Argument for Idealism
The more I study philosophy the more that I am convinced that from our own point of view the only thing that exists is the mental activity that we are having at that moment.
This seems to solve self-referential paradoxes because it renders reference to things we can't think of (e.g. 'this sentence') meaningless.
Gettier problems are no more, due to 'justified true belief' being completely correct from your own perspective.
Problems of reference are also no more, words simply refer to thoughts - no need for separate theories for fiction, 'non-referring' terms (e.g. 'no-one') and names.
Quantum mechanics poses no problem, quantum and macro systems all work the same - for you, Schroedringer's cat doesn't exist until you think of it.
Vagueness poses no problem either. The heap doesn't exist (for you) until it is thought of as a heap.
Can we make a logical argument for this type of Idealism? I think we can. I am hoping you can tell me if the following is valid:
1. All and only things that you think are from your perspective.
therefore
2. (From your perspective) all and only things are things you think.
This seems to solve self-referential paradoxes because it renders reference to things we can't think of (e.g. 'this sentence') meaningless.
Gettier problems are no more, due to 'justified true belief' being completely correct from your own perspective.
Problems of reference are also no more, words simply refer to thoughts - no need for separate theories for fiction, 'non-referring' terms (e.g. 'no-one') and names.
Quantum mechanics poses no problem, quantum and macro systems all work the same - for you, Schroedringer's cat doesn't exist until you think of it.
Vagueness poses no problem either. The heap doesn't exist (for you) until it is thought of as a heap.
Can we make a logical argument for this type of Idealism? I think we can. I am hoping you can tell me if the following is valid:
1. All and only things that you think are from your perspective.
therefore
2. (From your perspective) all and only things are things you think.
Comments (46)
The premise, in the sense in which I believe you meant it, is a truism, and perhaps a tautology, and would be absurd to deny. I can think of a possible exception, in that we can and do think of things from the perspective of another. In fact, it's valuable to do so, especially in philosophy. But I don't think that that's what you meant.
It simply doesn't follow, from that premise alone, that all things are things that I think, even if you add the rather pointless qualification "from my perspective". I accept the premise, but reject the conclusion, and no contradiction arises as a result. Things that I think are merely a subset of things. The aforementioned statement is one which I believe to be true, not only from my perspective, but irrespective of it. That underlined statement implies that I maintain (and rightly so) that, at any given time, there are things of which I do not think.
Because we are interested in what exists FOR YOU. From your perspective everything is from your perspective!
Isn't it just a logical argument though?
1. All and only (things that you think) are (from your perspective.)
therefore
2. All (from your perspective) are (things are things you think.)
It is just
1. All and only As are Bs.
2. All Bs are As.
That's valid isn't it?
That would seem to imply solipsism, not idealism.
Additionally, I don't think we ought to give ultimate primacy to individual perspective.
Seems valid, but even if so, it seems trivial, and idealism doesn't follow from that alone, so I hope that you have more up your sleeve. You'd have to end up with a conclusion along the lines of: all [i]things[/I] are [i]things-that-I-think[/I]. (Which differs significantly from the conclusion that all [i]things-from-my-perspective[/I] are [I]things-that-I-think[/I]). If your next step is to add the premise that all [i]things[/I] are [I]things-from-my-perspective[/I], then that'll be where your argument fails.
Like Pneumenon, I'm not sure if "idealism" best sums up the position that you're arguing for. He said solipsism, whereas I was thinking relativism, although solipsism implies relativism. Do you accept the existence of other minds? Do you think that all is relative? Or (at least) that all truth is relative?
But all my claims are going to be from my perspective. Indeed it is impossible to make claims any other way.
If
All (from your perspective) are (things you think.)
then I should be able to truthfully utter
"All are things you think."
Which is indeed my claim.
You seem to think that that's in some way significant. The key word here, which you've thus far neglected, is dependency. Implicitly, I make claims from my perspective, but whether or not the truth-value of any given claim is dependent on my perspective is the salient issue.
