/lit/ - Literature

>>17578058
>There is only one substance, and it is mind.

Source? Proof?

>>17578075
If you're a materialist, you can't explain sensory experiences. If you're a dualist, you can't explain how the mental causes the physical.

Idealism has no problem. Physical doesn't exist. All we know that exists is the mental.

>>17578082
That sounds like a sure-proof way to become schizophrenic

>>17578125
Don't worry bro it's not subjective idealism. Our experience is still real.

>>17578125
This stuff is totally theoretical and has no effect on my private life.

>>17578125
Yes.

>>17578058
Parallelism (Leibniz, Spinoza) solves it too. Why are you choosing idealism over parallelism?

>>17578202
Based schizo

>>17578125
Yes

>>17578216
Parsimony. Some people think parallelism has to deal with things like overdetermination. Idealism has zero problems.

>>17578232
Can you explain the overdetermination things?

>>17578058
Where do I start with subjective idealism/immaterialism?

>>17578058
Mind body problem was retroactively solved by scholastics. Read Feser (pbuh)

>>17578394
Hylomorphism doesn't solve anything, if the soul is the form of the body there is only one human soul which is absurd

>>17578394
Fuck off nigger

>>17578274
You're better off Googling it. It's a problem related to mental causation.

>>17578301
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/

or for German Idealism specifically https://iep.utm.edu/germidea/

>>17578082
Didn't Kant in his refutation of idealism say that the physical is real? What exactly are you referring to? What are your views?

>>17578125
did you mean to say fool-proof or sure-fire

>>17578394
>scholasticism in 2021
oh dear

>>17578058
this is exactly the type of post-kantian german idealism Hegel tried to go against. His notion of Geist is significantly more subtle than 'everything is mind'. its rather something like 'everything is the failure of substance'

>>17578478
I'm not taking any sides in which variety of idealism is correct or which philosopher's formulation is best. I am really just wondering why idealism isn't accepted as a solution to problems of mind.

>>17578496
That's just slight of hand semantic tricker.

>>17578075

>>17578484
both

>>17578478
For something to be physical it mustneeds to refer to the idea or paradigm of physicality. That is, the physical/material is dependent on the ideal/intelligible, not the other way around.

>>17578394
Based but we don't use (pbuh) when referencing living individuals

>>17578622
I don't think that's what Kant says.

>>17578650
I wasn't trying to guess what Kant said, just pointing out the implications of what OP conveyed and obstacles to dualistic philosophies.

>>17578687
Yes, but Kant refutes that. That's what I'm saying.

>>17578706
"didn't Kant refute idealism" sounds like you really know what you're talking about.

>>17578058
Plato and Hinduism solved this problem before it even arose.

>>17578706
The aim of that post was precisely to show how Kant has not refuted anything.

>>17578713
For fucks sake. He says in Prolegomena that he hates the them "idealism" being applied to his philosophy, so he uses "trascendental" or "critical idealism" (latter is obviously more precise is transcendental is also used for Fichte). In his chapter in CoPR LITERALLY CALLED THE REFUTATION OF IDEALISM he says that idealism (philosophies that came before him and lived yet after (obviously there's a difference between Berkley and Fichte)) is incorrect as self-consciousness presupposes the existence of external objects in space. The determinations in time require something permanent, but that can't be the consciousness itself.

>>17578733
It doesn't show anything. There isn't a single argument in this thread.

>>17578811
I'm not talking about Kant. I'm talking about the fact that you, without any confidence, came into the thread and said "didn't Kant refute idealism?" In Prolegomena Kant did post some arguments against Berkley but this is hardly a refutation. In fact it's not even the best argument.

>>17578058
Idealism is cancer that led to egalitarianism and communism and destroyed the west

>>17578870
You literally have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Communism is a materialist ideology.

>>17578811
>presents an argument
>that's not an argument
Is this how you will flee? Any thing to be something depends on intelligibility. End of story.

>>17578878
Communism is based on idealistic model of reality

>>17578840
Yes, I posted it as a question so that you may elaborate on your point. Argue against Kant and arguments. What the fuck do you want?

>>17578880
Does intelligibility come from thin air (actually, even that is materialist-based)? How does intelligibility relate to any thing?

>>17578940
Is this how you will try to refute idealism, asking where intelligibility comes from? I won't even waste my time, if so.

>>17578969
No, that's how I ask you to refute the refutation of idealism. Elaborate on your point.

>>17579030
So you think that asking ''where does this mind-thing comes from?'' is a refutation?

>>17579066
I think that you're just dodging the question. It's not a refutation. It's a question. The answer on that question is what can be refuted. Answer it.

>>17579108
I mean you just asked me to ''refute the refutation''. Anyhow, intelligibility comes from intellect/mind.

