UnderGround Forums
 

PhilosophyGround >> Idealism is false


2/19/05 8:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DonnaTroy
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 19-Feb-05
Member Since: 09/22/2002
Posts: 4435
I`m proudly old with a young heart! :-p (I´ll keep the final word. ;-) ) Nay, never mind. But, as time goes by, I understand things that really I could not perceive as a sttuborn teenager. Let me explain what I think intuition or wisdom may look like. Let´s say there is a sequence of true events like A => B => C => D => E => F And then I say A => F, without giving the full explanation. One may say I`m nuts, because he cannot foresee the entire logic behind the chain of events, once he doesn´t have experience/knowledge enough to know the event D. I know it is a simple example, and it could be more elaborated, but I hope you get the idea.
2/20/05 4:15 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dogbert
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14712
What is a true event? And why isn't it possible to simply mention the whole chain.
2/20/05 11:28 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DonnaTroy
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Feb-05
Member Since: 09/22/2002
Posts: 4442
I´m making it simple - true event in the sense they are absolute facts without discussion. To mention the whole chain. Why, if I already know the ending? Ain´t you lazy sometimes either?
2/20/05 12:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dogbert
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14716
If I'm too lazy to explain something (which does happens), I don't expect anyone to believe me.
2/20/05 1:04 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DonnaTroy
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Feb-05
Member Since: 09/22/2002
Posts: 4444
That´s when trust and confidence are important values.
2/20/05 1:17 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dogbert
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14718
That or patience...
2/23/05 6:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
87 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4362
Dogbert, My question, though, is that with very sophisticated Idealist views, what is a difference between the two that actually matters? For example, it seems to me that certain sorts of well thought out compatibilism and hard indeterminism, although seemingly vastly different views, merely vary only in what they are willing to call "free will." Sometimes the actual conclusions are more or less identical. It seems to me, that in my limited study of idealism, that most workable idealist philosophies might come to the same conclusion at the end of the day with materialist philosophies (EG. i still need to eat, wether my body is all in my imagination or not). That said, the more plausible conclusion to me is that materialism is the more accurate angle on the same conclusion. I could be off base, i'm glad your here :) -doug-
2/26/05 9:53 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dogbert
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 26-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14722
I agree that these are merely two modes of talking. But for some purposes (like epistemology), idealistic language seems more natural. Btw: I like these threads.
2/28/05 9:46 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
87 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4371
Ahhh, so for practical purposed, materialism might be superior, but for some (eg. epistemology) idealist language might be better? Thanks for the last sententence :) -doug-
3/1/05 2:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
JasonKeaton
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-Mar-05
Member Since: 03/12/2002
Posts: 837
Well, it certainly helps. Certainly the debte created by Descartes and more perfeted by Liebniz is completly necesary on whether there is a god. Not to start that debate but that is what it all stems from. This is sort of whee this is going. If we are simply more than our physical selves, then what are we? Aren't we more thn a brain? If so, then why is this? These guys prefer to bring the rason about that God , whih we have a connection with, is the source not only o the physical but the spirit or monad as Liebniz explained. The problem with this is that how can we truley observe the mind/soul/monad? The answer is we cannot. Here's the major problem with this ad hat the author is claiming. First, Spiritism provides you, the blievr, with hope a happines even in tims of despair where materialism, which he claims, loically leads to hopelessness. Why? If thee is a god and he is all powerful why does such things exist? Aren't we his children? Would you allow your hild to be miserable? I think hi logic is incorrect. None of this realy pans out in reality. People that take the idealis approah suffer the same as all of us. The same can be said o the materialistic. Both commit suicide. Other facts are invovled with this anyway. Moreover, this is the basic problem: Conclusions are started with and evidence is found to support the result instead of the other way around, Just like Dscarte and Liebniz, who at least ere brilliant and made a great argument unlike this guy.
4/7/05 9:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ashetarov
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Apr-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 188
You should read "The History of Spiritism", written by Arthur Connan Doyle, to know more about this doctrine. LOL! Doyle wrote fiction his whole life, and little else. I'm not sure what to call this book of his. His good buddy Harry Houdini spent 25 years investigating every aspect of spritism that someone with his fame and connections could, and wrote a lengthy book to debunk everything that Doyle claimed to be true about spiritism. I highly recommend Houdini's account in "A Magician in the Spirit World" for contrast to Doyle.
4/11/05 6:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Chuckk
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11-Apr-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 755
Doug, Idealism/Materialism is looking at the same phenomena from different ends of the telescope (or is it microscope? or. . . :-)) Chuck
4/12/05 11:15 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
87 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12-Apr-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4536
Chuck, Well, i agree that idealism can be compared to looking through the wrong end of a telescope/microscope. :) -doug-

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.