Existence of Objects

[Guest guest]

Hello All,

In the ordinary distinctions of the everyday,

Advaita is perfectly aligned with common sense. There

is no difficulty about the existence of objects and

their distinction from mental modifications, concepts

and the like.

 

Idealism on the other hand is in a muddle about the

actual existence of the world, other folks and other

minds. Airy dismissal of solipsism won't do, it's a

major problem. As the various positions held by the

idealist are put under scrutiny they are adapted so

instead of a monolithic philosophy what you get is a

series of ad hoc patches. eg. 'well there are objects

but we can't know them (phenomena/noumena). There are

no objects as such only permanent possibilities of

sensation i.e.phenomenalism. Berkeley offered this as

an esoteric doctrine, outright rejection of matter was

for the 'vulger'(mob) that would only be confused by

subtle distinction.

 

But there is one thing the idealist does not surrender

on but holds with a smug assurance of impregnability

and that is inconceivability. To exist is to exist for

someone as an item in their consciousness. In other

words anything else is inconceivable or impossible as

everything that exists is presented as existing to some

consciousness or other.

Is this position impregnable? Sankara has a stringent

criticism of this notion. More anon.

 

Best Wishes, Michael