subjective idealism?

Question

Hey I am a college student trying to write a paper on why subjective idealism is self contradictory and I cant figure out how it is contradictory any help??

Answer 1

Subjectivity is the chink in the armor. If something is subjective, then the meaning or essences or what ever you happen to be looking for is confined to the "subject." Someone who believes in idealism does not accept that there is anything except ideas that are experienced. Matter is an idea. Combine these two ways of thinking and you have someone who thinks there are no such things as objects and that he is the source of his own experience. If these two things are true, then he can make no statement which has a truth value, yet they write books and talk to other people as though the other people were real and matter. I find that a contradiction.

Sorry, but Bishop Berkeley was a rational idealist. A radical empiricist. The gentle person below is not correct. Kierkegaard would be a better candidate.
I don't mean to make this a chat, but the answer below is so wrong that I have to say something. Berkeley never said anything that could be so easily destroyed as the straw man the good doctor refutes. His philosophy, an extreme form of empiricism, denied that essence could lie in something that could not be experienced. He never denies any natural consequences of interaction in nature, only that they must be experienced.

There once was a man who said “God
must think it extremely odd
that this tree
continues to be
when there’s no one about in the Quad

Dear Sir, your astonishment’s odd
I am always about in the quad
that’ why this tree
will continue to be
since observed by, yours truly God

The material world works for Berkeley's system exactly the same as it would for a rational realist. They just disagree about ultimate causes. A subjective idealist is in a different kettle entirely. The term is almost equivalent to solipsism.

Last note: I am wrong according to the authorities on the web. They list Berkeley as a subjective idealist. But if that is true, what is Kierkegaard? Berkeley thought that God provided the necessary connections for all our perceptions to agree. That sounds objective to me. Sorry, Doctor but I was wrong.

Answer 2

Well, the main modern proponent of subjective idealism was George Berkeley, who described it famously as 'esse est percipi' or 'to be is to be percieved'.

He thought that there was no material or subtance at all in the universe... or if there was that there was simply no way to ever know about it. To him (and most subjective idealists) the only thing that verifiably exists is the mind, and it is completely useless to even try and speculate about anything beyond.

In this view objects only exist when they are being percieved, and simply don't exist otherwise. This might, perhaps, lead you to your first contradition - who do things SEEM to be permanently present if they cease to exist when we're not looking at them? Or for that matter if their only existance is in the mind, why does everyone's mind tend to see them in the same way?

Berkeley extracted himself from this conundrum by suggesting that his god was always watching everything and thus keeping all those things in existance. Pretty weak, in my opinion, but some subjective idealists don't even go that far - they just cite it as an unexplainable mystery.

We can probe further and come up with other problems, if we like. If fires and bullets and our bodies don't have any existance beyond our perception of them, why do they seem to harm and kill us? If a sensation is indistinguishable from a reality, why is a picture of a gun not able to kill people? Or if everything we perceive has a completely inperceptible nature that we can never even speculate about, how is this a useful philosophy in any way (since nothing external is real, its much like solipsism or nihilism in unproductiveness)?

Of course, adherents have their own ways of addressing all these questions, but they could be seen as inherent problems, if not outright contradictions. Subjective idealism is usually seen the same way as some of those other philosophies I mentioned above - not inherently contradictory or disprovable, but completely useless even if it is true and therefore not worth a lot of discussion, except perhaps as a contrast to other, more solid, philosophical viewpoints.

That's my take anyway, for what it's worth. Hope that helps!

Answer 3

George Berkeley Subjective Idealism

Answer 4

Idealism is seeing things in a way you personally feel is perfect, and subjectivity is seeing things on a per-subject (one-by-one, each different) basis...therefore, each subjective idealist would have to, logically, negate one another, or at least vary to the degree that they would diminish one another.

Answer 5

i grew to become into going to assert "do your guy or woman homework" yet, having considered countless the different solutions, i assumed i could extra appropriate weigh in. Idealism, crudely positioned, is the view that "the international", "actuality" or regardless of is shaped of "recommendations" particularly than issues. some idealist (many?) admit the life of tangible gadgets yet relegate them to a subordinate place. in this view of the international actual gadgets are a phenomena led to by making use of recommendations. (Its any different way around with realism which might say that my concept of a pen is led to by making use of the pen). The time era "recommendations" is incredibly widely based and close to sufficient refers to any concept technique, inclusive of concept. you are able to now set up which you have recommendations (ideas, perceptions etc). in case you declare to work out a pen the pen won't exist even though it is undoubtable which you have the assumption of a pen. (From the 1st couple of chapters of Descartes) you are able to deny information of tangible gadgets you're left with: a million. i understand I definitely have the assumption of a pen 2. i do no longer understand that the pen itself exists Its now a short step to assert that the pen as a actual merchandise does not infact exist and all that does exist is the assumption of the pen. Tada! - idealism. notice that this derived from "2." (above) - a sceptical argument. Now the subjectivist bit comes from the shown fact that we've in basic terms typical which you have the assumption of the pen. in case you do no longer arise with a respectable reason others could desire to have the comparable concept of this pen as then you all you have is your guy or woman concept of actuality. All you are able to understand is your recommendations. the international is your recommendations. (i do no longer think of that maximum idealism arises from Descartes discussions inspite of the shown fact that. maximum of it comes from Kant's recommendations of the "ingredient in itself" and its unknowability in central)