• Agent Smith
    9.5k
    The Law of Noncontradiction or LNC: ~(p &~p)

    LNC implies idealism for the universe is thought of as limited to what is mentally conceivable (dependent on the mind), contradictions being inconceivable.

    Subjective idealism (Berkeley), or empirical idealism, is a form of philosophical monism that holds that only minds and mental contents exist. It entails and is generally identified or associated with immaterialism, the doctrine that material things do not exist. — Wikipedia

    Discuss, please.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    I don't see any connection.

    Also, that's a mischaracterization of idealism. The idealist does not think that only the conceivable exists, for minds themselves exist yet are not conceivable.

    Berkeley, for instance, arrives at the conclusion that the sensible world is made of another mind's mental states because it resembles our sensations and he takes it to be self-evident to reason that sensations can only resemble sensations. Thus, it follows that the external sensible world - the place our sensations give us some awareness of - is itself made of sensations. And as he takes it to be equally self-evident that sensations cannot exist absent a mind to have them, then the external sensible world turns out to be made of the mental activity of another mind.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    I don't see any connection.Bartricks

    Limiting the actual, the physical included, using the LNC (what our minds can't do) as a touchstone for what's possible/impossible.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    minds themselves exist yet are not conceivable.Bartricks

    That which sees can't itself be seen. Ergo, that which sees doesn't exist.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    mischaracterization of idealismBartricks

    dependent on the mindAgent Smith

    :chin:
  • Bartricks
    6k
    That which sees can't itself be seen. Ergo, that which sees doesn't exist.Agent Smith

    That's fallacious and it is not essential to idealism. As I explained, Berkeley - the ablest defender of the view - made no appeal to such arguments.

    Minds exist. Minds are not perceivable and thus, as far as Berkeley is concerned, cannot be conceived of (for our imaginations can work only on what our sensations provide). But they exist and Berkeley affirms their existence. We know of them by reason, not sense.

    So, you're working with a strawman version of idealism. No idealist worth their salt would argue that only that of which we can conceive exists.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Can a mind do contradictions?
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    That's fallacious and it is not essential to idealism.Bartricks

    What's the fallacy?

    BerkeleyBartricks

    Yep, Berekely, he's behind this mess. Good to meet someone who's got a good handle on him. :up:
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    We know of them by reason, not sense.Bartricks

    Reason "senses" patterns?
  • Bartricks
    6k
    I do not know what you mean by 'do a contradiction'. Certainly minds can think contradictory thoughts - they do so all the time and then express them on this site, among other places.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    strawman version of idealismBartricks

    What's the real version of idealism, pray tell.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    I do not know what you mean by 'do a contradiction'Bartricks

    Never mind. I'm sure you have better things to do.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Certainly minds can think contradictory thoughtsBartricks

    Show me!
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Reason "senses" patterns?Agent Smith

    No. Berkeley - the steel idealist rather than the straw one - thinks minds exist. He thinks it is manifest to reason that sensations cannot exist absent a mind to have them. As sensations clearly exist, a mind that is having them - your mind - exists. But the mind is not sensed, but inferred. So it is by reason, not sense, that we are aware of our own mind. And that too is how we can become aware of the mind whose sensational activity constitutes the external sensible world.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Well, I think an idealist who thinks minds exist but also thinks that the only things that exist are things that can be conceived of exist, is thinking contradictory things.

    You think no one thinks contradictory things? That's absurd. People think contradictory things all the time. It's hard not to, for a lot of the time we don't have the time to figure out what contradicts what and which thoughts to stop having.

    Anyway, your question seemed unrelated to the topic of the thread.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    What's the real version of idealism, pray tell.Agent Smith

    I just gave you an example: Berkeley's idealism. There's never been a finer defender of the view.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Berkeley's idealismBartricks

    Berkeley's version is that everything is mind-dependent. It's in my OP.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    NoBartricks

    Why is the brain/mind not a sense organ for patterns?
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Certainly minds can think contradictory thoughts
    — Bartricks

    Show me!
    Agent Smith
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Well, I give you you. You are thinking contradictory things. You think God is a bad person. That's a contradiction. And you think it. So you 'did' a contradiction, in some sense of 'did'.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Why is the brain/mind not a sense organ for patterns?Agent Smith

    We're talking about idealism here, yes? What do idealists think the brain is? Do they think the brain is the mind? No. They think the mind is the mind and the brain is part of the sensible world - which is not a place, but the mental activity of another mind. It seems to me that you do not understand the idealist thesis.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    That's a contradictionBartricks

    Not necessarily. I could reject a premise and resolve the contradiction.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    No, you think God is morally bad. That's a contradiction. It's no different to thinking bachelors have wives. Minds can and do think contradictory thoughts. In my case it is rare. In most others it is the norm.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    No, you think God is morally bad. That's a contradiction. It's no different to thinking bachelors have wives.Bartricks

    :lol:
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Can someone please contradict himself/herself and tell us what's going on inside his/her head?
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    My thesis version 2.0

    LNC

    1. If it's impossible to the mind then, it's impossible in reality.

    2. Contradictions are impossible (to the mind)

    Ergo,

    3. Contradictions are impossible in reality

    On some reading, at some level, this is idealism (reality can't do a contradiction is the takeaway) i.e. reality must make sense to the mind or else it can't be reality or a part of reality.

    However reality, some tell me, has a few surprises in store for us our minds - it defies the LNC on not one but multiple occasions I'm told. So what's this?
  • Harry Hindu
    5.1k
    That which sees can't itself be seen. Ergo, that which sees doesn't exist.Agent Smith
    Then there is no such thing as seeing? Let's forget about minds for a minute. Colors and shapes exist, right?

    Minds exist. Minds are not perceivable and thus, as far as Berkeley is concerned, cannot be conceived of (for our imaginations can work only on what our sensations provide). But they exist and Berkeley affirms their existence. We know of them by reason, not sense.Bartricks
    How do you know when you are reasoning and when you are not if not by sensation? What form does your reasoning take as opposed to being irrational if not some sensation?
  • Harry Hindu
    5.1k
    Can someone please contradict himself/herself and tell us what's going on inside his/her head?Agent Smith
    No one can as it would require one to hold something in the mind while at the same time not holding it in the mind. Contradictions are essentially a misuse of language.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    No one can as it would require one to hold something in the mind while at the same time not holding it in the mind.Harry Hindu

    Can you please tell me what exactly goes through your mind when, for example, I tell you to conceive (is this even the right word/concept?) the following:

    1. Square & Not square (easy)
    2. A quark & Not quark (hard)
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.