Idealism is the philosophy or theory that a thing exists only if it is mind-dependent. Idealists say that we can know something when we form an idea about it in our mind. We can have an idea only if we are conscious of the idea. In other words, an idea is an object of one’s consciousness and is conditioned by consciousness. And idealists claim that anything that is conditioned by consciousness is mind-dependent.
Let’s say there is a coin in front of you. You see it and you believe it exists. But how do you justify that belief? Idealists would say that the coin is dependent on your mind. You know that it exists because you have formed an idea about the coin. The coin is an object of your consciousness. Therefore, the existence of the coin is mind-dependent.
That sounds kind of funny, right? What would happen if my idea of the coin goes away? Does the coin cease to exist? If the coin is just dependent of my mind, can anyone else see it too? Why is it that we can all see the same things? Are all of our minds connected?
I think that the idealists have a very narrow and almost selfish kind of view. They want to believe that man has power over everything else. Or an individual person can have authority over others. A thing can exist only if a man thinks it exists. How absurd is that!
God, not man, created the heaven and the Earth. And by the way, God created man too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Don't idealists deal entirely with our perception? I think the argument is that our understanding of the physical world is only given by our senses, resulting in perception. This inevitably means that the only thing an idealist can have certainty of is his own perception/consciousness. If you don't see/feel/taste/hear the coin, then to you, it doesn't exist.
ReplyDeleteYou ask, "Why is it that we can all see the same things," assuming that we in fact do all see the same things. But what about people who are color blind? Another instance where we all don't see the same things is due to experimental testing on cats during early development. Evil researchers can put the cat into a small chamber, lacking say, any vertical lines... resulting in the cat not being able to sense vertical stimuli! It's really amazing. What about schizophrenic people who see things that your or I will never see? Or people with other neurological disorders that give them vastly different perceptions of the world around us? Is their reality wrong and ours right?
You say that the idealists are selfish, but I think the criticism applies better to those who have absolutes. Is it more narrow-minded to believe that everyone has differing perceptions of reality based on neurophysiology, or to believe that everything is only one way, the way you establish it to be?
I'll agree that "God, not man, created the heaven and the Earth," (and man), but I don't see why idealism and religiosity are innately opposed. Perhaps God created us to have a vast variety of perceptions, for "variety is the spice of life."
When you say that "I think the argument is that our understanding of the physical world is only given by our senses, resulting in perception", you choose to exclude any innate concept. An innate concept is one developed without experience. We don't generally need to experience it to tell something to be good or evil. For instance, anybody feels the urge to help when see another in need; and we all know killing an innocent is wrong. We can form these concepts without prior experience.
ReplyDeleteBy stating "we can all see the same things", I mean that things themselves don't change regardless how they are perceived. The tree is still green even though a color-blind person cannot tell it from red. (Green as in light reflected having a certain frequency we call green) As for optical illusions, things themselves don't change even when observers see them differently. So for solid objects, I believe what I see is what you see too.
I agree with you that, abstractly, God allows us to have variety of opinions to spice up life. Isn't our discussion here a perfect reflection of that?
Hmm... I really think that the burden of proof lies with you; idealism contends that all notions whether "real" or imagined exist in the mind - this is innately hard to disprove being that any contention you may raise ultimately can be traced back to your consciousness of that contention.
ReplyDeleteAn idealist isn't saying that the world does not exist innately, simply that you cannot prove anything beyond your perception of things, and because any construct of innateness arises out of your perception/consciousness, I'd find that hard to argue with, but perhaps you'll have more courage?
Good point. I think this is where the element of faith comes in. For instance, we cannot see God physically. But we believe that He exists. One develops faith through experiences, trust and etc. You can always argue against religion because it is hard to find proof satisfactory to nonbelievers. Scientists find many facts contradictory to the existence of God. People are educated and there are still lots of Christians around us. Do you always have to find proof for something to be true?
ReplyDeleteSometimes one just has a feeling that something has to be right. There is no proof for that whatsoever. But one just knows it. Why do people feel that way?
Then aren't you an idealist Peter?? Come on now; you have faith (a mental power), which gives you the trust in a real, physical entity that is God, but the source of your knowledge of God begins with a mental leap of judgment that is faith. Sounds like you're an idealist after all. No?
ReplyDeleteI am a Christian. I guess in a way I am an idealist. But there are some idealist principals that don't apply to me. I think I am more of a empiricist. An empiricist is one that draws his concept and view based on his experience. (He believes the existence of the coin without perception.) And I still don't like the sound of that name. What about you, Ryan?
ReplyDelete