Philosophy: External world.

The external world:

Direct realism - The idea that what you see is what there is. The external world is seen, no gimmicks. This view is problematic to illusions and hallucinations.

Indirect realism - The idea that our mindful sense data expresses the external world which we don't actually have physical data of. Our knowledge is collected from sense data, not physical data.

Idealism - The view which believes and that claims because we don't actually experience the external world, it is a leap of faith to assume there is such things as physicality. Reality is not physical, rather mental.

Discuss. (Please correct me if I have made room for error in any of the descriptions.)

At 5/23/2010 4:36:55 PM, GodSands wrote:
The external world:

Direct realism - The idea that what you see is what there is. The external world is seen, no gimmicks. This view is problematic to illusions and hallucinations.

Indirect realism - The idea that our mindful sense data expresses the external world which we don't actually have physical data of. Our knowledge is collected from sense data, not physical data.

Idealism - The view which believes and that claims because we don't actually experience the external world, it is a leap of faith to assume there is such things as physicality. Reality is not physical, rather mental.

Discuss. (Please correct me if I have made room for error in any of the descriptions.)

No matter politics or philosophy, idealism is usually bad unless mixed with some type of realism.

At 5/23/2010 4:46:21 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:

No matter politics or philosophy, idealism is usually bad unless mixed with some type of realism.

That's not the same idealism GodSands is referring to.

Idealism: the philosophical theory which maintains that the ultimate nature of reality is based on the mind or ideas. In the philosophy of perception, idealism is contrasted with realism in which the external world is said to have an apparent absolute existence. Epistemological idealists (such as Kant) claim that the only things which can be directly known for certain are just ideas (abstraction).

http://en.wikipedia.org...

See also, naive realism.

At 5/23/2010 4:52:35 PM, Puck wrote:
See also, naive realism.

It appears that Ojectivism could be described as "naive realism" perhaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Incorrectly, sure.

At 5/23/2010 4:56:46 PM, Puck wrote:
Incorrectly, sure.

You're an Objectivist?

At 5/23/2010 4:58:08 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

At 5/23/2010 4:56:46 PM, Puck wrote:
Incorrectly, sure.

You're an Objectivist?

Not by ARI standards :)

At 5/23/2010 4:58:50 PM, Puck wrote:
Not by ARI standards :)

What kind of Objectivist are you? And what nuances of Randian Objectivism do you disagree with?

At 5/23/2010 5:08:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

At 5/23/2010 4:58:50 PM, Puck wrote:
Not by ARI standards :)

What kind of Objectivist are you? And what nuances of Randian Objectivism do you disagree with?

He's a TAS/Kelley Objectivist, I would imagine; at least, inasmuch as he can be identified with either faction.

Realism is the idea that things exist externally of our minds. Therefore because we use our minds to understand and gather knowledge, we cannot receive a God eyes view of what is real.

Idealism is the view that we cannot detect the external world which is thought to be a physical world by indirect realist or also known as representative realists. Instead, because there is only sense data from a indirect realists view point that represents the external world, it seems to be pointless to assume there is a physical world. So idealists believe it is more necessary to use Occums Razor and shave away the unneeded hassle that physicality seems to bring to the table.

Therefore idealists quite understandably believe that what is unperceived does not exist. Esse est Percipi means 'I perceive therefore I exist.' Kind of drops egg shells in Descartes 'I think therefore I am.' approach.

Which one do you agree on and why in the list located at the top comment box, bring your ideas to the table why not?

At 5/23/2010 5:22:14 PM, GodSands wrote:
Realism is the idea that things exist externally of our minds. Therefore because we use our minds to understand and gather knowledge, we cannot receive a God eyes view of what is real.

...

Therefore idealists quite understandably believe that what is unperceived does not exist.

False. That would be the realists standpoint. The idealist believes the world is shaped by the mind or that only what the mind conceives is what can be known for certain.

Which one do you agree on

None.

: At 5/23/2010 5:27:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

At 5/23/2010 5:22:14 PM, GodSands wrote:
Realism is the idea that things exist externally of our minds. Therefore because we use our minds to understand and gather knowledge, we cannot receive a God eyes view of what is real.

...

Therefore idealists quite understandably believe that what is unperceived does not exist.

False. That would be the realists standpoint. The idealist believes the world is shaped by the mind or that only what the mind conceives is what can be known for certain.

Which one do you agree on

None.

No infact idealism teaches that what is not perceived cannot exist. George Berkeley the man who thought up this view of idealism thought up Esse est Percipi 'I perceive there I exist.' Or ' To exist is to perceived.'

At 5/23/2010 5:31:58 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 5/23/2010 5:27:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

At 5/23/2010 5:22:14 PM, GodSands wrote:
Realism is the idea that things exist externally of our minds. Therefore because we use our minds to understand and gather knowledge, we cannot receive a God eyes view of what is real.

...

Therefore idealists quite understandably believe that what is unperceived does not exist.

False. That would be the realists standpoint. The idealist believes the world is shaped by the mind or that only what the mind conceives is what can be known for certain.

Which one do you agree on

None.

No infact idealism teaches that what is not perceived cannot exist. George Berkeley the man who thought up this view of idealism thought up Esse est Percipi 'I perceive there I exist.' Or ' To exist is to perceived.'

Eh no. See Kant.

And who is that Osho guy? Seems quite arrogant.

: At 5/23/2010 5:37:55 PM, Puck wrote:

At 5/23/2010 5:31:58 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 5/23/2010 5:27:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

At 5/23/2010 5:22:14 PM, GodSands wrote:
Realism is the idea that things exist externally of our minds. Therefore because we use our minds to understand and gather knowledge, we cannot receive a God eyes view of what is real.

...

Therefore idealists quite understandably believe that what is unperceived does not exist.

False. That would be the realists standpoint. The idealist believes the world is shaped by the mind or that only what the mind conceives is what can be known for certain.

Which one do you agree on

None.

No infact idealism teaches that what is not perceived cannot exist. George Berkeley the man who thought up this view of idealism thought up Esse est Percipi 'I perceive there I exist.' Or ' To exist is to perceived.'

Eh no. See Kant.

Well that is what Berkeley says. Kant is the one who thought up primary and secondary qualities, which I have to say has had alot of reasonable criticism.

Primary qualities are shape, size, weight, and secondary qualities are sounds, textures, tastes, colour and smells. However, since all things, object are prone to charge, as Berkeley said basically because our bodies can vary, get stronger or weaker, weight can vary, we can look at things from different angles and stand closer or further away from these so called primary qualities. It is reasonable to argue that because of this, shape, size and weight are no different from colour, sound, taste, smell and texture. It is merely a matter of causation and how things are logically caused to change due to nature law. Colours appear different because atoms on surfaces are laid out in various ways so when light reflects off of objects into our eyes, we see colour based off of how the atoms on a particular surface are arranged.

Shape is no different, a container may appear to be square when the persons perspective is dead centre on the book lid. But if that person rotates the container 90 degrees it becomes a smaller square. Like wise with size, things differ in size depending on how it is perveived, from a far or close up. And that does not support the view that shape, size and weight are totally primary qualities of reality, for if they were, they would remain the same, no matter on what anyone does. They do not inherit the continuous properties that stay consistent in all realities. Unlike a priori knowledge which does.

To give evidence to this, from completely different perspectives such as other creatures, shapes, sizes and weight is different for them, and there is no generalisation of such qualities for anything that can experience. However since I believe in God, I say that for God He has the knowledge of such generalisation. What size should this man be, God knows that. Or what size is this man, God knows that. Whereas human beings can only base their understanding of what size a man is by qualities that are not absolutely known to be general. We measure based from either impirial or metric scale. They were both thought up by man through experience which of course all ties up into this mess of percpetion again. What reason is there is believe measurement of either impirial or metric scale is a generlisation of reality?

Criticism of Kant is irrelevant as to whether Kant is an idealist.

: At 5/23/2010 6:44:25 PM, Puck wrote:

Criticism of Kant is irrelevant as to whether Kant is an idealist.

I have no idea, is Kant a idealist?

Yes, and refutes your notion that idealists disavow a reality that is unknown.

: At 5/23/2010 6:48:13 PM, Puck wrote:

Yes, and refutes your notion that idealists disavow a reality that is unknown.

Not my idea but Berkeleys idea.

At 5/23/2010 6:52:58 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 5/23/2010 6:48:13 PM, Puck wrote:

Yes, and refutes your notion that idealists disavow a reality that is unknown.

Not my idea but Berkeleys idea.

You are the one propogating and supporting it.

: At 5/23/2010 6:54:53 PM, Puck wrote:

At 5/23/2010 6:52:58 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 5/23/2010 6:48:13 PM, Puck wrote:

Yes, and refutes your notion that idealists disavow a reality that is unknown.

Not my idea but Berkeleys idea.

You are the one propogating and supporting it.

To be honest, I don't know what I believe in referrence to the external world, I personally believe this idea of realism should be applied to the unseen. For example, when you say indirect realism sounds to ring true, because we experience sense data and not physicality, we conclude that a veil of percpetion must be what we perceive. Why not say, "Because we know that meaning and purpose are independent of what we experience personally and therefore not generally, and that we do not directly know the cause of meaning and purpose, I conclude that a veil of deception must be what we witness." Imagen what heaven must be like if this is the case. I cannot know.

I don't know, is this just sophistry? Think about it, please.

This is just awful, does no one know about this kind of thing? Puck, come, let us discuss this topic.

So...you support subjective idealism Godsands? Or some tenet found in it?

: At 5/24/2010 7:49:29 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:

So...you support subjective idealism Godsands? Or some tenet found in it?

I support idealism more so than direct realism or even representative realism. It has been scientifically proved that we see the image within our brain rather than a external world directly. In other words we see the image which the retina produces. Therefore in account to physicality, it is almost a leap of faith to assume there is such things as material substances. Since we only perceive the image inside our brain, you could of course say that the brain is not something physical, but when have you seen your own brain? You see the image your mind created. Same goes for the other 4 senses.

When Jesus Christ said to control our thoughts, it seems to me that He could have been speaking about the mind being object of substance and that when we sin, we are doing so against, not only God, but against our own ability to proceed further in our understanding of the universe. Jesus, once resurrected was able to walk through walls etc. Why cannot we walk through walls if reality is in our own minds? This get real complicated and extends further, onto other topics I believe.