• 'Dreams', as proof of absolute idealism.
    In my waking life there is a logically continuity of happenings. If I am walking down the street, in the next moment I will be continuing to walk down the street unless I decide to stop and do something else. In my dreams there is no such logical continuity. I may be walking down the street one moment, then in the next moment in a car, then in a house, etc.. The content is very random with very little logical continuity.Metaphysician Undercover

    Well, sci-fi or fantasy movies are just as 'real' by the same logic; but, we don't have a prejudice against them as not being real as you claim dreams are.
  • 'Dreams', as proof of absolute idealism.

    What grounds are there for assuming a differentiation between the two?
  • 'Dreams', as proof of absolute idealism.
    When we go to a movie we do not even consider the possibility of having control over what happens in the movie.Metaphysician Undercover

    The concept of 'control' is obviously not the same as in a dream as in waking life. The concept of control in a dream is maximized when one dreams lucidly. I have no qualms with calling a lucid dream a form of reality, just not occupied in the same space-time as in waking life.

    How can one have control over what is happening in the dream, yet still believe that what is being seen in the dream is as real as what is seen in waking like?Metaphysician Undercover

    Because the dream IS real. There is no point in denying the beauty of a piece of music as well as the content of a dream. The content of a dream is not fundamentally different than that of waking life. It's just a state space where the set of possible configurations of 'things' (the possibilities in a sort of monastic space that is reality) is different than that of waking life.
  • 'Dreams', as proof of absolute idealism.
    I've heard a lucid dreamer tell me that despite having some control over what is to happen in the dream, the dream is still experienced as if it is real. How do you think this could be possible?Metaphysician Undercover

    I suppose it's the same as when we go to the movies. We don't stand up and shout, "That's not true!". Some form of suspension of disbelief is required to entertain a film as well as a dream.

    How could one have some control over what is happening, and yet experience it as if it is really happening?Metaphysician Undercover

    That doesn't seem to be the case in my experience. I've had lucid dreams where I know it's a dream; but, still am in the domain of believing/entertaining what I am seeing as real as in waking life.
  • 'Dreams', as proof of absolute idealism.
    Here's one interesting concept.

    Take the fact that some dreams are lucid enough where we are in control of our surroundings. Would this not at the very least be a sort of an informal proof for the existence of God? How else would one explain the fact that the observer in the dream can have control over everything they are experiencing?

    In other words, what's the philosophy of lucid dreams and it being in relation to reality or a sort of reality in itself?

    In other words, let's assume that some person has the miraculous ability to realize every night that they are dreaming. This realization would allow the person to control their dreams for whatever purpose/desire for the period of the dream. Say one is studying some material, then in the dream, they can recall material, which this person is studying (doubtfully what one would do; but, a noble purpose to devote the dream space-time to). An alternative is that one can dream about music.

    Isn't it fascinating that the mind can recall pieces of music with such detail during sleep (I'm sure I'm not the only one), effortlessly? In my case, I find it extraordinary that I can dream W.A. Mozart - Symphony No. 25 in G minor, K. 183 1'st movement without a hitch during sleep as opposed to the great difficulty one would have to recall the same piece during waking hours. If that isn't extraordinary, then I don't know what is.
  • 'Dreams', as proof of absolute idealism.
    No, because dreams are neither sufficient evidence nor arguments for the truth of 'idealism'.jkop

    Well, that's what we're discussing here. Mind to explain why they aren't sufficient evidence? What's your take here?

    I have to admit the OP question was ill-formulated. It should read,

    "Dreams, as proof of idealism?"
  • 'Dreams', as proof of absolute idealism.
    In an effort to facilitate some discussion, I would hope to change the subject to something of the sort of, 'Dreams, as proof of 'idealism''

    Would that be better than the rather hard to comprehend Hegelian conception of absolute idealism?
  • 'Dreams', as proof of absolute idealism.
    I've always had trouble pinning down precisely what absolute idealism IS so I would love to hear your thoughts on this.Brian

    It's hard to elaborate on using something so ethereal as dreams as the leading premise.

    I would suggest that dreams are just simply a way in which we perceive reality. Thinking as a materialist, you have reality being generated without external input, some (supposedly) internal gibberish, which I don't believe.

    Anyway, to answer your question, I think that dreams are also what can be regarded as a form of reality, although impermanent and vague. Why we don't acknowledge it as a form of reality is a deeper question about how we think about how reality works, as something external illuminating our mind as a projector displays still images in quick succession.
  • Do you feel more enriched being a cantankerous argumentative ahole?

    Gotta watch out with those BDSM master-slave relations. Wonder what Nietzsche would say about it.
  • Achieving Stable Peace of Mind
    The dialectics of depression,

    where nothing good comes out of false premises.

    Depression, as you know, is a distortion of reality.

    One can't make a delicious cake out of shit.

    That's my understanding of the futility (in essence) of CBT in trying to make a cake out of shit.
  • Do you feel more enriched being a cantankerous argumentative ahole?

    Never knew that. Hegel was a staunch believer in marriage though so go figure.
  • Deathmatch – Objective Reality vs. the Tao

    How is your vision of reality different from logical positivism or the early Wittgenstein?
  • Do you feel more enriched being a cantankerous argumentative ahole?
    Hegel never did go to explain why the dialectical exists as opposed to some sort of monism. Maybe I need to be educated; but, that's a topic worthy of a thesis paper.
  • The Shoutbox
    Question would be in a rehabilitation campAgustino

    I need that dearly.
  • The Shoutbox

    It's pot with very little THC if that means anything to anyone prejudiced against pot with THC (most pot nowadays).
  • The American Healthcare Debate (or debacle)
    One can hope that the whole thing falls on itself eventually.

    *No signs of it happening yet.*
  • The Shoutbox
    I shall have some more of that Wittgenstein please, with some Schopenhauer. Thank you.
  • The Shoutbox
    More philosophy please. Thankyou.