The script to this video is part of... - The Philosophy Vibe - "Philosophy of Perception" eBook, available worldwide on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe3 - The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 2 'Metaphysics' available worldwide on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2
I think the 'gaps in our knowledge' problem with idealism is one of the best affirmations of realism. If there is no external reality, how is it that when we leave a candle in a room and come back several hours later, we all perceive the candle to have burned down to the same level? Everyone's mind somehow 'knows' what happened to the candle while they weren't watching, so all minds perceive the candle the same way in its changed state? Resorting to the existence of a god who implants the same perception in all minds, or somehow is identical with all minds, seems like a desperate argument. The far more intuitive and simpler explanation for why we all perceive the burned candle the same way is that there really is a burned candle out there, and we simply perceive it how it is. The other argument I find very convincing is John Searle's, from 'Seeing Things As They Are'. He points out that idealism commits a basic mistake, which is to say that we see mental images, rather than real objects. The mistake is that this is equivalent to saying that we 'see the seeing', which is obviously wrong, as the 'seeing' is simply the process by which we perceive the object, not the object itself.
I do not think this was a good description of Idealism. Solipsism is based on the notion of one mind “I am god”. Idealism infers one consciousness, which is viewed from various perspectives. Idealism and Solipsism appear to me to be very different propositions. I also do not see how time or cause and effect are problematic In Idealism, it is simply how the “illusion” or “manifestation of reality” functions.
The article on skepticism at Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy takes this topic to amazing levels, this video is a really good short introduction to that article.
None of our senses are "objective". They're impacted by our environments and even our emotional states. The sense of smell between individuals can vary by as much as 30%, it might be influenced by our diets. When a person is afraid, people quite literally look larger and more threatening; and certain settings, such as a dark alley, can seem more dangerous. People in the thick of infatuation are infamous for their inability to see the negative aspects of their beloved. The key to clearer perceptions? Don't engage in psychological projection, listen and process. Don't impulsively react, absorb and respond.
The direct realist is right, it is part of the external world. At that instance, at that point in time, the thing you are perceiving is in fact that thing, which is why you can perceive it like that at all.
@thesammy78ify No, more like when you look at an illusion, you are infact looking at a real illusion. The properties of subtances are real and have real effects. "The stick looks bent" is real. The stick itself is not bent due to the real natures of water, light, and wood. Same thing with the building. The building's height is fixed but the real perception of the height changes based on the real measurable distance. I'm sure it can't be argued that a 6ft man is more or less than 6ft based on how far away one is from him. One may percieve, (i.e. have a real perception based on the known laws of physics) that the man is shorter or taller, but when measured objectively, he is 6ft. I think the only argument against direct realism is that since the knowable universe is only knowable throught the mind, it is impossible to say whether anything outside of the mental exists. In essence, the only objection to realism is "But what if there's more that we can't percieve?" In regards to continuity, I think again, real objects have real properties. if it is in an objects nature to not move unless a force acts upon it, and no force acts upon it, then it will not move. This is still direct realism. If a real property of candlewax is that it will melt, then I don't have to watch it melt to know that the candlewax will observe that property. So practically, realism is the correct answer. Theoretically, idealism COULD be true, but we won't be able to prove it because any proof would require measurement of matter outside of mental experience - which is impossible because anything that can be measured must be filtered through mental experience.
@@rachelhawkins2084 I feel like Idealism could help explain the vast different world views when it comes to different cultures, religions, and politics. Idealism can also give people insight and vision on how to move forward in life while making significant progress. When it comes to the nature of reality and perception, I feel like direct realism falls incompatible with the scientific conception of a physical world. For example, our senses tell us that the sky is blue but we know through our reason and rationality that the sky is not blue. Also, if the sun is white at it’s ascendant but becomes more yellow and orange and red as it gets closer to the horizon, what would be the real color of the sun if our perception of it keeps changing? The main question I like to ask myself, “Is reality perception or is perception reality?” If you believe that reality is perception, mind is more important. If you believe that perception is reality, matter is more important.