>>17578940
Relax. I'm aware that Kant argued against idealism, but let's not appeal to big names. Why do you think idealism fails?

>>17578082
>All we know that exists is the mental.
Mental doesn't exist either. All existence is a temporary illusion.

>>17579180
>is an illusion
So you concede that illusions exist. Are illusions mental or physical?

>>17579180
And besides, who is the illusionist?

>>17579182
>So you concede that illusions exist.
No, they're also temporary. Everything is temporary.

>>17579204
No one is, because there is no one. Every attempt to identify something, anything, is futile.

>>17579231
>No, they're also temporary. Everything is temporary.
doesn't change anything. it existed at one point. what was it?

>>17578058
Thia is retarded, anyone with understanding of programing and AI knows that the "mind" be it robot or human is nothing but a pattern of electrons, and thus physical.

>>17579180
>Mental doesn't exist either.
then it wouldnt be experienced, but it is

>>17579242
>it existed at one point.
Yeah, as illusion. Illusion as in a temporary configuration.

>>17579298
Experience is illusion.

If everything is mental, then the mental is also mental. What's left is something anti-identity, anti-comprehension, anti-knowledge, perhaps anti--existence (because all these things — identity and non-identity, comprehensibility and incomprehensibility, the known and the unknown, existence and non-existence — are part of the mental).

>>17579254
>OMG AI PROGRAMMING MUH BRAIN IS GOMBUTEEEER OMG ELON MUSK OMG OMG SPACE WEAR A MASK CHUD!!!! WEAR A HECKIN MASK!!!!!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!!! ONIONS ONIONS ONIONS FUCK MY WIFE PLEASE TYRONE WHILE I BINGE VSAUCE VIDEOS!!!!!! I F*CKING LOVE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY!!!!!! THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION WAS THE BEST THING EVER CHUD. BEING AGAINST TECHNOLOGY AND REFUSING TO BE A SOULLESD BUGMAN IS RACIST AND PROBLEMATIC!!!!! PLEASE PUT YOUR BBC IN MY MOUTH TYRONE I LOVE BEING A DEGENERATE I LOVE PORN I LOVE THE ENLIGHTMENT, LIBERALISM, NIHILISM AND HEDONISM!!!!! OMG TRANSHUMANISM!!!!! I LOVE TRANNIES I LOVE WATCHING TRANNY PORN SO I DON'T GET CANCELLED FOR TRANSPHOBIA!!!!! RELIGION IS RACIST AND SEXIST CHUD, CNN TOLD ME!!!!! SOULS DONT EXIST!!!!! WTF YOU HATE SCIENCE????? YOURE PROBABLY A DRUMPF NAZI SCHIZO!!!!

>>17578058
Not even the mind exists.
Everything is the illusion of thought.

>>17579361
Imagine championing ignorance

>>17579361

>>17579361
You're beyond salvation

>>17579133
I'm not a materialist. I'm not saying that idealism is necessarily wrong. For all we know, we might have the same philosophies, but I'm just here to question the bases of your (and everyone else's ideas). My first post was actually just a question to check your specific spice of idealism. I mentioned Kant mainly because he's the messiah of idealism and had his critiques *cough cough* of it. We can start over from there.

>>17579123
>intelligibility comes from intellect/mind
Should have seen that coming. I guess I should have asked where the mind/intellect comes from. (Also are you using Hegel's terminology when talking about intellect?)

>>17579340
>Experience is illusion.
No it’s not
>If everything is mental, then the mental is also mental.
Not everything is mental, objects are not mental, gravity and light are not mental
>What's left is something anti-identity, anti-comprehension, anti-knowledge, perhaps anti--existence (because all these things — identity and non-identity, comprehensibility and incomprehensibility, the known and the unknown, existence and non-existence — are part of the mental).
That’s wrong, because such. nebulous thing would not produce the existing conscious experience that we all possess

>>17579361
Wear a mask.

>>17579361
based

hylic-cucks btfo

>>17579449
>Not everything is mental
How can you ever know this? You have only your mind to figure things out with.

>>17578058
>there is only the mind

there is only the body, which includes the mind. You don't feel with your brain, you feel with your entire soma. Your conscious comes from perception, and perception comes from the senses; the whole body does sense and is the actor which we are--may that just be touch, hearing, smell etc., to resonance between people as most basic social sense, up to then complex logical senses : all we do is sense through our entire soma : the brain pilot, skeleton robot and meatsuit is a braindead onions take.

>>17578082
>If you're a materialist, you can't explain sensory experiences.
Source? Proof?

>>17579378
>>17579385
>>17579409
>>17579451
Clamped.

>>17579486
>If you're a dualist, you can't explain how the mental causes the physical.
If you're an idealist, you can't explain why the mental came into existence in the first place.

