You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Idealism vs. Materialism

Jamesk November 28, 2018 at 08:53 14950 views 1006 comments
Does Berkeley provide an instrumentally better theory than Locke? Does he rely on the same arguments that he used to refute Locke? Does his attack on abstract ideas really undermine materialism in the way Berkeley believes it does?

Comments (1006)

Harry Hindu December 24, 2018 at 17:39 #240233
Quoting Terrapin Station
So see what I said right after that above:

But what you said after that - the part I quoted - you said that mental phenomena are a subset of brain phenomena. A subset is part of a larger group of similar things, not opposite things. Your subjective is subset of the objective. Either that, or mental phenomena are not subsets of brain phenomena.
Terrapin Station December 24, 2018 at 19:02 #240261
Reply to Harry Hindu

Not all brain phenomena have identical properties.

Some have property M. Some do not have that property.

The brain phenomena with property M are "subjective" but not "objective."

The brain phenomena without property M are "objective" but not "subjective."

The terms are simply another way of saying whether something has property M.
Harry Hindu December 24, 2018 at 19:46 #240267
Quoting Terrapin Station
Not all brain phenomena have identical properties.
They have at least one identical property. They are brain phenomena. Why can't you either admit that you are wrong in saying that mental phenomenon is subset of brain phenomena or that you were wrong is saying subjective is not a subset of the objective? When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Set M is a subset of a set B, or equivalently B is a superset of M, if M is "contained" inside B, that is, all elements of M are also elements of B. If that isn't what you are saying then its not just objective and subjective that you have idiosyncratic definitions for, you also have an idiosyncratic definition of "subset".
Terrapin Station December 24, 2018 at 20:03 #240270
Reply to Harry Hindu

Yes, they all have the property of being brain phenomena. Brain phenomena with the property of being mental is a subset, and "brain phenomena" is a superset that includes the subset of brain phenomena that has the property of being mental.

"Objective," however, in my usage, does NOT refer to "brain phenomena." Objective refers to things that do not have the property of being mental. So subjective stuff, in my usage, isn't a subset of objective stuff. I'm stipulating this. So it's not something I can get wrong. I'm telling you something about the way I use words. You can use the words differently. It's fine if you do.

There's no way in Hell I'd ever try to discuss anything more complex with you by the way, given the absurd difficulty we're having with something so simple and stupid.
Harry Hindu December 24, 2018 at 20:14 #240275
Quoting Terrapin Station
There's no way in Hell I'd ever try to discuss anything more complex with you by the way, given the absurd difficulty we're having with something so simple and stupid.

You're right. It is stupid. All because you couldn't answer a simple question several posts ago:
Quoting Harry Hindu
What is brain phenomena? Objective or subjective?


You beat around the bush, performing all these mental gymnastics before you finally, just now, answered the question:Quoting Terrapin Station
"Objective," however, in my usage, does NOT refer to "brain phenomena.

Finally!

Quoting Terrapin Station
Yes, they all have the property of being brain phenomena. Brain phenomena with the property of being mental is a subset, and "brain phenomena" is a superset that includes the subset of brain phenomena that has the property of being mental.


Quoting Terrapin Station
Objective refers to things that do not have the property of being mental. So subjective stuff, in my usage, isn't a subset of objective stuff. I'm stipulating this. So it's not something I can get wrong. I'm telling you something about the way I use words. You can use the words differently. It's fine if you do.


So basically you're logically inconsistent, but that isn't considered "wrong" in your dictionary. You have a problem.
Terrapin Station December 24, 2018 at 21:37 #240297
Reply to Harry Hindu

What's inconsistent there in your view?