Philosophy in One Lecture
Daniel Bonevac:
In this video lecture Daniel draws two stick figures on the blackboard, representing two human bodies, and attached to each figure he draws a thought bubble, representing a mind for each body and a body for each mind. So for each distinct body there is only one distinct mind; and for each distinct mind there is only one body. Daniel draws a triangle to represent an object that is, or may be, a mind-independent attribute of reality.
If my summary of the main idea is correct, then Daniel Bonevac argues in this lecture as follows. Philosophy, at its core, is all about how does one relate the objects in one's mind to the objects one thinks exist in the minds of others and to objects one thinks exist as thought-independent or mind-independent objects of reality.
Upon introspection I find that I only know the items of recognition arising in my mind. I think that insight maps to weak forms of solipsism and/or idealism. I know that there is a human body in my mind and a human mind in my body. I know that there are memories and perceptions of other human bodies in my mind and that I recognize an automatic inference (since birth) that maps a mind to each body and a body to each mind in the human and animal social context. I map such insights to the term epistemological solipsism - I only know my own mind - and to the concept of unconscious inference described by Helmholtz - there are patters of recognition arising in my mind with no conscious source of cause. Specifically, my experience of a human mind for each human body and a human body for each human mind arises automatically with no need to generate a conscious inference.
Idealism and Distinctions
SEP - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/#Intr
Even within philosophy, the terms “idealism” and “idealist” are used in different ways, which often makes their meaning dependent on the context. However, independently of context one can distinguish between a descriptive (or classificatory) use of these terms and a polemical one, although sometimes these different uses occur together. Their descriptive use is best documented by paying attention to the large number of different “idealisms” that appear in philosophical textbooks and encyclopedias, ranging from metaphysical idealism through epistemological and aesthetic to moral or ethical idealism. Within these idealisms one can find further distinctions, such as those between subjective, objective and absolute idealism, and even more obscure characterizations such as speculative idealism and transcendental idealism. It is also remarkable that the term “idealism”, at least within philosophy, is often used in such a way that it gets its meaning through what is taken to be its opposite: as the meaningful use of the term “outside” depends on a contrast with something considered to be inside, so the meaning of the term “idealism” is often fixed by what is taken to be its opposite. Thus, an idealist is someone who is not a realist, not a materialist, not a dogmatist, not an empiricist, and so on. Given the fact that many also want to distinguish between realism, materialism, dogmatism, and empiricism, it is obvious that thinking of the meaning of “idealism” as determined by what it is meant to be opposed to leads to further complexity and gives rise to the impression that underlying such characterizations lies some polemical intent.
The Thought - The Thinker
When I contemplate philosophical distinctions the pattern is always such distinctions arise in my mind coupled at times to expressions of conceptual thought (Example: idealism vs realism) and to perceptions of philosophical thinkers (Example: idealist vs realist).
But all the distinctions among bodies, minds, thoughts, and thinkers are maps or relations arising only in my mind. Empathy arises and exists in my mind along with the automatic or unconscious inference that empathy is also a property of other minds. I can map everything in my mind to social inference, empathy inference, distinctions, and relations among those distinctions, and none of this knowledge is independent of distinctions arising in my own mind. The concept of, or belief in, mind-independence is itself a thought arising in my mind!
