I have watched Dr. Bonevac‘s philosophy videos over 100 times; his analytic philosophy course -some of the individual lectures I’ve up to 10 times. He is the basis for my education of philosophy hall subjects; I knew very little philosophy before him. He hits the ball out of the park virtually every time or at least gets a RBI. Thank you Dr. Bonevac. If I ever met him, I would have to try my hardest not to be rude or abusive asking question after question continuously for months and wouldn’t let him go to sleep.
There has been a recent revival of idealism, for instance, K. Ward, B. Kastrup, or in some aspects D. Hoffman too (is close). Kastrup's idealism is objective; everything is mind and we dissociate into subjects like in Vedanta (or Schopenhauer).
The end of this video was brilliant. Most people including myself tend to think that idealism is full of woo-woo and materialism is reductive. Granted, some guru types use idealism as a vehicle to smuggle in whatever woo-woo they're pedalling. However when it comes to proper philosophy, idealism is more reductive than materialism, which has to assume some physical woo-woo out there that causes our perceptions.
An external world can not exist and it still be a useful fiction. Proponents of a theory can act contrary to that theory and it would be irrelevant to its truth value. Idealists anyways don’t reject the external world at least in any practical way, we just believe it’s composed of wholly mental phenomena.
So based in yr lectures : Ancient philosophy : triangle is an Idea (forms) Modern philosophy : triangle is matter or tangible object. Postmodernism : triangle is text or language game.... Is this correct?
It is logically incoherent to be an idealist and anything other than a pure rationalist else there is no stimulus or input from which to have new experiences, ideas, creativity, inventions, etc... if the mind can only interact with itself one must be born with all the knowledge of a lifetime.
if you are a human you've never seen a triangle. you have seen matter arranged in the shape of a triangle many times. do not presume that there are not other ways of interpreting that particular arrangement of matter. and , by the way, i am NOT a postmodernist.
False. Two things: 1. learn-able repetitive properties that we percieve are not necessarily a proof that external mind-independent objects exist that possess such qualities. Although we can find and learn those repetitive things, and use them to our advantage. 2. Concept of 'Scope'. One might adhere to ANY philosophical worldview, even epistemological nihilism, and still apply scoped psudeo-knowledges.
I need to watch that again, maybe several more times…
Well Done, I'm a retired physicist & finally idealism make some sort of sense. Thks
I have watched Dr. Bonevac‘s philosophy videos over 100 times; his analytic philosophy course -some of the individual lectures I’ve up to 10 times. He is the basis for my education of philosophy hall subjects; I knew very little philosophy before him. He hits the ball out of the park virtually every time or at least gets a RBI. Thank you Dr. Bonevac. If I ever met him, I would have to try my hardest not to be rude or abusive asking question after question continuously for months and wouldn’t let him go to sleep.
Quantum Physics is clearly pointing to some sort of Idealism as the core of the nature of our existence
There has been a recent revival of idealism, for instance, K. Ward, B. Kastrup, or in some aspects D. Hoffman too (is close). Kastrup's idealism is objective; everything is mind and we dissociate into subjects like in Vedanta (or Schopenhauer).
i prefer the participatory notion of J. Vervaeke and I. McGilchrist
I'm so glad to see that you are fine, Profesor!
Extremely good video!
Thanks!
Awe geez
I refute thus with the feeling from my gut! Lolz
Thank you
The end of this video was brilliant. Most people including myself tend to think that idealism is full of woo-woo and materialism is reductive. Granted, some guru types use idealism as a vehicle to smuggle in whatever woo-woo they're pedalling. However when it comes to proper philosophy, idealism is more reductive than materialism, which has to assume some physical woo-woo out there that causes our perceptions.
Very nice information, thank you.
The suggestion that materialism is akin to animism brightened my day.
loving library
Show me one idealist who has lived even a minute of their life as if the external world wasn't real.
I am Idealist. So?
An external world can not exist and it still be a useful fiction. Proponents of a theory can act contrary to that theory and it would be irrelevant to its truth value. Idealists anyways don’t reject the external world at least in any practical way, we just believe it’s composed of wholly mental phenomena.
10:28 color saturation change. Good timing :-)
reality is a perspective that has been curated for humans by God. we perceive what we perceive because it conforms to the Logos.
That wasn’t a picture of Josiah Royce. That was a picture of William James. Josiah Royce was merely in it ;-P
15:29 But it just may be a triangle you're looking for.
So based in yr lectures :
Ancient philosophy : triangle is an Idea (forms)
Modern philosophy : triangle is matter or tangible object.
Postmodernism : triangle is text or language game....
Is this correct?
@-GinPi Gamma Which means it's true in general only , right ?
Are u philosophy teacher ?
@-GinPi Gamma
What u said is similar to "schrodinger cat" in quantum dilemma. Again this belongs to uncertainty of postmodern....
It is logically incoherent to be an idealist and anything other than a pure rationalist else there is no stimulus or input from which to have new experiences, ideas, creativity, inventions, etc... if the mind can only interact with itself one must be born with all the knowledge of a lifetime.
What is perceived-external is an idea being actively thought by a consciousness other than mine? Or even unconscious portion of my own mental state?
if you are a human you've never seen a triangle. you have seen matter arranged in the shape of a triangle many times. do not presume that there are not other ways of interpreting that particular arrangement of matter. and , by the way, i am NOT a postmodernist.
2smart4me
Berkeley was in no sense the 'inventor' of idealism in the west, and idealism is in no sense 'new' in the Western philosophical tradition
Who do you see as antecedents?
@@PhiloofAlexandria Plato and the Neoplatonists
Idealism seems like a good idea but it's useless while realism seems baseless but it's most useful. Figure that out.
False.
Two things:
1. learn-able repetitive properties that we percieve are not necessarily a proof that external mind-independent objects exist that possess such qualities. Although we can find and learn those repetitive things, and use them to our advantage.
2. Concept of 'Scope'. One might adhere to ANY philosophical worldview, even epistemological nihilism, and still apply scoped psudeo-knowledges.
How did the mind get access to the property in the original form/concept ? 🫤 On what basis would the mind have been able to construct the form?