Talk:Subjective idealism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Classic Idealism
I'm pretty sure the proper term for Berkeley's philosophy is "classic idealism," not "subjective idealism." Berkeley would object to his philosophy being termed "subjective," as he holds strongly to a belief that the physical world does have an objective existence, he just claims that that existence is dependent on God. --kpearce 07:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, almost all philosophers use the term 'subjective idealism' when discussing Berkeley's metaphysics. It seems that the term subjective is being used in a different context then that of 'being open to interpretation'. Perhaps it is 'subjective' because objective reality depends on a relation of ideas formed by a subject? With that subject being God?--Laplace's Demon 06:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Objective & subjective.
In the objective idealism article talk page I mention how that article and this one do not clearly show the difference between those two kinds of idealism, and do nothing to distinguish the two as being in any way different except by claiming so. What is the difference? Does the ideal world posit itself to the subject in subjective idealism & the subject project the ideal world from themselves in objective idealism? That is all that could be gleamed from how they are now written: The terminology sounds reversed if that were the case but it may have nothing to do with such a difference taken to be.
It would seem to me from the nature of the persons associated with said respective philosophies that subjective idealism denied a material existence & objective idealism accepted it though made it unaccountable; however the writing on the objective idealism page immediately seems to posit that its world is purely ideally created also. Nagelfar 21:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)