Idealism does not hold all of our perceptions suspect. We certainly have those perceptions, and if they aren't dreams or hallucinations then they do in fact represent some objective reality out there. We just don't know the true form of that reality, that's all. We know what we PERCEIVE, and that's all we CAN know. This is so entirely and obviously common sense that I don't see how anyone can argue with it. In many cases the arguments against idealism use straw man arguments that present idealism as saying things it doesn't really say. That is either a) ignorant or b) disingenuous argumentation - either way it's not high quality argument.
Moore’s response shifts the focus to the certainty of immediate experiences, almost as if, “Let's not overcomplicate what’s in front of us.” It’s true that arguments against idealism can sometimes veer into straw man territory, but Moore's commonsense approach serves more as a counterweight to extreme skepticism than a full-on dismantling of idealist philosophy. In a way, both sides are grappling with the limits of what we can truly know.
@@echoofanecho I actually accept that argument as a pragmatic approach to living. I mean, these ARE real experiences we're having - so why not just behave that way. It's really only in philosophy where one can take a more pedantic approach toward things - "precision and clarity" is really part of what they try to do. I think what I outlined earlier is a valid philosophical argument, but it's really a bit silly as a way of "approaching life." My big problem with materialism is that no one has yet offered a really proper explanation for consciousness /self-awareness that resonates with me. Emergence from complexity has just never cut the mustard for me - I've kicked around in the foundations of physics for several decades (unprofessionally - I just have a PhD in engineering), and have just never seen even the qualitative prospect for my inner experience of consciousness popping out of the theory and math of physics. It feels like a lost cause to me. Idealism seems preferable to me because it allows me to take consciousness as a GIVEN that requires no further explanation. What then needs to be explained is why we perceive the PARTICULAR physical world / physical laws that we perceive. I do think there's been SOME progress on that - see the work of Donald Hoffman. Definitely not completed work, but I think they're more likely to succeed than the materialists are in explaining consciousness.
I completely agree. You are spot on in mentioning one of the most enduring mysteries in both philosophy and science: consciousness! Though materialism has offered exciting new perspectives on the physical world, there is still a mystery surrounding the explanation of self-awareness and inner experience. Although the concept of emerging from complexity is fascinating, many of us are left wondering, "Okay, but how exactly?" Treating consciousness as essential does have a certain elegance to it. The journey continues! As a student of life, there's nothing better than learning and appreciating the knowledge all around us.
A simple and beautiful presentation of a simple, beautiful, and powerful piece of thought. If you doubt stuff at this level, then you are in deep doo-doos (if that's how you spell it). This kicked off big time with Descartes and only got worse, through Hume, Kant, and Hegel to the postmodernists. It is a sophisticated form of insanity. Moore's epistemology though probably not the same (I am not sufficiently educated to say) seems to have much in common with Aquinas, who makes commonsense assumptions which I do not think he even bothers to 'prove'. They are just obvious. This matter relates to something else I have been thinking about. I do not believe it is possible to make assertions based on scepticism without internal contradiction. 'I my experience, I cannot trust my experience', etc. Thank you. I will look out for more Moore.
You've encapsulated Moore's case so well. His defence of sensible realism serves as a welcome diversion from the sometimes-sophisticated chaos that passes for skepticism. You are entirely correct to draw comparisons to Thomas Aquinas. Despite their diverse backgrounds, both ground their theories in self-evident truths and common sense. You also make a really good argument about how skepticism has inherent inconsistencies! By relying on the very experiences it seeks to refute, skepticism frequently causes itself to be undermined. I'm happy that you found resonance in this video, and I look forward to sharing more echoes with you.
I wonder though what is the base level where our commonsense perceptions are undeniable? We all know perception, hearing and sight for example, can be tricked. Relying on sight to know that a wall is red, when in reality it is simply a white wall with a red light on it, contradicts our commonsense perception, especially if we are unaware of the red light. The brain also hallucinates and therefor we can not trust what we see or even hear, because those could be auditory or visual hallucinations. In his example of the hand this is a clear example of commonsense perception and his warning against extreme skepticism, but what is the framework of what is obvious given that our perceptions can be duped? Is this question borderline extreme skepticism? Where is the line for truth being undeniable and where is it that being reasonably skeptical is proper? Does he go into this concern? Or am I missing the point?