>>17578082
>If you're a dualist, you can't explain how the mental causes the physical.
If you're an idealist, you can't explain why the mental exists at all. What causes the mental to exist?

>>17579254
Lmao nice bait.

>>17578811
>The determinations in time require something permanent
*correct determinations in time
If the idealist doesn't accept that the ordering of your memories is necessarily objective, then they are not phased by Kant's argument.

>>17579482
>Your conscious comes from perception
This is either invalid or tautological. Sure, all consciousness is of perceptions, if you define things coming into consciousness as perceptions. But if you don't use that circular argument, then it's by no means guaranteed that your consciousness can only host bodily stimuli.

>>17579204
>And besides, who is the illusionist?
The Monad, of course.

How about you have a nice big cup of mind then?

>>17579564
Hypermental.

“The world is not merely physical, nor is it merely mental. Nor is it merely one with many subordinate phases. Nor is it merely a complete fact, in its essence static with the illusion of change. Wherever a vicious dualism appears, it is by reason of mistaking an abstraction for a final concrete fact.”

>>17579886
This guy has an unfortunate last name

>>17579886
>its all just an eternal, infinite flow maaaaan here take another rip of this bong duuuuuude

>>17579907
Cope

>>17578082
That’s called solipsism retard. Spinoza’s transcendent substance solves it all

>>17579920
>a complex web of causal chain reactions broooooooo

Nietzche BTFO idealism

>>17579996
Nietzsche BTFO himself out of having sex

>>17579361
How do I learn to refute my opponents so effectively like this guy?

>>17580012
He fucked everyone's brains posthumously

this nigga right here

>>17578058
Why do we need to fuck, eat and shit then. Also if it's all about that consciousness what happens when you sleep senpai

>>17578058
What about those billions of years before brains evolved?

>>17580110
dat nigga got a big head

>>17580216
that's ok, it only exists in our minds

>>17580110
Tell me that's photoshopped

That's Kastrup? I've seen pics of him looking more normal

>>17580276
maybe he got smarter

>>17580207
Uhhhh uhhhh akshually evolution isn't real and science is jewish

>>17580276
>That's Kastrup? I've seen pics of him looking more normal
There is no Kastrup. There is only cognitive movements within the one great will.

I guess if you take a man and add zero pussy ever he 'recognizes' the 'truth' of Schopenhauer

>>17578058
the problem with idealism is that it contradicts our intuition that other people have minds, because if they do, then your head is no longer whole universe

>>17580527
Your mind is a subprocess of the great universal mind.

>>17580629
Actually the great universal mind is a subsidiary of my mind

how would a mind or something "mental" arise from matter,

>>17580647
That is true of the representative model your mind has created of the great universal mind but not of the great universal mind in itself.

>>17578058
>idealismo
A tomar por culo

>>17580202
>>17580207
>>17580289
t. high schoolers
idealism is a metaphysical idea it has zero implications on science

>>17581000
But no, seriously. Fichte says that the Non-I is created by the I limiting and therefore determining itself. What about time before humans?

Did he fix Idealism, or was he full of shit?

>>17578058
Extension is a brute material property that is hard to ignore and intuitively obvious. Mind has no such property that hits to so obviously, the ego cogito is bound to a body so it doesn't count.

I generally agree with idealism but this one thing makes me iffy on it.

bump

>>17581057
Not real History. Also likely it was just in the mind of God/Absolute, so it doesn't concern us and we can't even say there was Time during that phase.

>>17578058
>Idealism solves the mind-body problem
> hasn't read Husserl.
NGMI

>>17582759
Seems a bit weak compared to the rest of idealism. Who said that and where?

Because you won't even have a mind if you don't feed it with material sustenance. The human being lives in two worlds, one of tangible need and one of mental need... most people just think one of those matters though

>>17581057
First, you should not ask about the time before humans but the time before you. And then, the answer is that the time before you came into existence together with you.

>>17583657
Why did I come into existence?

>>17583661
Because God was bored and thought it would be funny.

>>17582795
This is basically the un-said truth of German Idealism. But about the God thing, it's basically every idealist from Berkley to Hegel.

>>17581832
Replying to myself. I guess the obvious and intuitive property of mind is meaning.

>>17578183
As is all philosophy. It's just intellectual posturing. Anyone can speak on behalf of hypotheticals their entire lives, doesn't change a thing in the end.

>>17578622
Intelligibility is just as dependent on objectivity as objectivity is necessarily dependent on intelligibility. How can apprehension without objects to apprehend?

>>17580688
>in itself
A notion that your mind created, nothing more.

>>17579361
Based, sire. However, I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it is time for your afternoon dosage. Will you concede?

>>17578533
>slight
I think you're slightly retarded.