Quoting invizzy
No, that'd only follow if all is from my perspective, but that isn't the case, and you haven't provided an argument for that claim in this thread. The burden of proof lies with you if that's what you're going to claim.
Your argument would be as follows:
P1. Everything from a person's perspective is a thing that is thought of.
P2. Everything is a thing from a person's perspective.
C. Therefore, everything is a thing that is thought of.
That's a valid syllogism, but it contains at least one false premise, viz. P2, and is therefore unsound.
Edit
Quoting invizzy
Come to think of it, I think I might have misread the above. I read it as:
(All from my perspective) are (things that I think).
But:
All (from my perspective) is things that I think
...Is the same as if I claimed:
All is things that I think.
...But I wouldn't claim that, because it's false. All is everything, not just things that I think.
Quoting invizzy
Also, your position is self-defeating. With statements like the above, we can ask whether they are relative or absolute. If relative, then the statement does not rule out absolutes. So, for example, you'd have to conede that it is possible to make claims in other ways, and that it might not just be true from your perspective, but true absolutely. (And we can take the [i]reducio ad absurdum[/I] even further. E.g. you wouldn't actually be able to consistently claim that anything is impossible in an absolutist sense, which is the only sense in which impossibility makes sense. And if you can't consistently claim that anything is impossible in a meaningful way, then goodbye fundamental laws of thought and rational discourse). If the statement is absolute, on the other hand, then it provides an example of an absolute statement, proving that not all truths are relative.
Quoting Sapientia
Sorry because it WAS a tautology I thought it trivially true and didn't include it in the premises. But surely it is true:
P. Everything from your perspective is from your perspective.
Tautological, yes. True? Of course.
And it is not self-defeating. We still have absolute truth, there IS absolute truth from your perspective. We can still be objectively wrong for instance.
It's also an admission of their own wilful ignorance.
If I hold the position I am talking to a different person, my perspective holds it does not exhaust reality. You, who is not me, who is not my perspective, is present. To then say: "but from my perspective there is only my perspective" is to ignore what I know about the world. It is to pretend the world is nothing more than matter of my perspective when I know very well it isn't.
But it does.
P1. All and only (things that you think) are (from your perspective.)
together with the new tautological premise:
P2. All (from you perspective) is (from your perspective)
C. All (from your perspective) are (things are things you think.)
It is just
P1. All and only As are Bs.
P2. All Bs are Bs.
C. All Bs are As.
You already said everything in C. in P1. (all and ONLY As are Bs- i.e. The entire set of B is As).
P2. is just a meaningless tautology. Of course, Bs are Bs. That's the identity of B. It isn't driving any so of conclusion about because nothing is premised upon it.
Um... of course I need P1, that's my argument. Otherwise I'd just be asserting C.
Now I agree P2 is a tautology, that's why I didn't have it originally. Others in this thread thought I needed it.
My point is that C. is merely a restatement of P1. You are merely asserting P1./C.
P2 doesn't give any conclusion about either A or B. You don't have a valid argument. All you have is a stated premise: "Set of As are the entire set of Bs" (P1./C1) and an irrelevant tautology "B=B" (P2).
There is no argument or reasoned conclusion.
Right. So you agree that the argument is valid, now you're just questioning P1., specifically whether there can be things from your perspective that are not mental? Actually, if I phrase it as 'mental' does that hold seeing it covers sensations?
Now I'm not entirely sure a room itself can be from your perspective, I would suggest only the thought of the room can. Do inanimate objects have perspectives as such?
Pretty sure
P1. All and only As are Bs
is different to
C. All Bs are As
Isn't it a syllogism? It is worked out logically i.e. not by observation. How exactly do you think logical arguments are meant to work if not like that?
Yeah that's my claim, only thoughts exist.
P1. says the same thing as C. through the "only." Since only As are Bs, you've already said all Bs are As. If there was to be a B which is not an A, it would mean it was not only As which are Bs.