@@rachelhawkins2084Brilliantly said! Idealism also supposes that there's an ultimate subject/observer that somehow has no immediate object(a body). We have no concept of what it even means for such a thing to exist. In fact as subjects, our existence is only possible due to our immediate objects. In fact we are objects capable of experiencing. The mind is made of matter and having it tampered with radically changes our perception. Idealism is just too woo woo magic. Anyone that has gone through a catastrophic experience like hunger, natural disaster, brutal death knows what they're experiencing is pretty real. No doubt solipsism emerges when Idealism is taken to its logical conclusion and solipsism is a nonsense idea, we'd all be doing what we want VAR style, but no we live in societies/nations with borders and have languages because things around us are real. And even if all this is a perfect elaborate simulation, then we are forced to play by the rules and so it really matters to continue playing as there's no difference as having the knowledge it's all a game doesn't make the level end. A corollary to this is that idealists fundamentally think there's a life after death. They refuse that death is final.
Berkeley accounts for the continuity of ideas in his theory of idealism with the existence of God. The room still exists when you walk out because God's mind is there to perceive it. This still agrees with the idea that everything around us is mind dependent as God's mind is the one perceiving everything around us which "maintains" everything in existence.
Wonderful explanation! I was trying to find the term “indirect realism” for years. Now I’ve finally found it. When I tell people, “reality is not reality”, they are often surprised and could never understand what I mean.
Okay and at long last I understand why George Berkeley resorted to idealism and stated that God was necessary as The Great perceiver, it's starting to come together now. Thanks.
Opposition to direct realism (vulgar materialism) and idealism are based on arguments of absurdity. Opposition to indirect realism (dialectical materialism) are based on, "waaaa waaaa makes me feel sad I wanna know for sure waaaa waaaa."
The world is real and that as Thomas Reid would say is "self evident" or true even of I can't prove it. That expression self evident from the Scottish School of Common Sense showed up in the American Declaration of Independence where it refers to our being ''created equa''l and entitled as such to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
It's more like that external world is like a server of a online multiplayer game , all players have to have the software and hardware compatible to connect, send and receive data from that server, it will make sure that users actions and interactions are kept in order so no user could cheat or change the rules of the game. If only those old philosophers knew about computer systems then, we would have an almost perfect simulation theory today. :D
I think the example about the building is wrong. direct realism and perspective seem perfectly compatible. So the object is smaller because it's at a certain distance, and distance is also part of the direct realism.
What complete nonsense. It has not been shown that the external world is devoid of colours, sounds and odours. And to suppose a direct realist claims that what we see is what the external world is exactly like is a straw man. Direct realism simply means that we directly perceive the external world, we do not perceive an image representing that external world.
I study philosophy at university and I am doing a work on this topic right now. This video is really helpful! It sums up a lot of good and important ideas. Great job! Keep it going! :)
Brilliant video, I’ve been trying to explain idealism to my family and peers but always find that having learned it in academia makes it hard to translate. I will be sharing this with them to make it easier.
The script to this video is part of...
- The Philosophy Vibe - "Philosophy of Perception" eBook, available worldwide on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibe3
- The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 2 'Metaphysics' available worldwide on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2
I think the 'gaps in our knowledge' problem with idealism is one of the best affirmations of realism. If there is no external reality, how is it that when we leave a candle in a room and come back several hours later, we all perceive the candle to have burned down to the same level? Everyone's mind somehow 'knows' what happened to the candle while they weren't watching, so all minds perceive the candle the same way in its changed state? Resorting to the existence of a god who implants the same perception in all minds, or somehow is identical with all minds, seems like a desperate argument. The far more intuitive and simpler explanation for why we all perceive the burned candle the same way is that there really is a burned candle out there, and we simply perceive it how it is.
The other argument I find very convincing is John Searle's, from 'Seeing Things As They Are'. He points out that idealism commits a basic mistake, which is to say that we see mental images, rather than real objects. The mistake is that this is equivalent to saying that we 'see the seeing', which is obviously wrong, as the 'seeing' is simply the process by which we perceive the object, not the object itself.
Isn't it true that all real objects must have come from nothing?
