But if you push the argument that the stuff around us does not exist unless a mind is involved, you are headed towards solipsism. Because other minds are a part of that stuff in the world. — Banno
:100: :clap: :smirk:[A]re there not forms of idealism that hold that everything you see is real, it just isn't what you think - it isn't material, it is made from the one stuff of the universe - consciousness / Will. That's the Schopenhauer, Kastrup, Hoffman formulation [ ... ] Cue quantum speculations, quotes from Hinduism, Plato's cave, past lives accounts and critiques of scientism.... — Tom Storm
if we never experience anything but what is not an inseparable aspect of that experience, how can we infer that anything whatever, let alone everything is an inseparable aspect of any experience? (1903: 451) — Quoted in the SEP article
Now the pertinent question would be how the hell does anyone know all this? It's fine to debunk old school materialism, but it's another thing to use this as to support a speculative ontology. It's at best built from some debatable inferences, right? Cue quantum speculations, quotes from Hinduism, Plato's cave, past lives accounts and critiques of scientism.... — Tom Storm
So if we have no access to anything not a perception, how could we ever differentiate between what we experience and what we don't....? — Banno
- the part of reality seperate from humans? Idealism says, one way or another, that to be is to be related in some way to some mind. If you hold there to be a "human-independent nature of reality" a part of your metaphysics, you are not an idealist.We don't experience the human-independent nature of reality — Janus
Do you think there is any thing in the account you quote at length that is at odds with the account of realism I just gave? — Banno
Yet it is important to realise that the naïve sense in which we understand ourselves, and the objects of our perception, to exist, is in reality dependent upon the constructive activities of our consciousness many of which are below the threshhold of conscious awareness.
It holds first off that there are things in the world, and secondly that these things have at least some properties that are not dependent on us. — Banno
Yet it is important to realise that the naïve sense in which we understand ourselves, and the objects of our perception, to exist, is in reality dependent upon the constructive activities of our consciousness many of which are below the threshhold of conscious awareness.
- the part of reality seperate from humans? Idealism says, one way or another, that to be is to be related in some way to some mind. If you hold there to be a "human-independent nature of reality" a part of your metaphysics, you are not an idealist.
See how confusing it gets? Hence the chat above about if Kant counts as a realist. — Banno
Yet it is important to realise that the naïve sense in which we understand ourselves, and the objects of our perception, to exist, is in reality dependent upon the constructive activities of our consciousness many of which are below the threshhold of conscious awareness.
Looks to be a performative contradiction. If it's human-independent then it's not somethign with which we need be concerned.If I held that the human-independent nature of reality was ideas in a universal mind would I not count as an idealist? — Janus
If eight out of ten aeronautics engineers say the plane is unsafe, — Banno
Restrict the philpapers results to metaphysicians in the target group of academic philosophers - 372 respondents - and the number who advocate idealism goes up to almost 7%! The number advocating realism rises to 84%.
Make of this what you will. — Banno
engineering is NOT philosophy — schopenhauer1
The survey doesn't matter to me. — schopenhauer1
:up: Thanks.On the other hand, there are “….claims (….) delivered as “what actually is”.…”, serving as premises for the logical method following from them….
“…. That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt. For how is it possible that the faculty of cognition should be awakened into exercise otherwise than by means of objects which affect our senses, and partly of themselves produce representations, partly rouse our powers of understanding into activity, to compare to connect, or to separate these, and so to convert the raw material of our sensuous impressions into a knowledge of objects, which is called experience….”
….and this, with respect to his theory of knowledge alone, is not idealism in its strictest sense, insofar as external material reality is tacitly granted as a necessary condition. — Mww
Looks to be a performative contradiction. If it's human-independent then it's not somethign whc whcih we need be concerned. — Banno
My impression was that the Good Bishop held everything to be ideas in god's mind; except presumably god isn't an idea in god's mind... In which case not everything is an idea ain god;'s mind... and we've gotten nowhere. Or god is just an idea in god's mind... can't see how that works.
Makes no sense to me. — Banno
Don’t like the ‘made from’. More later. — Wayfarer
That said, I find some interest in ideas for their own sake, looking at what each of the different views on the menu would entail, and thinking about what possible difference it could make to human life if they were true (whatever their being true independent of human understanding could even mean). — Janus
One advantage of the "great mind" ontology is that that truth could, independently of the human, be related to, known by, that universal mind. — Janus
Agree. That's kind of my perspective too. I suspect it makes almost no difference to how I would choose live, whether I am an outmoded retro physicalist or an a la mode idealist. — Tom Storm
Perhaps, although the versions of great mind of Schop or Kastrup posit a universal mind which is instinctive and not metacognitive. — Tom Storm
I have to disagree. At the very least, "materialism" is a far more useful epistemological paradigm than any version of "immaterialism" for learning about – adapting to – nature.Of course the same problem exists with materialism; how could you know that everything, independently of anything human, is material or even what that could mean? — Janus
Insofar as this "universe is a single mind" is a "speculative idea", it follows that it's an "idea" of either (A) the human mind or (B) some other mind not located witnin "the universe" – which seems to me (B) amounts to "mind"-of-the-gaps and (A) amounts to a compositional fallacy – or (C) there are minds within the universe which are not themselves mere "ideas" (i.e. reals) rendering this "speculative idea" itself conceptually incoherent.I'm asking you to look at the logic of the claim that the Universe is a single mind, and that all the things in it, including human minds, are ideas. There is nothing in that admittedly entirely speculative idea of a universal mind ... — Janus
No doubt. :up:Life is a mystery and we are mired in ignorance when it comes to anything purportedly outside of the human empirical and logic-based understanding. — Janus
Restrict the philpapers results to metaphysicians in the target group of academic philosophers - 372 respondents - and the number who advocate idealism goes up to almost 7%! The number advocating realism rises to 84%.
Make of this what you will — Banno
The idea is logically no different than the idea that all things are in the Universe...in which case not everything is in the Universe...or the Universe is just a thing in the Universe...can't see how that works either. — Janus
Idealism says, one way or another, that to be is to be related in some way to some mind. If you hold there to be a "human-independent nature of reality" a part of your metaphysics, you are not an idealist. — Banno
You'd think it was, the number of retired engineers who casually drop past to explain how the poor benighted philosophers went wrong.
Shame they don't agree with each other. — Banno
The survey doesn't matter to me.
— schopenhauer1
Your repeated posts here suggest otherwise. — Banno
while True:
response = input("Enter your response: ")
if response.lower() == "i don't care about the survey":
print("Your repeated posts here suggest otherwise")
continue
elif response.lower() == "your repeated posts here suggest otherwise":
print("The survey doesn't matter to me. Rather, the implication of using the survey does.")
continue
else:
print("Your response is:", response)
break
Insofar as this "universe is a single mind" is a "speculative idea", it follows that it's an "idea" of either (A) the human mind or (B) some other mind not located witnin "the universe" – which seems to me (B) amounts to "mind"-of-the-gaps and (A) amounts to a compositional fallacy – or (C) there are minds within the universe which are not themselves mere "ideas" (i.e. reals) rendering this "speculative idea" itself conceptually incoherent. — 180 Proof
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.