Talk:Objective idealism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

I found this article a little obscure, particularly the first sentence. Can anybody please expand on it a little?

Peirce wasn't an American? — goethean ॐ 21:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of national(istic?) references at every drop of the hat, and the period reference is a bit off. Better to give the bio dates (like they always do with musicians and composers) if you think the average reader will be unfamiliar with the philosopher. They can always click on the name if they want the full bio data. I scanned refs to other philosophers -- Plato, Aristotle, Kant, etc. -- and it did not seem standard to mention the nationality every time. The notion that there is some sort of distinctively American, Brazilian, Cancunian, whatever, philosophy may be popular with some, but it seems like a POV to me. Jon Awbrey 21:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I was trying to improve the article. Unlike Socrates and Plato, Peirce is not a household name. Generally, more context is better. — goethean ॐ 22:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, put the "American" back in if you think it helps the reader.
Jon Awbrey 22:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "It is distinct from subjective idealism"

How so? The way the articles for objective & subjective idealism are done don't seem to make their claims of being alternate viewpoints apparent. There isn't anything in either article as they now stand to put them at opposite ends of any spectrum that I can notice, they don't even seem mutually exclusive in any capacity.

In the subjective idealism article it states; "It (subjective idealism) is also solipsist, because existence is dependent on experience, and therefore if your consciousness were to stop existing, the rest of the universe would not exist" in this objective idealism article it states: "Objective idealism is an idealistic metaphysics that postulates that there is in an important sense only one perceiver, and that this perceiver is one with that which is perceived." & "(in) objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws" Nagelfar 21:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That definition of subjective idealism was all wrong (its changed now). Berkeley would have a fit if he came back from the dead and saw himself described as a solipsist - have respect for the poor man's memory! Thomas Ash 10:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A good distinction between the two might be the assertion that objective idealists believe that all external objects possess consciousness, spirit, or a mind which has ideas (mental images). Subjective idealists believe that it is the spectator, observer, or knowing subject who possesses consciousness, spirit, or a mind which has ideas (mental images). For a subjective idealist, external objects which are not animals (including humans) can not be said to possess consciousness, spirit, or a mind which has ideas (mental images).

In a nutshell: Objective Idealists say that (external) objects have ideas (mental images). Subjective Idealists say that (knowing, observing) subjects have ideas (mental images).Lestrade (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Lestrade