|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Religion||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|Idealism has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital||(Rated C-class)|
Would it not be more appropriate to rephrase? :
Note that this contrast between idealism and materialism is approximately as to whether the substance of the world is at base mental or physical — it has nothing to do with thinking that things should be idealized, or with coveting goods.)
Note that this contrast between idealism and materialism is approximately as to whether the substance of the world is at base meta-physical or physical — it has nothing to do with thinking that things should be idealized, or with coveting goods.)
I don't see why that change from "mental" to "meta-physical" is useful. "Meta-physical" carries a lot more connotations than does "mental". Why do you think the change is needed? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I found the inclusion of Yogacara Buddhism in the lede to be intriguing, and I wanted to ask if anyone had a source on comparing it Idealism. The interesting point here is that Yogacara was a major influence on Zen Buddhism, where I think there may be an even stronger comparison to be made. Right now, the sentence places Yogacara in contrast to other religious idealism, and I would like to discuss whether that is wholly accurate as well. Anyone interested in a comparative discussion here? —Zujine|talk 14:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
22.214.171.124 uncited discussion of Bertrand Russell moved here
User 126.96.36.199 has reversed the current meaning of the section on Bertrand Russell's discussion of idealism, but with no citations given to support this view and it reads as a personal diatribe. I have reverted these changes and copied them here- if anyone has references to an analysis of a similar viewpoint, then such a discussion could be added as a *separate* paragraph. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Added text follows (first paragraph only- see history for additional paragraphs)" Bertrand Russell's popular book The Problems of Philosophy highlights how philosophers of the second rank commonly misunderstand Berkeley and his reasoning. Russell claims, "If we say that the things known must be in the mind, we are either un-duly limiting the mind's power of knowing, or we are uttering a mere tautology. We are uttering a mere tautology if we mean by 'in the mind' the same as by 'before the mind', i.e. if we mean merely being apprehended by the mind. But if we mean this, we shall have to admit that what, in this sense, is in the mind, may nevertheless be not mental. Thus when we realize the nature of knowledge, Berkeley's argument is seen to be wrong in substance as well as in form, and his grounds for supposing that 'idea'-i.e. the objects apprehended-must be mental, are found to have no validity whatever. Hence his grounds in favour of the idealism may be dismissed."
I don't understand this sentence!!! The Australian philosopher David Stove harshly, arguing that it rests on what he called "the worst argument in the world" Harshly what? Katiehawks (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Good catch. I fixed it. An anonymous editor removed the words "criticized philosophical idealism" from that sentence without explanation last May. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
New SEP article
There's a recent-ish Stanford Encyclopedia Article of Philosophy article on Idealism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/
Mind vs Consciousness
The current introductory paragraphs make the common mistake of equating the Western Philosophy concept of "mind" (e.g. "mental") with the Eastern Religion concept of "consciousness".
To clarify, to someone like Descartes, "mind" refers to thoughts and sense perceptions. However, in Eastern Religion, when there are no thoughts and no sense perceptions, there is still "consciousness" (aka "awareness").