Well yes, but again there would be no reason to develop such an idealistic theory unless the mind-body problem was already on the table. It's a trivial point for me to keep on stating it. You think I'm making a bigger claim than I am.

Berkeley's Idealism is offered as a solution to the mind-body problem though the motive may have been to battle materialism for the sake of God.

Mind-body problem is the question
Berkeley's answer is idealism. His answer may have been motivated by his desire to preserve God against the Devil of materialism
But his answer was prompted by the mind-body question.

Can you be an idealist without rejecting materialism? Can you be a materialist without rejecting idealism?

Idealism cannot be conceived of without dismissing materialism. Materialism cannot even be conceived of without dismissing idealism.
Without the contradistinction of mind vs. matter of ideas vs. material objects there would be no difference between materialism and idealism. Can you be an idealist without rejecting materialism? Can you be a materialist without rejecting idealism?

I'm not speculating as to the psycholgoical state of Berkeley when he proposed his doctrine of idealism. I'm just saying that there would have been no occasion/opportunity/reason to present an idealistic theory nor a materialistic theory without the debate over the mind-body problem that had been going on at least since Descartes or rather at least since Plato.

I'm not speculating as to the psycholgoical state of Berkeley when he proposed his doctrine of idealism. I'm just saying that there would have been no occasion/opportunity/reason to present an idealistic theory nor a materialistic theory without the debate over the mind-body problem that had been going on at least since Descartes or rather at least since Plato.

Is it the crux that the "mind" experiences the body as an object? But when it tries to experience itself as an object, the cord gets tangled? We can imagine having no arms, no eyes, etc., but can we imagine having no minds? It does seem to lead right into idealism/materialism.

Is it the crux that the "mind" experiences the body as an object? But when it tries to experience itself as an object, the cord gets tangled? We can imagine having no arms, no eyes, etc., but can we imagine having no minds? It does seem to lead right into idealism/materialism.

No, Idealism and Materialism are logical contraries. They cannot both be true, but, of course, they can both be false. E.g. Monism. So they are not logical contradictories. But I don't see what that has to do with your original query.

Ken, I'm a little confused about monism. I consider idealism and materialism to be two types of monism. Is it possible to have a monism that is neither materialistic nor idealistic? I guess I've been assuming that there are only two choices for the monist (idealism or materialism). Can you provide an example of a third choice? Even the word "monism" is defined in contradistinction to dualism or pluralism.

Personally "Doubt occurs" or "doubt occurred / has occurred" seems to be a true certainty.

What makes you think that, I wonder. Someone who believes that he doubts is assuming that he has the concept of doubt, and that there is such a thing as doubting. If he is making those assumptions, and you say that if assumptions are being made, we should be skeptical, shouldn't we be skeptical about whether we are doubting when we believe we are doubting?

Are you saying you doubt that doubt occurs? Or are you saying that doubt it a concept and therefore can not be communicated as no two people can have the same understanding of the word, thus it is noncommunicable?

The latter has crossed my mind but I believe that doubt occurs no mater what you want to call it. doubt is the opposite of believe in a way. we start out doubting everything unless we dont think at all. If there is proof good enough for us we believe it. a belief can be false but a doubt can not. You can doubt something that is true but you would be a fool to not doubt it before you new the evidence and you would be a fool to say it is certainty.

Also The key word in my quote is "seems". I would never even consider saying i was certain about anything i could be wrong about. Hell i would not say for certain i had to poop for even if a turtle head was poking out. but yes to me "doubt occurs" seems to appear to maybe be a certainty. Everything seems or appears and thus the mind/body question is mute.

Why can't I doubt that a person who say he doubts (including me) has the correct concept of doubt? For example, suppose I hear a person say he doubts that something is a chair, and then he sits down on it expecting it to hold him up. Such a person would, I would say, not understand what the word "doubt" means, and not have the correct concept of doubt. It is what C.S. Peirce would have called, "fake doubt".

I have never read any Pierce. Our assumptions for your example differ. I would assume the man that doubts the chair is a chair but sits on it anyways has courage. I for the most part agree and i was only asking for the purpose of clarity Though doubt is by far one of the most simple concepts. If you have ever believed something then to doubt is to not believe or to not believe completely. syntax aside even if you never heard of doubt you still doubt things. To have never doubted you would have to have believed everything you ever heard and have never heard two things that conflict. I guess If you died before you could understand words you may have never doubted.

I would not assume that the man does doubt the chair is a chair. Maybe if he sits down very tentatively and looks worried, he mightn't, but if he just sits down normally, I would doubt whether he understood the term. "doubt" (or, of course, he had just read Descartes and was kidding). It does not seem to me that "doubt" is at all a simple concept. Look at the questionable way that you use it? Of course, it is a simple concept if you are using it when, as Wittgenstein says, "language is at work", but it is certainly not simple at all when, as Wittgenstein says, you are using it when "language is just idling" and going nowhere. For instance, when you entirely detach the notion of doubt from the behavior of the alleged doubter.

Well i have no clue how to refute a philosophical argument that is supposed to happen in fiction. i guess the guy sitting on the alleged chair could be a lier or he could not care if he gets hurt. I would consider a concept simple when it is a concept encompassing several definitions and not a concept encompassing several concepts. doubt is self evident. even animals without language doubt and believe. these concepts are fundamental to anythings ability to function what so ever. love and truth are not.

by fiction i mean detaching doubt from the doubters behavior.

But that is exactly what skeptics like Descartes do. They detach doubting from behavior, as I pointed out. That is why Peirce calls that kind of skepticism, "fake doubt", or, "sham doubt". And there is, of course, the egregious assumption that because it is possible that what I someone asserts is mistaken, it is appropriate to doubt it is true. It is possible for me to be mistaken that I have fingers, but that does not mean that if I assert that I have fingers, it is appropriate to doubt that I am wrong. That, again is fake, or sham doubt. To doubt my assertion that I have fingers, the doubter needs some positive reason to suppose that I am mistake. The mere possibility of error is not enough to justify the doubt. Skeptics do not distinguish between mere possibility and what is called, "real possibility" when there is some good reason to doubt.

to have doubt or to doubt is to not believe 100%. for all i know you could not have arms and could be talk to texting all of this. I or anyone would be a fool to believe 100% that you have fingers without seeing them. I do not think you understand skepticism very well. A skeptic does not doubt you have fingers they/i doubt it is possible to be certain that you do. I believe this because you can not make any claim without in involving assumptions. assumptions by definition are deserving of doubt. Also you should research the human blind spot and how a portion of everything anyone has ever seen with their eyes has been in part a fabrication of their mind. seeing as how it is a fact that my mind creates a portion of everything i ever have perceived i do not see how doubting even the most obvious perception could be "fake". I am a skeptic. I do not believe anything can be certain and therefore i believe you have to have a very lax definition of knowledge to claim humans can attain it. To sum up skepticism i would say it is the belief that no matter how true anything is it can at best be probable.

If i had to bet money on it i would bet you have 10 fingers but even if i was looking at them the veil of perception makes it imposable for me to be certain. If you know about the human blind spot then you would know that if your fingers fall into my blind spot my brain will make me see a 5 fingered hand whether it is there or not. however if i was expecting 4-3-2-1-0 fingers that is what my mind would create to fill in the blank.