I do not think this was a good description of Idealism. Solipsism is based on the notion of one mind “I am god”. Idealism infers one consciousness, which is viewed from various perspectives. Idealism and Solipsism appear to me to be very different propositions. I also do not see how time or cause and effect are problematic
In Idealism, it is simply how the “illusion” or “manifestation of reality” functions.
The article on skepticism at Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy takes this topic to amazing levels, this video is a really good short introduction to that article.
What’s the name of the article
I want all my arguments to be like this
that that’s gotta be one of the best cut to “well that’s all we’ve got time for” moments I’ve ever seen
I feel a little bit smarter now thanks
None of our senses are "objective". They're impacted by our environments and even our emotional states.
The sense of smell between individuals can vary by as much as 30%, it might be influenced by our diets.
When a person is afraid, people quite literally look larger and more threatening; and certain settings, such as a dark alley, can seem more dangerous.
People in the thick of infatuation are infamous for their inability to see the negative aspects of their beloved.
The key to clearer perceptions? Don't engage in psychological projection, listen and process. Don't impulsively react, absorb and respond.
you make very good and logical videos...keep making them
Amazing Videos, Philosophy Vibe! I LOVE your channel. It's so helpful!
Thank you very much. Really happy to hear it.
Great video
Will you cover the rest of AS ethics like you have done for Philosophy please?
Indirect realism sounds like transcendental idealism
The direct realist is right, it is part of the external world. At that instance, at that point in time, the thing you are perceiving is in fact that thing, which is why you can perceive it like that at all.
@thesammy78ify No, more like when you look at an illusion, you are infact looking at a real illusion. The properties of subtances are real and have real effects. "The stick looks bent" is real. The stick itself is not bent due to the real natures of water, light, and wood.
Same thing with the building. The building's height is fixed but the real perception of the height changes based on the real measurable distance.
I'm sure it can't be argued that a 6ft man is more or less than 6ft based on how far away one is from him. One may percieve, (i.e. have a real perception based on the known laws of physics) that the man is shorter or taller, but when measured objectively, he is 6ft.
I think the only argument against direct realism is that since the knowable universe is only knowable throught the mind, it is impossible to say whether anything outside of the mental exists. In essence, the only objection to realism is "But what if there's more that we can't percieve?"
In regards to continuity, I think again, real objects have real properties. if it is in an objects nature to not move unless a force acts upon it, and no force acts upon it, then it will not move. This is still direct realism. If a real property of candlewax is that it will melt, then I don't have to watch it melt to know that the candlewax will observe that property.
So practically, realism is the correct answer. Theoretically, idealism COULD be true, but we won't be able to prove it because any proof would require measurement of matter outside of mental experience - which is impossible because anything that can be measured must be filtered through mental experience.
@@rachelhawkins2084 I feel like Idealism could help explain the vast different world views when it comes to different cultures, religions, and politics. Idealism can also give people insight and vision on how to move forward in life while making significant progress. When it comes to the nature of reality and perception, I feel like direct realism falls incompatible with the scientific conception of a physical world. For example, our senses tell us that the sky is blue but we know through our reason and rationality that the sky is not blue. Also, if the sun is white at it’s ascendant but becomes more yellow and orange and red as it gets closer to the horizon, what would be the real color of the sun if our perception of it keeps changing?
The main question I like to ask myself, “Is reality perception or is perception reality?” If you believe that reality is perception, mind is more important. If you believe that perception is reality, matter is more important.
@@rachelhawkins2084Brilliantly said! Idealism also supposes that there's an ultimate subject/observer that somehow has no immediate object(a body).
We have no concept of what it even means for such a thing to exist. In fact as subjects, our existence is only possible due to our immediate objects. In fact we are objects capable of experiencing. The mind is made of matter and having it tampered with radically changes our perception. Idealism is just too woo woo magic. Anyone that has gone through a catastrophic experience like hunger, natural disaster, brutal death knows what they're experiencing is pretty real. No doubt solipsism emerges when Idealism is taken to its logical conclusion and solipsism is a nonsense idea, we'd all be doing what we want VAR style, but no we live in societies/nations with borders and have languages because things around us are real.
