Realism or Idealism?

This video discusses the differences between idealism and realism. It also looks into the epistemology of St. Thomas and Aristotle, and the epistemology of Husserl, Hume, Locke, and Russel.

0:00 - Intro
0:47 - Idealism
4:15 - Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
7:09 - What did Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas hold?
8:35 - Scholastic Epistemology
14:32 - Consequences of Idealism
16:27 - Conclusion and Overview

[MKDSKairu]

YouTube algorithm pulled through, nice video

[euanpound]

The table must exist (and in particular its appearance must correspond to the object itself) because I touched it QED

[ka]

Brilliant video, love your way of explaining this

[baconmeido]

You have a pleasant voice, subscribed! 🙏

[isaamoreirak]

Heyy, I just discovered your channel totally by chance. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, I've been loving the videos. I'm glad your channel reached me here in Brazil! 🥰

[vampireducks]

Both! The terms are somewhat ambiguous... Cosmic "idealism", with relative "realism", along the lines of (Aristotelian) Neoplatonism...

[airbear]

The YouTube algorithm has blessed me. As a beginner interested in philosophy, what light hearted books or material do you suggest to get started in the area of philosophy?

[ViradaRealistaBrasil]

So the explanation has shortcommings

At the beggining you say that realism is a older trend beggining in aristotle. Then, in the midle, you say that plato was an idealist. In fact, it is possible to argue that those philosophers were neither cause the debate was not there. By the same token, if you say that the debate need not be there explicitly, then is possible to identify both idealism and realism early on on the continental tradition.

More than that, you seem to confuse realism with empiricism. Direct access is not the same, to many, as direct access to reality (the same holds for indirect access). Realism can be thought of as epistemogical and/or ontological and have many shapes. The sane with realism. For example, the idealist trend after Kant in some extents is read as idealism without noumena. So Idealism in this tradition cannot be defined by the notion of noumena. More than that, Husserls idealism can also be identified as a "idealism withouth noumena".

We can argue that another error appears when you say that all medieval philosophers were realists. In fact realism were a ontological position that was disputing place with nominalism and conceptualism in a way that we can see that is not thr case that the enemy of realism is always idealism.

The definitions need refinment. Realism and Idealism can be opposed in the question of the place of the subject. But even here the lines get blurry since it is needed to find a palce for the subject in reality.

I recomend you to read the new trends of realism that come from Speculative Realism and New Realism, specially: Quentin Meillassoux's "After Finitude" (2007); "Speculative Realism" the trabscript of the symposium in Collapse vol 3 Editted by Robin Mackay (2007); Markus Gabriel's "Why the world does not exist" (2013) and "Fields of sense" (2015); Finally Graham Harman's "Object Oriented Ontology" (2018)

[arthurification]

So this 'world' humano can't access is only conceive by faith? We Just habe to believe that exists?

[TheRealBorisZai]

You're a realist? Ok name every possible experience. Check and mate, read some Kant.