Since all reasoning, including the process of proving a conclusion, is conscious activity, and consciousness is consciousness of something, the primacy of existence is a necessary precondition of proof. One does not need to prove the primacy of existence since it is validated in every instance of consciousness. Thus the primacy of consciousness is false and existence, exists independently of consciousness. Wishing it so, does not make it so. Dreams do not alter reality. Minds cannot control reality nor project a different reality.
Take this thread and the processes leading to its creation. To consider idealism you have had to listen to and|or read information pertaining to the subject. You have had to then consider thoughts of others using information from their sensory perceptions. You have then assumed the physical world is real and that we can understand and see your posts through physical media. You have posted using touch to validate keyboard entry. If you spoke instead of posted and said: "idealism is true and empiricism is false". You would have to assume that you could hear yourself correctly to ensure you said what you said and not something contradictory.
To deny the validity of the physical world and sensory perception (including sight, hearing or touch) is to doubt you can comprehend, express or understand anything at all - including idealism. As an enterprise it seems to defeat itself ultimately.
It amazes me that a person chooses to live their life as if there is an independent physical reality in which their senses are valid and can perceive it. Then turns round and denies it to assert consciousness is primary and make-believe is possibly true. However, whilst my incredulity does not present an argument I am genuinely interested in how someone subscribing to idealism views their 'holographic' life. Would shooting yourself in the head be detrimental? Would driving your car into others be immoral? If you're an idealist and a Xtian, does that not deny the importance of bodily death and resurrection thus invalidating Xtian theology etc.?
Take this thread and the processes leading to its creation. To consider idealism you have had to listen to and|or read information pertaining to the subject. You have had to then consider thoughts of others using information from their sensory perceptions. You have then assumed the physical world is real and that we can understand and see your posts through physical media. You have posted using touch to validate keyboard entry. If you spoke instead of posted and said: "idealism is true and empiricism is false". You would have to assume that you could hear yourself correctly to ensure you said what you said and not something contradictory.
To deny the validity of the physical world and sensory perception (including sight, hearing or touch) is to doubt you can comprehend, express or understand anything at all - including idealism. As an enterprise it seems to defeat itself ultimately.
It amazes me that a person chooses to live their life as if there is an independent physical reality in which their senses are valid and can perceive it. Then turns round and denies it to assert consciousness is primary and make-believe is possibly true. However, whilst my incredulity does not present an argument I am genuinely interested in how someone subscribing to idealism views their 'holographic' life. Would shooting yourself in the head be detrimental? Would driving your car into others be immoral? If you're an idealist and a Xtian, does that not deny the importance of bodily death and resurrection thus invalidating Xtian theology etc.?
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
