Friday, March 6, 2009

Idealism vs Realism

Idealism is the philosophical theory which maintains that the ultimate
nature of reality is based on mind or ideas. It holds that the so-called
external or "real world" is inseparable from mind, consciousness, or
perception.

Realism is the philosophical doctrine, opposed to idealism, that physical
objects exist independently of their being perceived.

It turns out, both of these 'isms' are partially correct with idealism more
so than realism.

My metaphysics article says our physical universe is a self contained set
of interacting logical ideas. Our minds process these ideas, and we think
they are real. So, I placed ideas at the top of the roots of the tree of
knowledge
along side of philosophy .

One can read about Plato and his cave allegory. People who live in the
cave think the shadows on the wall are real. A cave man came out and
returned. He tried to explain the truth about the shadows, but the others
thought he was crazy.

One can continue to read the history of idealism and reach Bishop
Berkeley
. He contends that individuals can only directly know sensations
and ideas of objects, not abstractions such as "matter." As a bishop, an
idea of a Christian God is always in his background, and bringing a God
into a discussion is a 'turnoff' for may realists.

For example, God2 created our intelligently designed perfect physical
universe as a school and as a teacher. Since it is perfect, God2 is not
going to change anything. So, talking about or to this God2 is pointless.

The purpose of our physical universe is to teach us illogical Beings
how to reason logically. Therefore, one should treat all physical objects
as real. They are there to help teach us how to reason logically.

Realist are correct in that physical objects exist independently of their
being perceived, because our school continues. It cycles from one Big
Bang to the next and is independent of its students.

I don't think realists can detemine the answers for questions related to:
who, what, when, where, how, and why. When, and where are not
important, but who, what, how and why are given in my metaphysics
article.

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Philosophy:Metaphysics_(AV)

1 comment:

  1. Hi Charles..
    you need to remove the hard line breaks in this and some other posts so the wraparound can occur naturally..

    good stuff!! -- jose s.
    http://bibledecoded.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete