I just don't see how nonduality prioritizes "mind" "subject" "experience" over above "world" "object" "thing" as transcendental idealism does, Wayf, so maybe you can explain to me. — 180 Proof
"Yājñavalkya, answer this. There is an eternal Being which is immediately presented into experience and directly observed; which is the Self of all beings and internal to everything. Explain it to me. What is that which is innermost to all beings, which is internal to everything, which is non-immediate experience – not immediately experienced as through the senses when they perceive objects, and which is direct, not indirect experience? Explain that to me." ....
Yājñavalkya says: "You tell me that I have to point out the Self as if it is a cow or a horse. Not possible! It is not an object like a horse or a cow. I cannot say, 'here is the ātman; here is the Self'. It is not possible because you cannot see the seer of seeing. The seer can see that which is other than the Seer, or the act of seeing. An object outside the seer can be beheld by the seer. How can the seer see himself? How is it possible? You cannot see the seer of seeing. You cannot hear the hearer of hearing. You cannot think the Thinker of thinking. You cannot understand the Understander of understanding. That is the ātman.
"Nobody can know the ātman inasmuch as the ātman is the Knower of all things. So, no question regarding the ātman can be put, such as "What is the ātman?' 'Show it to me', etc. You cannot show the ātman because the Shower is the ātman; the Experiencer is the ātman; the Seer is the ātman; the Functioner in every respect through the senses or the mind or the intellect is the ātman. As the basic Residue of Reality in every individual is the ātman, how can we go behind It and say, 'This is the ātman?' Therefore, the question is impertinent and inadmissible. The reason is clear. It is the Self.
"Everything other than the ātman is stupid; it is useless; it is good for nothing; it has no value; it is lifeless. Everything assumes a meaning because of the operation of this ātman in everything. Minus that, nothing has any sense." Then Uṣasta Cākrāyana, the questioner kept quiet. He understood the point and did not speak further. — Brihadaranyaka Upaniṣad
So, we can interpret that the vote comes from him. :eyes: — javi2541997
I've often heard the view I subscribe to called model-dependant realism, but I don't know if that's the right term. — Isaac
Right, judge for yourself. Am I an honest voter, or a troll? — Metaphysician Undercover
if you equate enlightenment and data-harvesting then there is probably no enlightenment to be had. — Wayfarer
Why didn't you vote idealist then? — Metaphysician Undercover
Is mind ontologically separate from / independent of (the) world? — 180 Proof
Does mind correspond to Being and ideas to Beings (well isn't Being / mind also an "idea" – the one we're discussing)?
Is idealism here the love that dare not speak its name? Are the idealists in their cupboard, hiding their true feelings behind excuses and lack of commitment? Or do these forums disproportionately attract contrarians? — Banno
Aren't you committing a bandwagon fallacy? — schopenhauer1
The strange constituency of this forum might have you think there is a great philosophical debate between direct realism and idealism. It ain't so. Overwhelmingly, philosophers, like the general population, will if asked say that they are realists (80% in the PhilPapers survey, with idealism garnering less than 6%. Yes, we don't do philosophy via polls and it's a survey of English-speaking philosophers and so on, but that's a level of agreement which is for philosophers pretty much unheard of.) — Banno
So does enlightenment give no information at all? — Isaac
What the percentages mean: "Accept or lean toward P: 50% (40%)" means that 50% of respondents endorsed this answer inclusively (including multiple-answer endorsements) and 40% endorsed this answer exclusively (excluding multiple-answer endorsements).
Setting the filters to all responses and all regions the percentage of respondents who endorsed realism exclusively was 76.37, hence only 1.5% endorsed realism and some other option. — Banno
There's very little difference across the filters. Even Continental Europe scores 75% realist, 7% idealist. — Banno
the notion of anyone disagreeing with you is obviously absurd, — Isaac
Not at all. The issue here is the difference in frequency of certain esoteric metaphysical views in the population of this forum compared to other communities of philosophers. — Banno
As I said elsewhere,
The strange constituency of this forum might have you think there is a great philosophical debate between direct realism and idealism. It ain't so. Overwhelmingly, philosophers, like the general population, will if asked say that they are realists (80% in the PhilPapers survey, with idealism garnering less than 6%. Yes, we don't do philosophy via polls and it's a survey of English-speaking philosophers and so on, but that's a level of agreement which is for philosophers pretty much unheard of.) — Banno
And as I pointed out above, of greater significance is the fifty percent who would not commit to one of skepticism, idealism or realism. — Banno
I think idealism as any kind of majority view died with the 19th Century. — Wayfarer
After all we live in an individualist, materially-oriented, technocratic culture, and will naturally adopt philosophies that support this milieu. — Wayfarer
But when did it start and what do we count as idealism - are you talking about various trends of mysticism believed in by certain groups or privileged communities? Or do you start in the West with Berkeley? When was idealism held by the average person in the West? — Tom Storm
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.