Sunday, November 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
David Hume
Which statements do you accept?
Followers
Blog Archive
Berkeley
Which of the following most closely describes you?
Descartes
The philosophy or religion that most closely matches the message of "The Matrix" is
Plato
If idealists define reality based on appearance, and appearance can vary depending on who you are and how you look at things, this means there is no objective reality, and therefore, objects exist just as you perceive them to be. Wouldn't that more or less just lead to the same conclusions as skepticism?
ReplyDeleteMy reality is inherently different from the realities of others, but to me, it seems like the only difference between idealism and skepticism is that idealists consider those perceptions to be true because assigning reality to objects would lead to contradictions; while skeptics consider those contradictions to just prove a lack of objective existence. The only difference, as I see it, is that idealism tries to resolve these perceptual contradictions by ignoring them and saying they are just products of the mind, whereas skepticism just decides not to resolve the same contradictions and accept them as sources for uncertainty about the world.
So, idealism as I see it just takes us one trivial step beyond skepticism, assigning token reality to perceptions. Due to the subjectivity of perception, however, this reality becomes more or less unmeasurable, unrelatable, and therefore, inapplicable to the "real world," so it seems to me to just be taking the skeptical view, but comforting yourself by assigning reality to things that only you can interpret.
I completely agree with Omar, the only difference between skepticism and idealism is that idealists arbitrarily decide to accept their perceptions as true. Again, as Omar stated, they don't really have anything to back this up. If nothing else, Berkeley, in what might be his crowning achievement, with his proof of God, brings up even more doubts about his beliefs. He shows how people perceive things differently while simultaneously saying that God's perception keeps everything from popping in and out of existence. This begs the question of how can god perceive everything the same as us (which would be necessary to maintain our existence) while Berkeley proves with his mite example that everyone perceives differently
ReplyDeleteMy interpretation seems to be that the difference between idealism and skepticism is the willingness to believe in a deity. For idealism, belief requires faith, as idealists seem to be unwilling to accept the question of existence itself, they instead flock to the idea of a god that holds everything grounded in existence. Skepticists instead seem to be the pessimists of the group saying: "We really don't know anything at all, and you're just too optimistic to see that we're right". When looking at this as a whole, it makes Berkeleys arguments seem a lot more shakier (As Omar pointed out earlier). Perhaps the only thing that could stand between a skeptic and an idealist is a lone descartes(ist) screaming Cogito, ergo sum!
ReplyDeleteThough Idealism simply accepts our own existence when Skepticism does not, I honestly do not see any problems with this difference. If all philosophers decided to continue debating things such as our own existence or the existence of God, then philosophy would never progress beyond that level. I believe that the difference between Skepticism and Idealism is important. Although neither can be completely proven right or wrong, I think that it is better to have philosophers diverge at a point, some accepting one view and others accepting the other, such that they can continue to logically deduce things without getting involved in the minutia of an argument. What I mean by this is that, for example, if we have some philosophers who base their thought on the assumption that God exists, and others that assume that God does not exist, then we are seeing the results of both possible outcomes of the situation, so it could perhaps be more informative than it otherwise would be. I’m slightly rambling, but I’m just trying to say that regardless of the slight differences between Skepticism and Idealism, it is important that Idealism has accepted existence in general such that we can move beyond it to tackle larger topics.
ReplyDeleteThere is most certainly a defined difference between idealism and skepticism. Skepticism only works with in the strict rules of methodic doubt, which is, in my opinion, its biggest flaw. As long as you can find some ridiculous faint reason to doubt a belief, it must be tossed. For example, one of Descartes reasons for supposedly knowing nothing was the chance of an evil genius that has the power to deceive and change anything that is thought to be known, such as 2+2=4, into a falsehood. How absurd does that sound? That's all it takes. With that method you could prove, or disprove rather, nearly anything. But idealism, idealism doesn't require these flawed systems that seemed to just be implemented when ever they are beneficialsuch as methodic doubt. All it requires is common sense. All of the arguments made by idealists rely on absurdities to disprove that knowledge. In idealism, he has a similar goal, almost like disproving knowledge. Rather than saying we don't have any knowledge, idealism says that the knowledge is a little flawed. For example, the characteristics, like color, that we "know" to exist, still do exist, just not in the object but rather in the mind. He does this however using common sense to prove that what we "know" is an absurdity, not using some tool made up on the spot.
ReplyDeleteOmar and Gwin, I agree with your arguments to the extent that Idealists take Skepticism one step further by assigning a reality to perceptions Skeptics regard as subjective. I also recognize the logic behind Gwin's argument that Idealism is flawed since everyone's perception is different, and certainly since this is true God's perception cannot be the same as ours. Where I disagree is that I do not believe it matters if our perception is the same as God's. Gwin claims it necessary for God's perception to be the same as ours in order to maintain our existence. This simply is not true. The idealist argument is that something (ie GOD) must be perceiving all things at all times. Accepting these things exist, it matters little how God or anyone else perceives them. Their existence is dependent on perception, yet no part of that requirement necessitates all entities share the same perception to maintain the object's existence.
ReplyDeleteAlso, piggy backing off of Cooper's entry, idealism is a much more refined version of skepticism. Idealism allows for the distinction between qualities that deceive and those which do not. This allows us to affirm the existence of objects despite their secondary properties. In the same situation skeptics cannot be sure of anything as they are burdened by the notion that anything capable of deceiving must be rejected.
Thus, I feel the distinction between skepticism and idealism is real and of importance. Further, despite Gwin's argument, idealism's God clause is not contradictory.