Idealism (new definition)
Andrew Wayne Austin
aaustin at SPAMutkux.utcc.utk.edu
Fri Aug 20 09:11:57 MDT 1999
Is the amoeba's material existence based upon its knowing? Is the
materiality of the tree dependent on its conscious interpretation of its
own ontology? Is death a figment of our imagination? To affirm these
questions would be to entertain absurdity. No, the universe never need
possess conscious awareness or moreover contemplate its existence to
exist. This refutes idealism utterly. Indeed, you must actually exist
before you can suppose your existence to only be idea!
Materialism as a epistemological stance is a manner of knowing, of course;
but the material basis for existence does not depend on any
epistemological system. Therefore, unlike idealism, materialism rests on
an actual premise--a premise that exists independent of our knowing.
Therefore, materialism accords with actuality, whereas idealism commits
the epistemic fallacy, which you have committed here, namely, that all
reality reduces to our knowledge of that reality and that hence we can
never be certain of anything (except that we can never be certain!).
Because you have committed the epistemic fallacy, within the context of
the paradox you have manufactured (actually it has been manufactured many
times before), both idealism and materialism become forms of idealism.
Ironically, you have through illogic proved the superiority of idealism!
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Xxxzx Xyyxyz wrote:
> Are we able to certainly and absolutely consistently prove
>materialism? We cannot hitherto because all of the variables (of
>whichever situation) are not certainly within our grasp of knowledge.
>A great deal is still beyond us. In this way, materialism is based
More information about the Marxism