Loading...
End of Lesson
End of Lesson
The study of philosophy can start anywhere. You can pick a random philosopher out of hundreds and pick a random claim from that philosopher. That is fine. But for a complete and comprehensive course, the most important understanding to have is to understand what is Idealism and Realism.
Idealism: The doctrine that reality is in some fundamental way dependent on, constituted by, or identical with mind, consciousness, or ideas.
Realism: The doctrine that reality exists independently of mind, thought, or perception.
The word idealism and realism cover a lot of ground and there is no single definition of either word. But generally, the following descriptors are attached to these two terms.
| Philosophy | Descriptors |
|---|---|
| Idealism | Immaterial, mental, mind-first, mind-dependent |
| Realism | Material, external, world-first, mind-independent |
Each of these descriptors demand their own explanations. Let's take them one by one.
Generally, we all accept that something has to be fundamental, whether we can know it or not, our intuition leads us to the idea that something is at the base of everything. The question is, whether that fundamental thing is material, or immaterial.
The most fundamental thing refers to what exists in our universe that is not made up of (or by) other things. In the 18th century, science would have called these things atoms. Now we call them quarks. But we do not know whether quarks have something smaller inside them or who created the quarks in the first place. In a religious sense, the most fundamental thing is God or gods in case of a pantheon.
If that thing is immaterial like the Abrahamic God, then you are an Idealist and your philosophy is Idealism.
If that thing is material like an atom, a quark, or even a quantum wave, then you are a Realist and your philosophy is Realism.
Plato the Greek was an Idealist. He thought that there was an immaterial realm of existence called the World of Forms that existed before this physical world and the physical world depends on that world. More on him later. I also classify all major religions of the world that believe in an immaterial God or gods (as opposed to the living breathing material gods of the Greek and Norse Mythology) as Idealist.
Most scientists and the average non-religious person can be thought of as a realist because to them, surely the most fundamental thing is material.
Another distinction that comes into play is what philosophers like to call reality-first vs mind-first. This distinction comes much later in philosophy around the 16th century. The idea is simple, We don't know if our thoughts accurately represent the outside reality. If our thoughts do accurately represent outside reality, then it is reality-first, if they don't, it is mind-first.
The laptop I am writing this on might be an illusion of my mind. I could be an 11th dimension being projecting myself into this 3 dimensional body. I could be the last man on Earth drugged out of my mind. The point is, philosophers have figured out that we cannot really trust our mind.
If we cannot trust our mind, what do we call "reality"?
Philosophers define reality to be the thing we can be sure of as existing independently of other things.
If the only thing you can be sure about are your thoughts, your senses, your ideas, then you are an idealist.
If you are also sure about the existence of things outside your body, the existence of the Earth, the sky, the mountains, the cities, and other people, then you are a realist. If you believe in one material thing's existence outside of you, you are a realist.
Berkeley thought that only the mind and thoughts are real and God imposes the ideas of objects into our mind without giving those objects an independent existence of their own. He was an idealist.
Kant thought that all our understanding of reality, our concept of space and time, causation, our ability to count things, our ability to describe things, all of these things come from our mind. Our mind arranges the outside world (noumena) into something we can make sense of. Since everything that we understand is made up by our mind, then that means Kant was an Idealist as well.
On the flip side, John Locke believed that things outside us do exist. We perceive the outer reality which exists independently of us. He was a realist.
Consider yourself at a park where you can see a tree. If you think that that tree has nothing to do with you, it is its own thing, then bravo, you are a realist (mostly). But if you think that that tree is not independent, maybe the tree is not there at all and it is an illusion, maybe an immaterial God placed it there, maybe there is a bunch of stuff there and your mind calls it a tree and the concept of tree is purely in your mind, then you are an idealist.
Another way to distinguish realism and idealism is to think about the nature and role of the consciousness. If you think that the consciousness is supreme and create reality in some form or the other, then you are an idealist. If you think that consciousness is just a byproduct of natural things, you are a realist.
Generally, if you believe in the existence of an immaterial soul, more than likely you are an idealist. You could be a dualist like Descartes which we will also look at later. And if you generally do not believe in soul and soul-like ideas like spirits, then you are more than likely a realist.
This is just an introduction, a taste of things to first. This is not the full scope of what these two terms mean. Later, we will go through dozens of realist and idealist philosophers and that will really hone in the concepts of what it really means to be one or the other.
So which is correct? Idealism or Realism? Or none of these? This answer is left to you. In this course, you will learn about close to 30 philosopers from completely different walks of life. Maybe you agree with one of them. At most only one of them could be correct. Maybe none of them are. Maybe you create your own explanation of what is real and what is not.
I will only say that the modern philosophy has moved away from this "unsolvable" problem towards more useful debates. In some sense, modern philosopers are either in the realm of we can never know, or the question is stupid in the first place.