Berkeley's Idealism

[The Grand Nudger]

The shit and run that never leaves.....

[genkaus]

Agree. The question is whether perception occurs in physical reality or a purely mental one.

The former. The perception of illusion of perception occurring in the mental reality is called projection.

One need only provide a mechanism in which to ground facts. That ground could either be an enduring physical reality or a universally enduring observer.

Incorrect. Facts are by definition grounded in reality. They don't require provision of an arbitrarily defined ground. Fact-like statements grounded in the observer - whether enduring or not - are called opinions.

Both share the quality of Being-in-Itself.

Not according to Sartre.

Being-in-itself refers to objects in the external world - a mode of existence that simply is. It is not conscious so it is neither active nor passive and harbors no potentiality for transcendence. This mode of being is relevant to inanimate objects, but not to humans, whom Sartre says must always make a choice.

---

All I am saying is that we share the burden of proof. You must prove the existence of a physical reality independent of a mind that observes it. I must prove the existence of a mind independent of physical reality. Since neither of us can do that both of our ontological claims are equally valid.

That statement shows the critical error of your thinking.

Concepts such as proof, evidence or validity belong to the epistemological field. Your statements here are metaphysical (or ontological) in nature. Epistemology is a derivative of metaphysics, i.e. there are certain metaphysical assumptions it must make before evaluating the concepts such as proof or validity. Using these concepts to judge the validity of ontological claims is attempting to prove/deny the antecedent.

That does not mean that all ontological claims are equally valid. To judge the validity of an ontological claim, we must look to its consistency with the entailing epistemological statements.

When talking about facts or evidence, you are talking about state of reality as it exists - independently of any mind. The mind-independence of reality has already been assumed for any notion of proof to exist. That is the only metaphysical premise from which that concept can rationally entail. Thus, given your epistemological reliance on proof for validity, any contradicting ontological statement automatically becomes invalid.

---

I too want to see the trump card. No sophestries or philosophies or subtle shit.

You do realize that this is a Philosophy forum?

[reverendjeremiah]

I too want to see the trump card. No sophestries or philosophies or subtle shit.

You do realize that this is a Philosophy forum?

YIKES...didnt notice that.

Okay...continue the bullshit then.

[The Grand Nudger]

How much value do we assign a philosophical argument whose premise and assertions do not align with the world beyond the argument? Pretty sure there's a component of demonstration..even in philosophy. But hell, maybe it is a fortress for whatever can be imagined.

[genkaus]

How much value do we assign a philosophical argument whose premise and assertions do not align with the world beyond the argument?

To the extent that error in such an argument is not obvious, some value must be attached regarding its potential to lead others into accepting false philosophical premises.

Pretty sure there's a component of demonstration..even in philosophy. But hell, maybe it is a fortress for whatever can be imagined.

If you mean demonstration as in physical evidence, then it would not be possible for a metaphysical statement since such a demand has already assumed certain metaphysical statements and any form of demonstration would be an attempt to prove/deny the antecedent.

However, demonstration regarding the internal consistency of the philosophy is not only possible but required.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm referring more towards what must be done after the argument appears to be both valid and sound. Some connection must still be drawn, must it not?

(LATE EDIT) What I'm trying to express here, is that whether or not an argument is internally consistent is all well and good. It's more important to me, personally, that the argument be consistent with more than just itself.

[genkaus]

I'm referring more towards what must be done after the argument appears to be both valid and sound. Some connection must still be drawn, must it not?

(LATE EDIT) What I'm trying to express here, is that whether or not an argument is internally consistent is all well and good. It's more important to me, personally, that the argument be consistent with more than just itself.

Right -
I meant to comment on this point but it slipped my mind.

If a philosophy is internally consistent and if even a single part of it is incompatible with reality, then it is - as a whole - incompatible with reality and therefore should be discarded. Such a philosophy would not be consistently practicable and a person would only be able to live according to it as long as he picks and chooses from its parts.

So, when confronted with any philosophy that seems logical on the face of it, one has one of the two courses - either find an example of internal inconsistency or show its incompatibility with reality - and the philosophy would stand refuted.

This task is much simpler than the one upon the person proposing the philosophy. He has to make sure that there is not a single point of inconsistency or incompatibility. In a discussion, I find it much easier to provide the refutation than discussing the validity of each and every point.

[The Grand Nudger]

Definitely my experience as well, as minor as my experience is in this regard, lol.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Reply to Genkaus:

My judgment must have been clouded by annoyance with the constant boilerplate responses about “burden of proof.” My goal is to learn, not to “win the debate.” Arguments about BOP stop further inquiry on everyone’s part. I wanted to keep the discussion going. I apologize for the distraction. Thank you for clarifying that the demand for physical proof of a metaphysical claim is unreasonable. Hopefully, others will take this message to heart.

“The refutation [of Berkeley’s Idealism] lies in the argument itself. If observation is required to sustain reality then who observes the god in order to sustain it.” –Genkaus

Your statement is logical, however, I find the implied definition of “reality” as physical reality problematic. Our nomenclature may be slightly different and I would prefer not to bicker about semantics. I consider myself a layman and may not be up to date with conventions common in academic circles. I also attempt to use everyday language to the greatest extent possible.

Like you, I consider reality a given. My concerns revolve around the scope of various ways of talking/thinking about that reality. As I see it physics describes one aspect of reality (material interactions) and has provided powerful means of interacting with reality, i.e. stainless steel, the polio vaccine, transistors, etc. I understand metaphysics to include all other fundamental parts of reality that support the validity of physics and the integrity of the scientific method as it applies the parts of reality governed by physical laws.

The fallacy of stolen concept, as you presented it, indeed applies to the Idealist/Materialist issue. And I should not have dismissed it so lightly, partly because I my line of thinking falls somewhere between the two. At least now I fully grasp the importance of simultaneously consideration both the epistemology and ontology of the problem. They seem intimately entangled to me. Panetheism appears to make both nominalist (sorry no everyday word for this) and realist claims depending on the aspect of reality under consideration.

“If existence were determined by perception there could be no facts. Facts must be independent of perception. Without facts there is no such thing as proof.” – Genkaus

I’m not comfortable with the way you formulated this statement. I’ve been experimenting with alternate forms, such as…
1. A fact is a true statement about a thing that will be true even when the thing goes unobserved.
2. “P” is a true statement about a thing “E”.
3. Thing “E” goes unobserved, therefore…
4. Statement “P” cannot be a fact.

I have not had time to consider the full implications of such a statement, but I will be giving it much thought while I am away on a business trip.

[reverendjeremiah]

The shit and run that never leaves.....