Talk:Objective idealism

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics

The first sentence in this article completely skews the rest of the content. If anything, it might be a concluding statement after the reasoning has been presented but as the opening phrase, it renders everything after it highly obscure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeeprs (talk • contribs) 06:24, 17 October 2017 - jeeprs (UTC)

Older comments

I found this article a little obscure, particularly the first sentence. Can anybody please expand on it a little?

Peirce wasn't an American? — goethean ॐ 21:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance of national(istic?) references at every drop of the hat, and the period reference is a bit off. Better to give the bio dates (like they always do with musicians and composers) if you think the average reader will be unfamiliar with the philosopher. They can always click on the name if they want the full bio data. I scanned refs to other philosophers -- Plato, Aristotle, Kant, etc. -- and it did not seem standard to mention the nationality every time. The notion that there is some sort of distinctively American, Brazilian, Cancunian, whatever, philosophy may be popular with some, but it seems like a POV to me. Jon Awbrey 21:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I was trying to improve the article. Unlike Socrates and Plato, Peirce is not a household name. Generally, more context is better. — goethean ॐ 22:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, put the "American" back in if you think it helps the reader.

Jon Awbrey 22:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"It is distinct from subjective idealism"

How so? The way the articles for objective & subjective idealism are done don't seem to make their claims of being alternate viewpoints apparent. There isn't anything in either article as they now stand to put them at opposite ends of any spectrum that I can notice, they don't even seem mutually exclusive in any capacity.

In the subjective idealism article it states; "It (subjective idealism) is also solipsist, because existence is dependent on experience, and therefore if your consciousness were to stop existing, the rest of the universe would not exist" in this objective idealism article it states: "Objective idealism is an idealistic metaphysics that postulates that there is in an important sense only one perceiver, and that this perceiver is one with that which is perceived." & "(in) objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws" Nagelfar 21:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That definition of subjective idealism was all wrong (its changed now). Berkeley would have a fit if he came back from the dead and saw himself described as a solipsist - have respect for the poor man's memory! Thomas Ash 10:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good distinction between the two might be the assertion that objective idealists believe that all external objects possess consciousness, spirit, or a mind which has ideas (mental images). Subjective idealists believe that it is the spectator, observer, or knowing subject who possesses consciousness, spirit, or a mind which has ideas (mental images). For a subjective idealist, external objects which are not animals (including humans) can not be said to possess consciousness, spirit, or a mind which has ideas (mental images).

In a nutshell: Objective Idealists say that (external) objects have ideas (mental images). Subjective Idealists say that (knowing, observing) subjects have ideas (mental images).Lestrade (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

In need of an overhaul

I just flagged this article because it is perhaps less clear and informative than the subsection of the Idealism article which referred me here. And despite being so short, it still manages to be repetitive. I'm going to try and make a contribution over the next few days, but if anyone reads this, here are my comments.

While "objective idealism" certainly could be retroactively applied to figures like Plato, it's important for an article like this to stick to uses of this term as they have been used and defined. You could certainly include a section that describes Plato's metaphysical position as objective idealist, but this claim would require a more scholarly source (and even then, Plato's inclusion should be the very last of our priorities in introducing and describing "objective idealism").

Who actually uses this term? Peirce, Royce, Schelling, the young Hegel (and other German Romantics like Novalis, Schlegel, and Hölderlin), and more recently figures like Dieter Wandschneider and Vittorio Hösle. One might also include Dilthey, who distinguishes "objective idealism" as one of three main worldviews.

Now, there is a way to define objective idealism in a way that speaks to these very different philosophical figures, but accepting common sense realism? A rejection of naturalism? The postulate that there is "only one perceiver"? I am least familiar with Peirce than I am with anyone else in this list, so I suspect that this is his, or Royce's language. I know the Germans and their use of the term rather well, and it doesn't look to me like they fit this description at all.

But in the end, the problem is how condensed and obscure this article is. We have a few very cryptic quotes with no context or elaboration, and then a few contestable or baffling claims about Kantian dualism, the "one perceiver," naturalism and common sense realism. One brief sentence mentions Schelling and Hegel and Hösle's name is simply stuck onto the list of notable proponents.

I either recommend this entire page be rewritten or else deleted altogether. Draculacan (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - the whole thing needs to be rewritten. There should probably also be separate sections (or articles) on Analytic Idealism and Cosmophstchism. Simonadams (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poor article

There seems to be some misleading information in here, especially seeing as Analytic Idealism redirects here. This ontology is based on consciousness being the fundamental substance of the universe - mind as the irreducible primitive. As such - despite being referenced - the quotes make no sense. For example;

“ Objective idealism … interprets the spiritual as a reality existing outside and independent of human consciousness.” Simonadams (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]