3 ms·

Is this not a form of Idealism?

• RivieraKid 9y ago
  Yeah, it seems to be vaguely similar.
  • monktastic1 9y ago
    By your second bullet, it seems to meet the broad definition: "In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial." You might find it interesting to read about various forms: http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_idealism.html http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_idealism.html. Kastrup's work will probably interest you too.
    • tpeo 9y ago
      This definition bothers me immensely, because it can tempt people to make argumenta ad lapidem against idealism. Yet "idealist" philosophers can superficially fit the criterion of "believing that reality is mentally constructed" but not believe that things only exist in so far as they are perceived, as Berkeley did, and that someone might just walk through walls if they really want it so. Specially because certain words have no uniform usage among philosophers Kant for example, might be said to have believed that "reality" was "mentally constructed", and he used a really similar language in describing how we perceive the world. But he also wrote quite clearly that Berkeley's idealism was absurd and that we can never perceive anything which violates physical laws. And together with denying the possibility that we might ever come to real knowledge of the world by thinking alone, that was the whole point of his "transcendental idealism".
• RivieraKid 9y ago
  By the way, briefly looking into Kastrup's views, they seem very similar to mine. I'll definitely look more into it. Perhaps my main disagreement is that he puts other people's minds on the same level as one's subjective consciousness (but this is just after quickly skimming the paper).