Idealism is the idea that we are only aware of our own minds. what is outside our own heads we have no idea of and have no reason to think it is real.
Idealism of Berkeley is false but has great and rigorous proofs. So Thomas Reid spent a good deal of effort refuting it.
Kant accepted idealism to the degree that he holds there is an outside world but that it must conform to conditions of possibility of experience.
And our own knowledge must conform to the limits of reason. As Kelley Ross puts it: a bathtub full of computer chips is not a computer and cannot process information.
Shopenhaur accepts that Kant proved his point but modifies it. [Shopenaur starts his book with "The world is my representation. So now that he is not here, why is the world still here?]
To me it seems that idealism is simply wrong. I am pretty sure that most people reading this have seen rigorous proofs of absurd things. Like: there can be no motion of Zeno. Or that pi = 3.
That does not mean the idea is true. That is how I look at idealism.
So as Michael Huemer says--the Mind Body problem [which is behind all this] is not solved. What seems true to me is that Hegel got the right idea that any knowledge combines synthesizes both empirical impute and a priori impute. [Michael Huemer says basically the same thing in one essay where he shows all empirical knowledge depends on a priori assumptions.] His way to solve then issue is by probability. Every assumption starts out with a beginning amount of how much sense it makes. So even when you throw out one assumption that at first made sense it is because it disagrees with another assumption that makes more sense. That is for example how Einstein decided to modify Newton instead of Maxwell. To him , electrodynamics was more basic than Classical dynamics.
Idealism of Berkeley is false but has great and rigorous proofs. So Thomas Reid spent a good deal of effort refuting it.
Kant accepted idealism to the degree that he holds there is an outside world but that it must conform to conditions of possibility of experience.
And our own knowledge must conform to the limits of reason. As Kelley Ross puts it: a bathtub full of computer chips is not a computer and cannot process information.
Shopenhaur accepts that Kant proved his point but modifies it. [Shopenaur starts his book with "The world is my representation. So now that he is not here, why is the world still here?]
To me it seems that idealism is simply wrong. I am pretty sure that most people reading this have seen rigorous proofs of absurd things. Like: there can be no motion of Zeno. Or that pi = 3.
That does not mean the idea is true. That is how I look at idealism.
So as Michael Huemer says--the Mind Body problem [which is behind all this] is not solved. What seems true to me is that Hegel got the right idea that any knowledge combines synthesizes both empirical impute and a priori impute. [Michael Huemer says basically the same thing in one essay where he shows all empirical knowledge depends on a priori assumptions.] His way to solve then issue is by probability. Every assumption starts out with a beginning amount of how much sense it makes. So even when you throw out one assumption that at first made sense it is because it disagrees with another assumption that makes more sense. That is for example how Einstein decided to modify Newton instead of Maxwell. To him , electrodynamics was more basic than Classical dynamics.