Given P1., there is no possibility of a B which is not an A. C. does no work because you've already removed any possibility of a B which is not a A in P1.
Hence why it is a logical argument.
Quoting Pneumenon
Not quite sure what you mean here. Is that a question?
But it's not a valid logical argument because you have not concluded P1./C. You've just asserted all As are only Bs. It's a tautology. You haven't shown how all As are only Bs at all. You've just said its so.
My problem here is that either the argument is invalid, or the terms are being re-defined so as to have the implications you want. In either case, nothing is really demonstrated.
I don't mean to be rude but I'm not sure you understand how logic works. Maybe have a bit of a look over at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy?
Hope I'm not coming across as rude.
I'm still not getting your point though. You think that I'm claiming that perspectival = mental?
I know you don't know how it works, invizzy. How about that for some "rudeness?"
I've seen you do this all the time. You play convoluted words games and misread the use of those words for support of some concept you are arguing.
The argument you are trying to make would go something more like this:
P1. Property C is always found on As.
P2. Only Bs have property C.
P3. Anything with property C is an A.
P4. All Bs have property C.
C. All As are Bs
C. Any B is an A.
(or in long form: C. All As, and only As are Bs).
Your argument doesn't reason it conclusion. It doesn't have premise which lead to conclusions based on premises. You just say: "All As, and only As are Bs" and that's it. There is nothing showing why it is so.
Oh right, I think I'm with you. Yeah I think I am claiming that everything from a perspective is mental. That's what you would have to deny if you were going to argue against the conclusion. But I think it pretty obviously true that everything from a perspective is mental.
But you said it yourself, "Given P1., there is no possibility of a B which is not an A", therefore a completely valid conclusion from a premise P1. That is a logical argument in anyone's language.
No, that's an axiom or tautology.
If we accept that P1 is true, which we are in the context of the meaning of your argument, then there is no possibility of a B which is not an A. (hence you don't need C. or P2. to assert the point).
You haven't shown or concluded this must be so though. It's just the axiom tautology you've provided. You haven't given P1. any reasoned support.
What you are thinking of as a "logical argument" is not a valid argument but rather understanding of a basic definition. You are treating understand definitions as if they were a matter of giving a valid argument. Instead of realising we know what a definition means in the first instance (e.g. that saying "only As are Bs" means "there are no Bs which are not an A" ), you are working under the mistaken assumption that we somehow have to work thorough what a definition means, that we somehow have to exclude possible meaning it could have though reasoning about it with a valid argument. This is never the case. Any definition only ever has one possible meaning.
How about
P1. All and only (phenomenologicall experiences) are (from your perspective)
C. All (from your perspective) are (phenomenological experiences)
Does that suffer the same problems? It means everything is a phenomenonological experience, be it thought or sensation etc. I still think that is a form of Idealism.
Why did you have to qualify with "from my perspective"? It suggests that things can be true from another perspective or from no perspective at all. But if a thing can be true from no perspective at all then idealism fails and if a thing can be true from another perspective then things can exist which I don't think of.
The bit in bold doesn't follow. What (might) follow(s) is "everything from one's perspective is a phenomenological experience". The bracketed part of C. isn't optional.
Furthermore, if you can derive a conclusion from a single premise then that premise begs the question. Syllogisms require two or more premises.
That is not absolute truth. By definition, absolute truth is [i]absolute[/I], and therefore cannot be relative to a perspective. You cannot be objectively wrong either, since the very meaning of "objective" entails that it is independent of (not relative to) any subject or perspective.
My refutation stands.
Quoting Michael
I agree, especially with that last sentence. That was what I was trying to show in a previous comment. Basically, what it seems invizzy is doing with the brackets fails, because the following two statements aren't equivalent, either in meaning or in terms of truth:
1. All (from your perspective) is phenomenological experiences. [Presumably true]
2. All is phenomenological experiences. [False]