It's an idiotic illogical refutation of a logical, but ultimately stupid and pointless argument. I have given up studying philosophy, because I've never read a philosophical work that didn't make me want to slap the s*** out the writer before it was over.
The classic "is this really real" conundrum! What Moore suggests is basically to not Overthink. Sure, he didn’t solve all of reality’s mysteries, but sometimes a simple "hands-on" approach beats spending hours doubting whether your coffee is really coffee.
@@echoofanecho thanks for the response. I think that's actually a different point. I can agree with the likes of Hume - whether on deeper philosophical grounds or nowadays in light of our more advanced physical/scientific understanding of the universe - that whatever the universe "is" or may be, we are not perceiving it and cannot perceive it accurately because so much of it is beyond our astonishingly limited perceptive capacity, which in turn translates the tiny amount of stuff we can perceive into terms and frames of reference that we can cope with and that either have some form of evolutionary advantage or at least avoid major evolutaionary disadvantages. At the same time, I can hold that, given that very limitation and that very impossibility of complete perception, it is futile for me to spend my life agonizing over exactly where the limit falls, or speculating or indeed agonizing over what the true nature of the universe is. This is a hand. So is this. Definitely a useful tool for negotiaing our lived experience. But it doesn't actually refute or take anything away from the sceptical position.
Before you embark on a RUclips career discussing philosophy perhaps you should learn how to pronounce philosopher's names -- 'Berkeley' is not pronounced like the city in northern California.
Haha, touché! 😅 You got me there! It looks like even I need a little commonsense realism when it comes to pronunciation! You’re absolutely right. Unfortunately, the AI-generated voice in the video has its limitations, and pronouncing philosopher names correctly is apparently one of them! 🙃 Thanks for keeping me on my toes. I’ll be sure to clarify that next time-though I can’t make any promises that AI won’t still get a little tongue-tied. Keep watching, and feel free to call me out whenever the AI slips up! 😄
Idealism does not hold all of our perceptions suspect. We certainly have those perceptions, and if they aren't dreams or hallucinations then they do in fact represent some objective reality out there. We just don't know the true form of that reality, that's all. We know what we PERCEIVE, and that's all we CAN know. This is so entirely and obviously common sense that I don't see how anyone can argue with it.
In many cases the arguments against idealism use straw man arguments that present idealism as saying things it doesn't really say. That is either a) ignorant or b) disingenuous argumentation - either way it's not high quality argument.
Moore’s response shifts the focus to the certainty of immediate experiences, almost as if, “Let's not overcomplicate what’s in front of us.” It’s true that arguments against idealism can sometimes veer into straw man territory, but Moore's commonsense approach serves more as a counterweight to extreme skepticism than a full-on dismantling of idealist philosophy. In a way, both sides are grappling with the limits of what we can truly know.
@@echoofanecho I actually accept that argument as a pragmatic approach to living. I mean, these ARE real experiences we're having - so why not just behave that way. It's really only in philosophy where one can take a more pedantic approach toward things - "precision and clarity" is really part of what they try to do.
I think what I outlined earlier is a valid philosophical argument, but it's really a bit silly as a way of "approaching life."
My big problem with materialism is that no one has yet offered a really proper explanation for consciousness /self-awareness that resonates with me. Emergence from complexity has just never cut the mustard for me - I've kicked around in the foundations of physics for several decades (unprofessionally - I just have a PhD in engineering), and have just never seen even the qualitative prospect for my inner experience of consciousness popping out of the theory and math of physics. It feels like a lost cause to me.
Idealism seems preferable to me because it allows me to take consciousness as a GIVEN that requires no further explanation. What then needs to be explained is why we perceive the PARTICULAR physical world / physical laws that we perceive. I do think there's been SOME progress on that - see the work of Donald Hoffman. Definitely not completed work, but I think they're more likely to succeed than the materialists are in explaining consciousness.