And even if all this is a perfect elaborate simulation, then we are forced to play by the rules and so it really matters to continue playing as there's no difference as having the knowledge it's all a game doesn't make the level end. A corollary to this is that idealists fundamentally think there's a life after death. They refuse that death is final.
Really helped me with my homework although th characters are a little creepy
both are clean-shaved here
Idealism, I refute thee thus: *stubs toe on stone
FirstRisingSouI - you don’t understand Idealism
is it the same guy voicing over lol
pause the vid and click on this : 8:23 😂
Berkeley accounts for the continuity of ideas in his theory of idealism with the existence of God. The room still exists when you walk out because God's mind is there to perceive it. This still agrees with the idea that everything around us is mind dependent as God's mind is the one perceiving everything around us which "maintains" everything in existence.
Maybe the only mind that exists is God's mind (masquerading as many minds, i.e. our minds)-- there is your answer to solipsism. You're welcome. lol
Wonderful explanation! I was trying to find the term “indirect realism” for years. Now I’ve finally found it. When I tell people, “reality is not reality”, they are often surprised and could never understand what I mean.
Thank you, glad you liked the video :)
Its all we got so I'd say real enough hehe
British crossword puzzle clue: "A duck after tea? What nonsense!"
Answer: TWADDLE
Okay and at long last I understand why George Berkeley resorted to idealism and stated that God was necessary as The Great perceiver, it's starting to come together now. Thanks.
A pleasure, thanks for watching, glad we could help.
@@PhilosophyVibe ಠ‿↼
Opposition to direct realism (vulgar materialism) and idealism are based on arguments of absurdity. Opposition to indirect realism (dialectical materialism) are based on, "waaaa waaaa makes me feel sad I wanna know for sure waaaa waaaa."
Please study Theses on Feurabach by Karl Marx. He answers the criticisms of indirect realism made in this video without invoking idealism.
The world is real and that as Thomas Reid would say is "self evident" or true even of I can't prove it.
That expression self evident from the Scottish School of Common Sense showed up in the American Declaration of Independence where it refers to our being ''created equa''l and entitled as such to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
It's more like that external world is like a server of a online multiplayer game , all players have to have the software and hardware compatible to connect, send and receive data from that server, it will make sure that users actions and interactions are kept in order so no user could cheat or change the rules of the game.
If only those old philosophers knew about computer systems then, we would have an almost perfect simulation theory today. :D
I think the example about the building is wrong. direct realism and perspective seem perfectly compatible. So the object is smaller because it's at a certain distance, and distance is also part of the direct realism.
Idealism is a human-centric concept.
What complete nonsense. It has not been shown that the external world is devoid of colours, sounds and odours. And to suppose a direct realist claims that what we see is what the external world is exactly like is a straw man. Direct realism simply means that we directly perceive the external world, we do not perceive an image representing that external world.
I study philosophy at university and I am doing a work on this topic right now. This video is really helpful! It sums up a lot of good and important ideas. Great job! Keep it going! :)
Happy to have helped. Good luck with the philosophy degree :)
We and everything is energy using energy to communicate and experience
amazing video!!!
Thank you.
Unsettling characters, but decent discussion
Subtitles could have been more helpful.
Without a doubt the most entertaining and informative philosophy videos ive ever watched.
Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed.
Wait Til These Guys Get On My Level
Brilliant video, I’ve been trying to explain idealism to my family and peers but always find that having learned it in academia makes it hard to translate. I will be sharing this with them to make it easier.
Thank you!
That's the problem. People perceive TRUTH depending on the angle they looking at it
I LOVE THIS!!!1
love your videos!
We need this in politics
Completely agree
😮
His red pasties are pretty cool
The greatest theory of knowledge of the external world is Kant's critical idealism not even mentioned here. What a pity...
Is there anything in the world that John agrees with?
You never forget where you were when you first heard of Bishop Berkeley.
Sir, your videos and audio both are nice
Could you do plato's theory of the forms next time plz
Thanx for your videos.
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
Waah, soo good thanks 💗
You're welcome :)
6:34 It's actually pronounced bArkley.
Are you also going to talk about idealist philosophers other than Berkeley, like Hegel or Bradley? And what about antirealism/constructivism?
Or transcendental idealism (Kant)?