Idealism is a philosophy that ultimately assumes consciousness has primacy over reality. This means that the mind is not ultimately restricted by an external reality, and that reality is created by the mind. In other words, reality is created by ideas in the mind. Here are some arguments against idealism:
1. Consciousness is a faculty of awareness which means that it could not be aware of anything unless there was something independent of consciousness to be aware of.
2. Idealism assumes that consciousness creates existence in reality. If consciousnesses really could create reality, then it could make a reality where contradictions exist. If contradictions could exist then there is no law of identity. Idealism assumes the law of identity whenever it uses the word “is”. Since idealism holds that existence is only in the mind, it is assuming the law of identity. Therefore, idealism is self-refuting since it assumes that which it implicitly denies.
3. Idealism assumes that consciousness can create something from nothing. This violates the law of identity. Nothing is nothing and to assume that nothing can become something is to assume that ‘A’ can equal ‘not A’ . Therefore idealism rests on a contradictory premise. Contradictions do not exist. Therefore idealism is false.
at 1:57 pm
I agree. But does anyone seriously believe idealism?
at 2:37 am
Great question. I had already planned to address this in a future post. The short answer is yes.
A much more thorough answer would have to distinguish between (1) those who accept idealism explicitly and (2) those who accept idealism implicitly.
In my previous post I referred to different forms of idealism. Here are some examples of people who believe in idealism:
1. Every religion explicitly assume a form of idealism (even though most adherents implicitly assume realism). Mormonism and ancient greek religion are the only exceptions that I am aware of that explicitly reject idealism.
2. Many influential philosophers such as Berkley, Kant, and Hegel believed in forms of idealism explicitly.
3. Many politicians accept idealism implicitly.
4. Anyone who says, “what is true for you is not true for me,” is implicitly accepting a form of idealism.
I believe that there are many others who unknowingly subscribe to idealist premises.
at 5:13 pm
I think that your characterization of Idealism is something of a caricature. First of all, and you’ll find this in many recent works on Hegel and Kant, I do not think that you can find a single idealist philosopher worth his salt that would express such a strong ontological commitment and say that there is no such thing as the external world. The actual fundamental position is an epistemological one.
Furthermore, I think that you are stressing too much the point concerning the principle of identity. The principle of identity can very well be denied in various types of logic and epistemology.
at 4:28 am
Thank you for your comment. I clarified and toned down my post because I agree that it was too strong.
Philosophical idealism in all of its forms is contradictory and dangerous. The law of identity is required for anything to be intelligible. The very sentence, “The principle of identity can very well be denied…” assumes the law of identity. It is axiomatic. One cannot attempt to deny it without first assuming it. Therefore your statement that it can be denied is self-refuting.