I completely agree. You are spot on in mentioning one of the most enduring mysteries in both philosophy and science: consciousness! Though materialism has offered exciting new perspectives on the physical world, there is still a mystery surrounding the explanation of self-awareness and inner experience. Although the concept of emerging from complexity is fascinating, many of us are left wondering, "Okay, but how exactly?" Treating consciousness as essential does have a certain elegance to it.
The journey continues! As a student of life, there's nothing better than learning and appreciating the knowledge all around us.
A simple and beautiful presentation of a simple, beautiful, and powerful piece of thought. If you doubt stuff at this level, then you are in deep doo-doos (if that's how you spell it). This kicked off big time with Descartes and only got worse, through Hume, Kant, and Hegel to the postmodernists. It is a sophisticated form of insanity. Moore's epistemology though probably not the same (I am not sufficiently educated to say) seems to have much in common with Aquinas, who makes commonsense assumptions which I do not think he even bothers to 'prove'. They are just obvious. This matter relates to something else I have been thinking about. I do not believe it is possible to make assertions based on scepticism without internal contradiction. 'I my experience, I cannot trust my experience', etc. Thank you. I will look out for more Moore.
You've encapsulated Moore's case so well. His defence of sensible realism serves as a welcome diversion from the sometimes-sophisticated chaos that passes for skepticism. You are entirely correct to draw comparisons to Thomas Aquinas. Despite their diverse backgrounds, both ground their theories in self-evident truths and common sense. You also make a really good argument about how skepticism has inherent inconsistencies! By relying on the very experiences it seeks to refute, skepticism frequently causes itself to be undermined. I'm happy that you found resonance in this video, and I look forward to sharing more echoes with you.
I wonder though what is the base level where our commonsense perceptions are undeniable? We all know perception, hearing and sight for example, can be tricked. Relying on sight to know that a wall is red, when in reality it is simply a white wall with a red light on it, contradicts our commonsense perception, especially if we are unaware of the red light. The brain also hallucinates and therefor we can not trust what we see or even hear, because those could be auditory or visual hallucinations.
In his example of the hand this is a clear example of commonsense perception and his warning against extreme skepticism, but what is the framework of what is obvious given that our perceptions can be duped? Is this question borderline extreme skepticism?
Where is the line for truth being undeniable and where is it that being reasonably skeptical is proper? Does he go into this concern? Or am I missing the point?
This isn't a refutation of the claim we cannot be sure that our perception shows existence as it really is.
It's an idiotic illogical refutation of a logical, but ultimately stupid and pointless argument.
I have given up studying philosophy, because I've never read a philosophical work that didn't make me want to slap the s*** out the writer before it was over.
The classic "is this really real" conundrum! What Moore suggests is basically to not Overthink. Sure, he didn’t solve all of reality’s mysteries, but sometimes a simple "hands-on" approach beats spending hours doubting whether your coffee is really coffee.
@@echoofanecho thanks for the response. I think that's actually a different point. I can agree with the likes of Hume - whether on deeper philosophical grounds or nowadays in light of our more advanced physical/scientific understanding of the universe - that whatever the universe "is" or may be, we are not perceiving it and cannot perceive it accurately because so much of it is beyond our astonishingly limited perceptive capacity, which in turn translates the tiny amount of stuff we can perceive into terms and frames of reference that we can cope with and that either have some form of evolutionary advantage or at least avoid major evolutaionary disadvantages. At the same time, I can hold that, given that very limitation and that very impossibility of complete perception, it is futile for me to spend my life agonizing over exactly where the limit falls, or speculating or indeed agonizing over what the true nature of the universe is. This is a hand. So is this. Definitely a useful tool for negotiaing our lived experience. But it doesn't actually refute or take anything away from the sceptical position.
Before you embark on a RUclips career discussing philosophy perhaps you should learn how to pronounce philosopher's names -- 'Berkeley' is not pronounced like the city in northern California.
Haha, touché! 😅 You got me there! It looks like even I need a little commonsense realism when it comes to pronunciation! You’re absolutely right. Unfortunately, the AI-generated voice in the video has its limitations, and pronouncing philosopher names correctly is apparently one of them! 🙃
Thanks for keeping me on my toes. I’ll be sure to clarify that next time-though I can’t make any promises that AI won’t still get a little tongue-tied. Keep watching, and feel free to call me out whenever the AI slips up! 😄