Timeline for Is metaphysical idealism compatible with Catholicism?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 25 at 16:12 | comment | added | jaredad7 | @wmasse you say in your question that matter doesn't exist is part of the definition of idealism, but say here that matter does exist in idealism. The term itself is less important than the semantic weight. You should work out a proper definition in your question, so that answers can speak to whether the thing described is reconcilable with Catholic thought and with Catholic dogma, and a good answer would seem to treat of both individually (whether it is properly called idealism by mainstream academic philosophy today or not being a secondary concern). | |
| Nov 25 at 3:19 | comment | added | Geremia | @wmasse We "receive our knowledge from sensible things" (Thesis 19), and "Intellectuality necessarily follows immateriality, and in such a manner that the degree of intellectuality is in proportion to the remoteness from matter" (Thesis 18). Matter is something with potentiality; beings of reason (ens rationis), like our concepts of matter, are immaterial (not matter). Thus, matter doesn't exist in our mind. | |
| Nov 25 at 1:25 | comment | added | wmasse | Yes. Psychological dualism is condemned. But what about metaphysical idealism (more precisely called phenomenalism) the notion that matter only exists in mind? | |
| Nov 24 at 20:18 | comment | added | Geremia | @wmasse Cartesian dualism is likewise condemned. A human is a body+soul composite, not a soul trapped in and disconnected from his body (angelism). | |
| Nov 24 at 17:37 | comment | added | wmasse | I'm not sure if all of these things follow because idealism still says that matter exists, it's just something in our stream of consciousness. That's why I'm not sure what the difference between idealism and dualism actually is. Also I think he was talking about a different definition of idealism which is that our minds are cut off from external reality, which actually wasn't what Berkeley was saying since for him there was nothing to be cut off from. | |
| Nov 24 at 4:06 | history | answered | Geremia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |