What's your opinion on Idealism?
By FQMENG
@FQMENG (31)
China
March 30, 2011 8:52am CST
this semester, i will take western philosophy and idealism course. it is a little bit difficult for me, for i have no idea on it, i have little knowledge of idealism. i just have a little knowledge of materialism.
what do you think of western philosophy and idealism, and what is your consideration on the relationship of God and human.
what is the latest development of idealism. also the latest book.
share your knowladge with me. thankyou.
1 response
@urbandekay (18278)
•
31 Mar 11
Realism is perhaps more of an opposite to Idealism than Materialism. Both the Idealist and the Realist call a chair a chair and both sit in it! Idealism and Realism are little more than battle cries.
Ok, this is a hard question to deal with here, it would take me several pages to give you a proper answer and the comments below will not do justice to the matter
Briefly, there is a tension in our perceptions and understanding. There is a tendency to think that objects are exactly as they appear, that a table has a property called 'brown' that impinges on our senses; this is naive realism. Problems with the coherence of this view, lead to the idea that objects of perception are products of mental activity and this we might view as naive idealism.
Some important figures in Idealism include, Plato, Berkeley, Kant (Transcendental Idealism), Bradley (Absolute Idealism)
There is a very good book, the name of which escapes me but I will let you know if I remember it.
Please feel free to let me know if you have other philosophical questions
all the best urban
@FQMENG (31)
• China
1 Apr 11
I am very grateful for your response.
Just as what your said, objects are exactly as they appear, naive realism might be easier to understood and accepted, compared with naive idealism.
And now, I am confused with the purpose of philosophy. In common, people want to find a upper Knowladge of varieties of science, and the upper knowladge can help human beings with the uderstanding of exact science. Is it right, without any possible doubt?
What about the relationship of "being as being" and "metaphysics"?
thankyou
@urbandekay (18278)
•
2 Apr 11
Indeed, naive realism holds object to be just as they appear but the problem is, they are not! We naively think of, say a brown table to possess the property of the colour brown and the shape square, yet this is far from what we actually see! Try it yourself. Sit in front of a brown polished table, what we actually see is that its shape is a trapezium; due to the fact that the outer edge is farther from our eyes thus appearing shorter. We process this information and interpret it as a square with the outer edge farther from our view. Similarly it does not appear uniformly brown; where the light hits it, it shines appearing perhaps more silver, yet the property of the table is constant across its surface. So, objects are not really as they appear but in part subjects of our perception.
This is Kant's Copernican shift, objects in part conform to our perception. Unfortunately Kant lacked the intellect to fully understand this, leading him to be confused between the object-in-itself (Ding an sich) and the phenomenal object.
Philosophy is not some upper knowledge of science but a disciple of its own. The kind of questions it deals with are not analysable by science. Nor is it about removal of doubt but rather being comfortable living with doubt.
Will write more later if I have time
all the best urban
