What is subjective idealism?

Question

Working from an initial standpoint of Descartes' questioning of the nature of reality. What is subjective idealism? How can it be defined? Can it be viewed as another form of sceptical philosophy?

Answer 1

When something is recognized by man's perception, what is really being processed is the idea itself, not that which is being recognized. Because the human mind is not a gauge or meter but rather a problem solver and conceptualizer, it cannot empirically value anything as definitely existing (yea, I hate this idea too and this is why philosophers never make any real progress in life).

For example, if I see an apple, my mind is processing the idea of that apple as it is recognized. I cannot confirm its existence versus a case where I might be hallucinating and just think the apple is there when it's really not. Even if I bite, chew, and taste the apple, I still cannot objectively observe the apple's existence b/c I'm experiencing that which I am recognizing instead of solely recognizing it by itself.

Answer 2

I was going to say "do your own homework" but, having seen some of the other answers, I thought I'd better weigh in.

Idealism, crudely put, is the view that "the world", "reality" or whatever is formed of "ideas" rather than things. Some idealist (many?) admit the existence of physical objects but relegate them to a subordinate role. In this view of the world physical objects are a phenomena caused by ideas. (Its the other way around with realism which would say that my perception of a pen is caused by the pen).

The term "ideas" is pretty broadly based and near enough refers to any thought process, including perception.

Now you can establish that you have ideas (thoughts, perceptions etc). If you claim to see a pen the pen may not exist but it is undoubtable that you have the idea of a pen.

(From the first couple of chapters of Descartes) you can deny knowledge of physical objects you are left with:

1. I know I have the idea of a pen
2. I do not know that the pen itself exists

Its now a short step to say that the pen as a physical object does not infact exist and all that does exist is the idea of the pen. Tada! - idealism. Note that this derived from "2." (above) - a sceptical argument.

Now the subjectivist bit comes from the fact that we have only established that YOU have the idea of the pen. If you do not come up with a decent reason why others should have the same idea of this pen as you then all you have is your personal idea of reality.

All you can know is your ideas. The world is your ideas.

(I don't think that most idealism arises from Descartes discussions though. Most of it comes from Kant's ideas of the "thing in itself" and its unknowability in principal)

Answer 3

i do no longer think of they're. in certainty, i discover idealist to constantly be subjective even whilst they do no longer admit it. by potential of definition, certainty for the subjectivist isn't based on the item, yet on what he "thinks" is right. That precisely is an idealist. So in case you have ever encountered somebody asserting that subjective idealism is contradictory, i'd certainly be interested in a proof.

Answer 4

I do not have any formal education in philosophy, and I find ideas from other people, as they add to your own view point versatility and depth of perspective, can also block the ways of intuitive thinking and thus one's ability to conceive new concepts and notions. I do however have a limited to exposure to what has already been said by great many great people down the ages. Besides, it is possible to start idealising the sources of knowledge, and then knowledge itself, at the cost of ingenuity of original mind. After having said that here is what I can find as a response to you valuable question:

I think that the best stand point for the acquisition of knowledge is refined self - an awareness that our mind is like a candle and if we see anything around we see with its own light. Things can have a reality of their own, and reality of each thing has a slightly different meanings for each other thing. In order to understand what things are we need consider all things from our own point of view. We can ask questions like: how a things can be defined in view of my own purpose? And what is good for me, and what is not? As opposed to what is good and what is bad, or what is the purpose of somethings. We can never understand anything if we do not consider ourselves first and for most.

Truth, Justice, Power and Beauty are all but extraction of our own observation that in itself is innately purposeful in our favour. Then in this world there is light and there is darkness, there is good and there is bad, there is life and then there is death. They all are found permissible in both the construction and the function of this world. Shall we accept all indiscriminately? If we accept things just because they exist and they are grand we perish. After all evil was allowed to be operational in our lives, but we are at the same time given the ability to choose. If we idealise anything in the world and ignore our own objective standpoint we lose this ability, and therefore our opinion against all that is transitive and transformable.

Answer 5

It's solipsism

Descartes did start it by making the only thing real and knowable mind. Of course it leads to external world skepticism. If you read just the beginning of the Critique of Pure Reason you'd know Kant is vociferously against this development.

Answer 6

Having goals or aspirations, or thoughts of how things "should" be, that do not pertain to actual reality per se but to one's own means and personal wants, seperately from it.

Answer 7

In broadly conceptual terms it is the converse of idealistic subjectivism which admits of no non-verbal definition.

Answer 8

is it perspective conceptuality?