Fine, then my answer is "yes". Idealism is the sentence "only mental phenomena exists". For idealism to be the case is for the sentence "only mental p...
That neither explains to me what the square root of NOT means nor addresses my claim that "only mental phenomena exists" does not logically entail "on...
What exactly do you mean by the square root of NOT? I thought you were talking about the square root of the word "not", which doesn't make sense to me...
Given your unwillingness to either provide an argument that shows that idealism entails solipsism or to address the fact that logic and logical conseq...
It's a misleading question that tries to avoid addressing the point I'm making. I'm not going to fall for such a transparent attempt. The fact of the ...
I'm claiming that "Logical consequence is one of the most fundamental concepts in logic. It is the relationship between statements that holds true whe...
Here you said "What I'm saying is that solipsism is logically entailed by , and idealists are believing something incoherent if they're not solipsists...
Because, according to the idealist, these proofs don't work, such a square root isn't allowed, and idealism is the case. How would the non-idealist ad...
It has nothing to do with what I'm discussing, which is that idealism does not entail solipsism. You asked "if Idealist reality does not operate by lo...
The exact same rules that we currently use. Why would it be any different? The laws of thought and the rules of inference do not depend on realism or ...
I don't understand what you mean by reality operating (or not operating) by logic. It seems like a category error. If you just want to know if the axi...
If it's not a matter of following from sentences then it's not a matter of one claim ("idealism is true") logically entailing another ("solipsism is t...
How do we know that any kind of reality operates by logic? Does the question even make sense? It's language that operates by logic, and I see no reaso...
Yes I do. Given that one statement only follows from another if they mean the same thing (or if the latter contains the former), and given that "only ...
Because I don't need to. If one statement logically follows from another then you can show this without my help. I'm not doing your work for you. You'...
You should be able to. If one thing is logically entailed by another then you should simply be able to list the premises and derivations that show thi...
But it isn't. How can you derive "only my mental phenomena exists" from "only mental phenomena exists"? You can't. Just as you can't derive "only my p...
But it doesn't. It's a straightforward semantic fact that "only mental phenomena exists" doesn't entail "only my mental phenomena exists", just as "on...
That's a separate issue to the topic that I'm discussing, which is that idealism doesn't entail solipsism and doesn't 'define subjectivity out of exis...
They might infer it, just as the physicalist does. But unlike the physicalist they reject the claim that these things are non-mental in nature, either...
So you want to know if idealists would accept the truth of "the things I experience don't exist insofar as I know when I don't experience them"? Which...
I don't understand how that follows. Like Harry you seem to be understanding idealism as the claim "X exists only if I experience X". But that's not n...
Reality is everything that exists. Awareness is thoughts and memories and sensations. Exactly as it is for the realist. It's just that whereas the rea...
So it's more reasonable to conclude that the wife's decision to drop her rape accusation after Trump settled with her husband was a mere coincidence? ...
Seriously? Can you not see the hypocrisy here? You will come up with any rationalisation to defend Trump against his rape accusations and any rational...
Agustino, Trump settled with his ex-wife over a rape accusation. A sexual assault charge by another woman was also withdrawn after Trump settled a par...
That they refer to the same thing is not that they mean the same thing. And that "intelligent species" refers only to humans doesn't mean that there a...
Sturgeon's bringing back a Scottish independence referendum. I wonder how long till Cornwall push to leave. Maybe even a return of the Kingdom of Wess...
Unless you're a one-man society, I don't see how that follows. Compare with: "if the English language is socially constructed, and there is no objecti...
That doesn't follow. Rather you should say "i.e. other people (?) of different species don't matter as much to you". And that's true, they don't. Huma...
I don't see why it's inconsistent. Am I inconsistent if I eat a burger but not a hot dog? I don't think so. So why am I inconsistent if I help one per...
I fail to see why "but then that would undermine the idea of being able to make sense of the distinction in the first place" applies to the idealist b...
Yet the idea of physical existents is coherent? So it seems to me that you're being inconsistent here. If "the only way that the ideal/mental category...
There can be a conceptual distinction even if the concept is of a thing that isn't real. We can conceptually distinguish between the physical and the ...
I've already gone over this. It doesn't redefine awareness as reality. It simply restricts reality to awareness. That's not the same thing. If I restr...
Of course there wouldn't be an awareness of an objective reality. There'd just be an awareness of a subjective reality. The things I'm aware of are th...
But it is the definition that the IEP uses. Again, it's not relevant, as I'm only explaining how the IEP defines the term. You're more than welcome to...
Comments