Talk:Subjective idealism
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Classic Idealism
[edit]I'm pretty sure the proper term for Berkeley's philosophy is "classic idealism," not "subjective idealism." Berkeley would object to his philosophy being termed "subjective," as he holds strongly to a belief that the physical world does have an objective existence, he just claims that that existence is dependent on God. --kpearce 07:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, almost all philosophers use the term 'subjective idealism' when discussing Berkeley's metaphysics. It seems that the term subjective is being used in a different context then that of 'being open to interpretation'. Perhaps it is 'subjective' because objective reality depends on a relation of ideas formed by a subject? With that subject being God?--Laplace's Demon 06:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The quote claims that subjective idealism leads to solipsism, without explaining why this is the case, I think that this is unacceptable and I deleted it User:Sewblon
Objective & subjective.
[edit]In the objective idealism article talk page I mention how that article and this one do not clearly show the difference between those two kinds of idealism, and do nothing to distinguish the two as being in any way different except by claiming so. What is the difference? Does the ideal world posit itself to the subject in subjective idealism & the subject project the ideal world from themselves in objective idealism? That is all that could be gleamed from how they are now written: The terminology sounds reversed if that were the case but it may have nothing to do with such a difference taken to be.
It would seem to me from the nature of the persons associated with said respective philosophies that subjective idealism denied a material existence & objective idealism accepted it though made it unaccountable; however the writing on the objective idealism page immediately seems to posit that its world is purely ideally created also. Nagelfar 21:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Berkeley was a monist, that is he believed there was only one substance. Furthermore he believed that this substance was minds and their ideas, which means he denied any material existence, as you say above. So subjective idealism is a monist idealist position. OTOH objective idealism accepts that material objects exist as well as the mind, so it is a dualist position, as is implied when the Objective idealism article says: "Plato is regarded as one of the earliest representatives of objective idealism", because Plato was a dualist. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Whoever wrote the following sentence...
"This form of idealism is "subjective" not because it denies that there is an objective reality, but because it asserts that this reality is completely dependent upon the minds of the subjects that perceive it."
...should rethink it. I think the author meant something like "This form of idealism asserts that "reality" is completely dependent upon the minds of the subjects that perceive it." WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Strange external links
[edit]- Applied solipsism
Currently this link is blocked by the government of US.
http://www.oocities.com/CapitolHill/8171/solipsism.htm
Looks suspicious, because of the resemblance to now defunct geocities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.14.254.26 (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
See also section doubled
[edit]Greetings! The See also section just recently doubled[1], expanding from 8 links to 16 links. Most of these links, although being related to philosophy in the broadest sense, don't seem to be related to "subjective idealism" in specific. There was no Edit Summary provided, so I was hoping if the very editor could explain these additions. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- According to WP:LINKFARM: "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: [...] Internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow the guidelines outlined at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lead and selection criteria." Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Pantheism
[edit]Pantheism does not "appeal" to anything. Pantheism does not "appeal to a world-spirit". All pantheism says, is All is god. That's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.45.193 (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)