Why have I not used idealist models?* I think that my biggest problem with idealism is the following: one of the most fundamental distinctions we make is between "ourselves" (what we can immediately/directly control/influence) and "the external world" (that which we can't directly influence). "Inside" and "outside." "Me" and "not me." If idealism were true couldn't we control everything we "see?"
Of course we could simply make idealism more complex. We could suppose there are other minds and they control those things we can't. But when I postulate the existence of other minds there still seems to be an "outside" that NONE of us can directly control. (If rocks, for example, were other "minds" they don't seem to be like "me" at all. So could I consider them to BE "minds?")
Or perhaps there are "laws of thought" that limit what can be influenced? If so, what are these laws? Is idealism simply poorly developed, i.e. in a pre-theoretic state of development? That part of our experience that we can influence would be related to consciousness while things like rocks might be related to something like a subconscious.
I also find it hard to come up with idealist models and then try to make practical use of them.
* See my blog of 1 April 2024.
No comments:
Post a Comment