« When Politics Comes to be Like Philosophy | Main | Facebook »

Monday, June 13, 2022


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

>Kant's brand of idealism is neither subjective nor objective, but transcendental. What this means I will explain later.

I look forward to this.

On relational 'properties' Ockham (Summa I.50) argues that if relation existed outside the mind "then whenever a donkey moved locally here below [on earth], every celestial body would be changed, and would receive something anew in itself, because otherwise it would be more distant from the donkey than now, and if distance were another thing , it would truly lose one thing and receive another anew".

1. Cambridge properties are properties.

2. You ignored the money example.

3. You didn't rise to the challenging of providing an example of a 'name' philosopher who is a subjective idealist by your definition. Berkeley is no example, and neither is Hume, since he is a skeptic.

>You didn't rise to the challenging of providing an example of a 'name' philosopher who is a subjective idealist by your definition.

Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Kant.

But rather than get into a protracted dispute about the textual interpretation regarding the first three, I want to hear about Kant.

Money: I agree with you. But the physical object which we use for money is not mind-dependent.

But if you prefer, change the definition as follows.

Subjective idealism is the position that some or all of the features of objects that we commonly take to be mind independent are, in fact, mind dependent.

Thus I (being a common person) take the being-seen of my desk as mind dependent. As soon as I stop looking, the being-seen ceases. But I take the blackness of the desk's surface, its shape, the fact that it exists here in this room at all, its continued identity through time, as mind independent. A subjective idealist would question some or all of these independency assumptions.

Meanwhile I shall work on assembling a set of proof-texts from our four philosophers.

This from NKS may help

“I shall use the term subjectivism (and its equivalent subjective idealism) in the wide sense which makes it applicable to the teaching of Descartes and Locke, of Leibniz and Wolff, no less than to that of Berkeley and Hume. A common element in all these philosophies is the belief that subjective or mental states, " ideas " in the Lockean sense, are the objects of consciousness, and further are the sole possible objects of which it can have any direct or immediate awareness. Knowledge is viewed as a process entirely internal to the individual mind, and as carrying us further only in virtue of some additional supervening process, inferential, conjectural, or instinctive. This subjectivism also tends to combine with a view of consciousness as an ultimate self-revealing property of a merely individual existence.”

I agree with it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2008



February 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29    
Blog powered by Typepad