DialecticMaterialist
8th April 2003, 08:37 PM
No I would say idealism is. After all idealists are both dispensing with a material world and they are not committed to suppose that there is a unique reality which are theories are trying to describe.
No because idealists are merely proposing a different world made of different substance. They cut out nothing that needs explaining but create a need for more explanations instead. Unless it reduces itself to solipsism.
In which case the idealism(subjective idealism) is incompatible with the principle of parsminy because parsimony is based on the assumption that we are trying to figure out a single real world and avoid people lying/making stuff up. If other people only exist because I see them, there is no need to create ground rules for reasoning with them or trying to understand reality.
Perceivers are self-subsistent. They exist in there own right and don't come from anywhere.
But then that is dualism. We have two types of existence: 1) things that exist because they are percived. 2) Percievers who exist without being percieved.
Also are you suggesting that the perciever was around forever? Or were they somehow percieved(in which case they are not self-subsistent)?
Sorry but I don't understand any of this. Why shouldn't idealists be ignorant of something that exists?
Because to an idealist something exists because it is percieved.
How can you be ignorant of something you percieve?
The thing only exists because the idealists knows of it, if the idealist is ignorant of it, the thing literally does not exist.
You are in error. Where did you get this idea from? Selves also exist.
Then that's dualism as it poists two, not one mode of existence. And such a viewpoint lacks parsimony.
Idealism can't be considered anymore of a dualist position than materialism (apart from materialists who literally deny the existence of conscious experience). And things don't only exist because you perceive them. And even if that were true, it only applies to the realm of the perceptually experienced, not to experiencers.
But then the above type of idealism is actually dualism. And no materialist denies we have a mind, they only say it is made of matter.
The above idealism thus requires two substances(one that exists only as perceptions, another that exists without perceptions) whereas materialism requires one(matter).
Where on earth are you getting your ideas of idealism from! If I am the creator and controller of all things real then why don't I think into existence a thick wad of bank notes! LOL
A good question for idealists. BTW I got this idea of idealists from philosophers and idealists.....
You're simply in error about what subjective idealism is saying.
How so?
Thinking something makes it real??
According to idealism it does.
In a complete literal sense they are not made of anything.
That's absurd. You are saying I exist but am made of nothing? How much nothingness do you need to make something?
What substance? Idealists don't believe in any substance comprising the external world.
Because they don't believe in an external world....
But of course it does!
Oh yes good argument. Now you are begging the question.
There is no underlying substance.
So no atomic theory then.
You just negated your above statement.
Things exist either because we "directly" perceive them, or they play a fruitful role in our successful theories (whether explicit or implicit) of the world, or parts of the world.
What do you mean they play a fruitful role?
All that exists is perception ergo there is no room for theory in the world. To suggest otherwise is to suggest the unpercieved exists.
The same mechanisms as materialism.
umm ok. :rolleyes: You are saying the same mechanisms that operate in materialism are what make idealism work?
Mental substance? What is mental substance?
What the idealist thinks things are made of. If you can't keep up don't participate.
{shrugs} Who knows? Is this supposed to be a problem applicable only to idealism?
Nope, but materialists solve it via the physical nature of different senses and what the senses record. The differences in physiology for example. There is no precedence for this in idealism.
It's essentially the same for both the theistic subjective idealist and the materialist. In the case of the former our sensory perceptions are a kind of result of the a collorboration between God's mind and our own; in the latter it is the moulding by the mind, dictated by some implicitly held theory, of a putative mind-independent reality.
No, because materialism only requires a substance for the world, whereas the idealist posits substance and God.
They don't need to. And bear in mind that idealists dispense with a whole material reality!
They dispense with substance but then add substance and an extra entity. God has to be made of something.
Dear me! You systematically comprehensively misunderstand what idealism is, so I think your conclusion here is a bit premature.
You say this a lot but never explain how I in fact do so.
I'd say your entire rebuttal was somewhat inadequate and its conclusion the only thing premature.
No because idealists are merely proposing a different world made of different substance. They cut out nothing that needs explaining but create a need for more explanations instead. Unless it reduces itself to solipsism.
In which case the idealism(subjective idealism) is incompatible with the principle of parsminy because parsimony is based on the assumption that we are trying to figure out a single real world and avoid people lying/making stuff up. If other people only exist because I see them, there is no need to create ground rules for reasoning with them or trying to understand reality.
Perceivers are self-subsistent. They exist in there own right and don't come from anywhere.
But then that is dualism. We have two types of existence: 1) things that exist because they are percived. 2) Percievers who exist without being percieved.
Also are you suggesting that the perciever was around forever? Or were they somehow percieved(in which case they are not self-subsistent)?
Sorry but I don't understand any of this. Why shouldn't idealists be ignorant of something that exists?
Because to an idealist something exists because it is percieved.
How can you be ignorant of something you percieve?
The thing only exists because the idealists knows of it, if the idealist is ignorant of it, the thing literally does not exist.
You are in error. Where did you get this idea from? Selves also exist.
Then that's dualism as it poists two, not one mode of existence. And such a viewpoint lacks parsimony.
Idealism can't be considered anymore of a dualist position than materialism (apart from materialists who literally deny the existence of conscious experience). And things don't only exist because you perceive them. And even if that were true, it only applies to the realm of the perceptually experienced, not to experiencers.
But then the above type of idealism is actually dualism. And no materialist denies we have a mind, they only say it is made of matter.
The above idealism thus requires two substances(one that exists only as perceptions, another that exists without perceptions) whereas materialism requires one(matter).
Where on earth are you getting your ideas of idealism from! If I am the creator and controller of all things real then why don't I think into existence a thick wad of bank notes! LOL
A good question for idealists. BTW I got this idea of idealists from philosophers and idealists.....
You're simply in error about what subjective idealism is saying.
How so?
Thinking something makes it real??
According to idealism it does.
In a complete literal sense they are not made of anything.
That's absurd. You are saying I exist but am made of nothing? How much nothingness do you need to make something?
What substance? Idealists don't believe in any substance comprising the external world.
Because they don't believe in an external world....
But of course it does!
Oh yes good argument. Now you are begging the question.
There is no underlying substance.
So no atomic theory then.
You just negated your above statement.
Things exist either because we "directly" perceive them, or they play a fruitful role in our successful theories (whether explicit or implicit) of the world, or parts of the world.
What do you mean they play a fruitful role?
All that exists is perception ergo there is no room for theory in the world. To suggest otherwise is to suggest the unpercieved exists.
The same mechanisms as materialism.
umm ok. :rolleyes: You are saying the same mechanisms that operate in materialism are what make idealism work?
Mental substance? What is mental substance?
What the idealist thinks things are made of. If you can't keep up don't participate.
{shrugs} Who knows? Is this supposed to be a problem applicable only to idealism?
Nope, but materialists solve it via the physical nature of different senses and what the senses record. The differences in physiology for example. There is no precedence for this in idealism.
It's essentially the same for both the theistic subjective idealist and the materialist. In the case of the former our sensory perceptions are a kind of result of the a collorboration between God's mind and our own; in the latter it is the moulding by the mind, dictated by some implicitly held theory, of a putative mind-independent reality.
No, because materialism only requires a substance for the world, whereas the idealist posits substance and God.
They don't need to. And bear in mind that idealists dispense with a whole material reality!
They dispense with substance but then add substance and an extra entity. God has to be made of something.
Dear me! You systematically comprehensively misunderstand what idealism is, so I think your conclusion here is a bit premature.
You say this a lot but never explain how I in fact do so.
I'd say your entire rebuttal was somewhat inadequate and its conclusion the only thing premature.