Jan 13, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave a la Mr.
thanks to you getting up this morning was a serious chore and I had take a nap at work (I was only planning on 15 min, but ended up doin 45... oops) - i hope you seriously reflect on what you've done... after all, would jesus have done that? didn't think so.
|
|
Jan 13, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Jan 13, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
with regard to the topic of last night with less alcohol in me:
"idealism: Belief that only mental entities are real, so that physical things exist only in the sense that they are perceived. Berkeley defended his "immaterialism" on purely empiricist grounds, while Kant and Fichte arrived at theirs by transcendental arguments. German, English, and (to a lesser degree) American philosophy during the nineteenth century was dominated by the monistic absolute idealism of Hegel, Bradley, and Royce." basically just rehashes your definition, but I think the timeline is important in that starting in the late 19th/ early 20th century there was a serious shift in thinking towards materialist, or physical in your notes, philosophy. "Feuerbach on Religion: Ludwig Feuerbach, on the other hand, focussed primarily on the theological implications of idealism. Even if Hegel's position were, as he supposed, the ultimate culmination of the entire philosophical tradition, it would not be enough to satisfy the human desire for certainty. In addition to their epistemological and metaphysical urges, human beings also have a fundamental feeling of dependence that can be satisfied only by their adherence to religion. Unfortunately, as Feuerbach noted, the actual religions to which we do adhere are elaborate fictions created by the projection of human virtues (and vices) onto the plane of the infinity. Thus, as Freud would emphasize later, we are collectively and individually led to reliance on an illusion." one last quote for you... "British and American Idealists: Of course idealism, with its promise of unifying everything under a single comprehensive system of knowledge, continued to find adherents through the end of the nineteenth century. In Germany, Rudolf Hermann Lotze tried to show that the necessity of absolute consciousness emerges even from a mechanistic study of nature. Among the English, T.H. Green postulated the total interconnectedness of everything, with abstract intellectual relations filling any apparent gaps, and Edward Caird employed the philosophy of Kant and Hegel in explicit opposition to Mill's empiricism. Despite vigorous opposition, absolute idealism was the dominant view in British and American philosophy through the nineteenth century. The most cautious and penetrating of the British idealists was F. H. Bradley, who devoted great attention to the logical development of his philosophical system. In an effort to link thought and reality without identifying them completely, Bradley analyzed individual judgments as requiring internal relations, abstracted by the mind in order to obtain genuine knowledge from a mere collocation of facts. Since reality is an undifferentiated Absolute presented to us in a multitude of appearances, Bradley supposed, our task is always to see through the contradictory clues provided by experience to the ultimately rational status of reality that must lie behind them. Scottish idealist Andrew Seth (Pringle-Pattison) emphasized the role of the individual human knower in securing the systematic unity of reality, while J.M.E. McTaggart developed powerful reasons for denying that time is real. Bernard Bosanquet rejected these innovations, returning to Bradley's conviction that the true nature of the Absolute is exhibited (imperfectly) in ordinary experience, which must be interpreted by rigorous adherence to a coherence theory of truth. In the United States, Josiah Royce developed an eclectic blend of these idealistic trends, centered on his unique analysis of the experience of knowing and error. Since knowledge would be utterly impossible if objects actually existed independently of our awareness of them, Royce argued, reality must simply be the sum total of our experiences, and all error must result from mistaken intentions on our part. (It was in opposition to this view that the pragmatism of William James later emerged.) Long after absolute idealism had ceased to dominate the philosophical landscape, American philosopher Brand Blanshard continued to use it as the basis for his trenchant criticism of logical positivism. With only slight exaggeration, however, it is possible to state that idealism died with the arrival of the new century." I was just thinking about some of the major problems with idealism, for instance there's the one mentioned yesterday that if the "reality" around us is really just a construct of our minds, why does our mind need this fake physical world to exist in. As well, how can every person's mind come up with the exact same fake "reality" so that we all interact coherantly. Or alternately, if everything is merely a construct of my mind, then I am the only actual sentient being in my immaterial reality and everyone I know doesn't really exist, and why just me? Assuming the former, I believe there is also a problem with time, or life and death... how do our minds, which create this fake reality, manage to create it with a continuing time flow that includes other minds from that past that had created all past realities, and why is time necessary in the first place then if not a physical reality? As we said before, everything is possible, but idealism doesn't seem very plausible. And mind you, I'm only taking a very general view at this, obviously there are much more detailed analyses on areas/topics which I most certainly have not thought of. this is all (minus my comments) from a pretty good website for basic browsing and more elaborate definitions at least... www.philosophypages.com
|
 |
«
should oscar da grouch pierce his willy?
|
dave, ryan, mike, steve, bobby t, & exhale affiliates
»
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:39 AM.
