I thought the classical definition of idealism in epistomology was the idea that reality has no existence independent of our mental perception of it. No one in this discussion seems to hold that view.

Berkeley interestingly thought objects did exist independently of human sense perception because they were continously being perceived by god. Reality was a construct of the divine mind or perception.

Correct me if I am wrong. I am just an arm chair philosopher. No formal training in this area.

The idea of reality exists. It is just that commonsense reality does not, according to the Idealist. That is, there is no material reality. The Idealist is an immaterialist. And you are right. B. believed that objects existed independently of any particular mind (except God's mind). But there were no material objects. But the idea of reality is the idea of immaterial reality. The "stuff" of which reality is composed is spirit, not matter.

I just want to add that although I don't subscribe to B's view, I do think "spirit" and "matter" performed a similar task. I'm going to use the metaphor "dream." I like it. It's as if the lives of men are dreams that meet in the all inclusive dream of God. But this puts God's dream on another level, equivalent as far as I can see with matter. The difference of course being that B offers a cause of this spirit that functions as matter, allowing him to offer the public a sophisticated view that is still religious.

B. believed that objects existed independently of any particular mind (except God's mind). But there were no material objects. But the idea of reality is the idea of immaterial reality. The "stuff" of which reality is composed is spirit, not matter.

Over a century later Berkeley's thought experiment was summarized in a limerick by Ronald Knox and an anonymous reply:
There was a young man who said
"God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."

Theologically, one consequence of Berkeley's views is that they require God to be present as an immediate cause of all our experiences. God is not the distant engineer of Newtonian machinery that in the fullness of time led to the growth of a tree in the university quadrangle. Rather, my perception of the tree is an idea that God's mind has produced in mine, and the tree continues to exist in the quadrangle when "nobody" is there, simply because God is an infinite mind that perceives all.
George Berkeley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Use it however you like. It's Wiki. Epistemological idealism seems quite close to indirect realism. Is there a substantial difference?


Idealism is the philosophical theory that maintains that the ultimate nature of reality is based on mind or ideas. It holds that the so-called external or "real world" is inseparable from mind, consciousness, or perception. In the philosophy of perception, idealism is contrasted with realism in which the external world is said to have a so-called absolute existence prior to, and independent of, knowledge and consciousness. Epistemological idealists (such as Kant), it is claimed, might insist that the only things which can be directly known for certain are just ideas (abstraction).

Radical empiricism is a pragmatist doctrine put forth by William James. It asserts that experience includes both particulars and relations between those particulars, and that therefore both deserve a place in our explanations. In concrete terms: any philosophical worldview is flawed if it stops at the physical level and fails to explain how meaning, values and intentionality can arise from that.[1]

Use it however you like. It's Wiki. Epistemological idealism seems quite close to indirect realism. Is there a substantial difference?


Idealism is the philosophical theory that maintains that the ultimate nature of reality is based on mind or ideas. It holds that the so-called external or "real world" is inseparable from mind, consciousness, or perception. In the philosophy of perception, idealism is contrasted with realism in which the external world is said to have a so-called absolute existence prior to, and independent of, knowledge and consciousness. Epistemological idealists (such as Kant), it is claimed, might insist that the only things which can be directly known for certain are just ideas (abstraction).

Radical empiricism is a pragmatist doctrine put forth by William James. It asserts that experience includes both particulars and relations between those particulars, and that therefore both deserve a place in our explanations. In concrete terms: any philosophical worldview is flawed if it stops at the physical level and fails to explain how meaning, values and intentionality can arise from that.[1]

There does not seem to be a consistent use of terminlogy or definitions here. Kant did not deny an external reality he just thought it was not directly an object of "knowledge" more representationalism than idealism?

As I said before, Idealism with just a courteous tip of the hat to realism, so, at least, he would have some kind of answer to the question, where do those percepts come from. Not much of an answer. But better than nothing. Or God.

Is that just your take on it or is that the standard classification for Kant (idealism)?

I suspect that we are all indirect realists and/or epistemological idealists. It's about the same thing. There is a reality outside of us but we only get it processed. And consciousness is the processed perception of this reality.

Make what you will of it. From Wiki.....


"The direct realist view (Gibson, 1972) is incredible because it suggests that we can have experience of objects out in the world directly, beyond the sensory surface, as if bypassing the chain of sensory processing. For example if light from [your computer screen] is transduced by your retina into a neural signal which is transmitted from your eye to your brain, then the very first aspect of the [computer screen] that you can possibly experience is the information at the retinal surface, or the perceptual representation that it stimulates in your brain. The physical [screen] itself lies beyond the sensory surface and therefore must be beyond your direct experience. But the perceptual experience of the [screen] stubbornly appears out in the world itself instead of in your brain, in apparent violation of everything we know about the causal chain of vision. The difficulty with the concept of direct perception is most clearly seen when considering how an artificial vision system could be endowed with such external perception. Although a sensor may record an external quantity in an internal register or variable in a computer, from the internal perspective of the software running on that computer, only the internal value of that variable can be "seen", or can possibly influence the operation of that software. In exactly analogous manner the pattern of electrochemical activity that corresponds to our conscious experience can take a form that reflects the properties of external objects, but our consciousness is necessarily confined to the experience of those internal effigies of external objects, rather than of external objects themselves. Unless the principle of direct perception can be demonstrated in a simple artificial sensory system, this explanation remains as mysterious as the property of consciousness it is supposed to explain."[4

Kant on things-in-themselves.

"...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears."


I agree with indirect realism, or it agrees with me. I do think the thing-in-itself is a fascinating concept. For me, it makes sense as part of the mental-model of the mind's relationship with the world.

..It is one thing to talk about physical reality as having an existence apart from our ideas of it; but much of our reality is of ideas only...Not one single justice, or virtue has ever been laid upon an actual scale and weighed... We know of these qualities only by insight and intuition...We cannot prove them, and can only testify to their being..

Ok, then, I'll provide an argument. THC. Drugs change perception. So do concussions. Reality is quite obviously mediated.

---------- Post added 12-14-2009 at 07:05 AM ----------

To me, the denial of things-in-themselves is about the same as idealism. To say that perception is all of reality is idealism. If we live in the same world, our perceptions must have an object in common. Do we think these objects are only what we perceive of them? Sounds like idealism. There's stuff outside our skulls that our brains have evolved to detect. But animals have different eyes, different ears, different noses. Their experience of these things is different.