists and various groups in my city - mediation, New Age, Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti, Buddhist, Gnostic.. I was often struck by other's passion and certainty. I wanted to see if there as more to life than what I felt and saw around me but was never to transcend my own reality.

Wonder all you like. You sound irritated. @Moliere and I were discussing personal reasons for an interest in philosophy or gurus.

Exemption? What do you mean?

For my part I'll say I'm not even a guru, because I'm still uncertain about so much and all I can bring you is uncertainty. Not reasons to do, but reasons to not do. A totally useless philosophy. Or so I hope. :D — Moliere

Beginnings of wisdom? I feel similarly. It's funny - in life I do not reflect much or agonize over decisions. I don't tend to have any burning questions about 'meaning' per say. I'm not really in the market for a guru or philosophical approach to help with anything. I find I am not generally dissatisfied and it seems to me that dissatisfaction is a major springboard into speculative thinking. In my case, I see a separation between philosophy and life. Although I am well aware that every person is an agglomeration of suppositions and values that are derived from philosophy, culture and socialization. Is unpacking this and reassembling our belief systems even possible or useful?

Please, by all means, be provocative. I don't mind. — Moliere

Cool. I guess I am anxious not to be or sound disrespectful or needlessly antagonistic when I post.

Addressing one's fears and anxieties is much of what Epicurus means by the practice of philosophy and the search for wisdom. — Moliere

Ok, yes I can see some of this in Epicurus. From my modest exposure, I've certainly found Epicureanism more congenial than Stoicism.

One of the questions I still ask is about what philosophy proper looks like outside of the academy, and I do not have an answer. — Moliere

A good point. Philosophy is a word used with various meanings. One of the hallmarks of our time is the oversaturation of ideas and possibilities, lifestyles and worldviews available to us, whether it be as a social media influencer and shill in spandex, or a bushy-bearded Thomist contemplative pondering infinities. I often wonder how people choose what they will settle on.

What I would like to eventually do, akin to Jordan Petersons 12 Rules for Life and Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, is create a list of key ideas from various philosophies that promote a real eudaimonic way of living. — Dermot Griffin

Just for yourself or others? Don't you think the world is already awash with well-meaning or messianic others providing us with gratuitous advice on how to live?

Philosophy is an exercise for learning to be aware of how my mind works. It's about self-awareness. For me, that's the definition of a spiritual practice. — T Clark

Interesting. For me philosophy is a study of what others believe and why. What this does seem to be good for is letting you know that whatever your presuppositions, values and beliefs might be, there are likely to be good reasons not to hold them. I don't know what spiritual practice is, except perhaps things done to promote emotional wellbeing.

Let no one be slow to seek wisdom when he is young nor weary in the search of it when he has grown old. For no age is too early or too late for the health of the soul. And to say that the season for studying philosophy has not yet come, or that it is past and gone, is like saying that the season for happiness is not yet or that it is now no more. Therefore, both old and young alike ought to seek wisdom, the former in order that, as age comes over him, he may be young in good things because of the grace of what has been, and the latter in order that, while he is young, he may at the same time be old, because he has no fear of the things which are to come. So we must exercise ourselves in the things which bring happiness, since, if that be present, we have everything, and, if that be absent, all our actions are directed towards attaining it.
— Letter to Menoeceus — Moliere

Not trying to be provocative, but none of that means anything to me. Reads likes some motherhood statements. What exactly is the connection between philosophy proper and its relationship to the 'problem's' of life? Can you provide examples? I understand that philosophy might be a source of some aphorisms or concepts which can be collected and blended into a kind of belief system casserole, but is that philosophy at work or just a kind of shopping for ideas that resonate?

As I understood it via Bernando Kastrup, all of reality emanates from the mind of God and this allows for apparent object permanence and the regularities of nature.

This from Bertrand Russell -

George Berkeley … is important in philosophy through his denial of the existence of matter—a denial which he supported by a number of ingenious arguments. He maintained that material objects only exist through being perceived. To the objection that, in that case, a tree, for instance, would cease to exist if no one was looking at it, he replied that God always perceives everything; if there were no God, what we take to be material objects would have a jerky life, suddenly leaping into being when we look at them; but as it is, owing to God’s perceptions, trees and rocks and stones have an existence as continuous as common sense supposes. This is, in his opinion, a weighty argument for the existence of God.

Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (1945), III, I., Ch. XVI: "Berkeley", p. 647

I like this quote from phenomenologist philosopher Dan Zahavi:

“Ultimately, what we call “reality” is so deeply suffused with mind -and language-dependent structures that it is altogether impossible to make a neat distinction between those parts of our beliefs that reflect the world “in itself” and those parts of our beliefs that simply express “our conceptual contribution.” The very idea that our cognition should be nothing but a re-presentation of something mind-independent consequently has to be abandoned.”

In other words, you don't have to go as far as the idealism of Bishop Berkeley to posit a world created by our perceptions and cognitive apparatus.

Nonetheless, other users, - more famous or original than me - posted similar threads but they got hundreds of replies. Why did this happen? — javi2541997

I think OP's sometimes grab attention because the timing is right and the wording used seems to grab people's imagination. It's not a science, so who knows? It can be fickle territory. Sometimes it seems as if it is not the OP that generates the interest so much, but the first 2 or 3 responses.