Idealism vs Materialism vs Dualism (and others)

The framework of metaphysical views I offer in this video is presented primarily to differentiate Idealism from Materialism and other rivals as well as to differentiate some of the broad kinds of Idealism. I do this by grouping metaphysical positions according to their answers to two questions: What is the fundamental quality (or stuff) of Reality? What is the fundamental quantity of (or number of things in) Reality?

This is an introductory video into Idealism that clears the way for detailed and specific discussions of the view from a historical and contemporary perspective in other videos.

#Idealism #Materialism #Scepticism #Dualism #Solipsism

----------Video Contents----------

0:00 - Introduction
0:39 - Metaphysical Scepticism
1:40 - Materialism, Idealism, and Dualism
3:47 - Pluralist and Monist Materialism
6:23 - Pluralist Idealism
7:12 - Solipsism
8:20 - Absolute Idealism
9:04 - Ending

----------Channel Details----------

This channel features videos about big ideas in philosophy, explained as simply as I can. The focus is on late 19th and early 20th century thought, with a particular emphasis on the British Idealists (e.g. F. H. Bradley, J. M. E. McTaggart) and early analytic philosophers (Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Frank Ramsey). Welcome to the channel!

----------My Details----------

I am a PhD student and Gates Scholar at Cambridge near the end of a thesis on Frege's views on Truth. I have lectured at Cambridge on Frank Ramsey and Bertrand Russell, regularly taught undergraduate logic classes, and have also supervised students in metaphysics, philosophy of language, philosophical logic, epistemology, and early analytic philosophy. But I have a keen interest in the British Idealists that I hope to pursue by making videos about what I'm reading, so much of the content of this channel will be an outlet for that interest.

[aldensmith]

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting in terms of explanations - really enjoying this series.

[MonisticIdealism]

These distinctions about the different forms of monism and pluralism, and how they apply to both materialism as well as idealism, are very helpful. I've noticed that in particular the quantity of reality goes unspecified in discussions about the quality of reality. Specifying the quantity illuminates the structure or form of one's metaphysics and it's the quality that fills it in or provides content or substance so to speak.

[delicatedirector]

when you read the first couple pages of the problems of philosophy and are now questioning if your table actually exists

[ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolution]

I love this video. Keep up the good contends. I will definitely recommend this channel.

[paulh]

Thank you very much for the fully detailed video. You answered several questions I had about Idealism.

[damarisbalijon]

Great video, Learned a lot in a small time and great explanation. It would be even better if you would link philosophers who fall into each catogory. But overal great information dense video.

[riverhp]

I'm new to absolute idealism, but one explanation for the multiplicity of mind is that the absolute mind is an organism that expands and evolves. Part of this process is to divide itself into conscious individuals that will eventually realize they are united. The end product of this process is the fully development of the absolute mind, such that it gains self consciousness. I don't believe this is inevitable. It like also likely that we will remain divided and destroy ourselves before the mind is awakened.

[PeterIntrovert]

As a sceptic I would say that claim that reality is unknownable is metaphysic only if you want to attribute being unknownable to reality. But that statement also relate to our known conditions of our knowing - like the fact that we are always in connection to our experience and we can't make any connection to something outside of it. You can make claims about ultimate reality but how you make them valid? I don't see metaphysics as pointless, it just nothing more than exercise. People are sense-making creatures and metaphysics is one form of sense-making. It's a process and not a doctrine - at least in my eyes of a sceptic.

[konberner]

Skepticism is not normally about denial, it is an agnostic position due to lack of data to reach a conclusion. So it is a denial about certainty, with an open mind to you explaining to me how you are certain. If this is a metaphysical position, then what isn't?

[karmagonjo]

can the ultimate reality be something which is neither mental nor material? Has any philosopher talked about it?

[DainisKarklins]

Thank you for this video! I wanted to share it with my friends so they can more easily understand what I am talking about :) ... but ... I found out that this 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' approach is a bit puzzling. Isn't that the case that in classical philosophical definitions the differences between monism, dualism, pluralism are rooted in the idea of 'substance'. You can have many onthological entities, but if one believes that they are of the same substance that still is a form of monism. Therefore, if idealist believes that there are many independent minds as a fundamental reality, as longs as he believes these minds are of the same mental substance, he is still an idealist monist. Likewise, if materialist believes that there are many particles that make up all reality, as long as he believes these particles are of the same substance, he is a materialist monist (not pluralist, just because there is a big quantity of particles).

[MyContext]

My use of the label materialist/materialism would seem to be compatible with what materialists are referencing, but I don't know that it would qualify as a materialism.

My definition of material boils down to anything that can have interactivity with all other commentary being descriptive in some sense about relationship and products predicated on such interactive components. The focus of study being that which we can observe to have interactivity.

My referencing "that which can have interactivity" isn't a declaration of the nature of what is being referenced, just that such is the reference. Thus, I consider my position to be ontologically neutral, since what is being referenced could be a simulation or some other state currently unknown to be the case.

I would definitely be open to discussion, since I think it would be great to have a dissection of my modeling. I actually think we all have unique models that we employ with us actively doing translations to what our understanding of what others understand entails.

[williambigger]

Interesting. I think pluralist idealism and absolute idealism can coexist. because there are infinite minds, but from each individual mind’s own perspective it is the one mind.

[hgf]

Out of the options i think Ultimate idealism does the best job at solving the problems some people associated with it.

Bernardo kastrup is convincing to me, he seems to have the bases covered.

The best challenges to his idealism I've heard focus on how he defines the different positions. They say he is misrepresenting materialsm by saying they can only ever deal with quantities and never qualities because if they do they automatically become panpsychists or idealists (I think I've got that right). They seem to think this is unfair but i don't know how they can get around it.

[stoyanfurdzhev]

Idealism versus naïf materialism and an entire panoply of metaphysical oppositions.

[hadigmail]

Where can i find the history of idealism video?

[R_Priest]

As Mr. Absolute Philosophy, which view do you contend? And by what means did you arrive at that conclusion?

[Thurgor_Supreme]

I've been an absolute idealist since before I even knew what philosophy was, but I can't help but be intrigued by panpsychism. Where would that even fit into these categories though? Dualism? Or a really weird form of pluralistic idealism?

[joelrivardguitar]

I recently heard a Muslim give an argument for God as everything is an emergent property all the way down and there must be some underlying substance that cannot be divided. Along with the idea that the only thing we can know for certain is our mind and intuition (that we have a mind and consciousness). So ultimately everything is mind and goes back to a divine being. And idealism cannot be shown to be false. Are idealism and materialism in equal footing in philosophy or is one considered more likely or better argued for? I don't find the argument convincing (maybe for deism but not theism) but I'm trying to understand it better.

[Aram_sei_]

You are an amazing professor. Thanks a lot🤝