There are some arguements for or against this that are noteworthy. Much of this philosophy can be found within the works of Ayn Rand. I like a lot of Ayn Rand's literature and think Objectivism has a lot to offer. One thing I have learnt though, is that it is pointless arguing with a Rand purist because more often than not they have learnt the Rand-scriptures off by heart and recite them when challenged and not a single thing would change their mind. I personally believe that the external world is separate from our perception but I would readily admit that it boils down to a basic belief rather than suggesting there was some logical reason why it had to be true.
People who believe that things only exist when we believe (or perceive) in them are called Idealists. "Esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived) was the term coined by George Berkeley when putting forward his version of Idealism. He claimed that things only existed when they were perceived by one or more minds. Berkeley differed from hardcore Idealists because when challenged with the idea that it was nonsensical to say that things stopped existed when we closed our eyes, he responded by saying that God was perceiving everything in the Universe and so it always existed. A load of old codswallop if you ask me, but I can't prove that he is wrong.
The question that leads on from this is, as long as it seems like things are still existing outside of our perception, does it practically matter whether they are or not? If I am convinced that my bed exists when I leave my room, it makes no difference whether it does continue to exist or not because to me, I don't notice the difference.
At the end of the day, we can't prove it either way and so we have to live with what we are most comfortable with. If you choose to believe that things only exist when we perceive them, you travel the dangerous road to solipsism which is the belief that "I exist, and everything and everyONE else is a figment of my imagination." Apart from being very similiar to megalomania, it would be very difficult to live out a life if you truly believed yours was the only mind. To believe in an external reality is the one that gives me the most satisfaction, although sadly, I cannot prove it.
Specforces
People who believe that things only exist when we believe (or perceive) in them are called Idealists. "Esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived) was the term coined by George Berkeley when putting forward his version of Idealism. He claimed that things only existed when they were perceived by one or more minds. Berkeley differed from hardcore Idealists because when challenged with the idea that it was nonsensical to say that things stopped existed when we closed our eyes, he responded by saying that God was perceiving everything in the Universe and so it always existed. A load of old codswallop if you ask me, but I can't prove that he is wrong.
The question that leads on from this is, as long as it seems like things are still existing outside of our perception, does it practically matter whether they are or not? If I am convinced that my bed exists when I leave my room, it makes no difference whether it does continue to exist or not because to me, I don't notice the difference.
At the end of the day, we can't prove it either way and so we have to live with what we are most comfortable with. If you choose to believe that things only exist when we perceive them, you travel the dangerous road to solipsism which is the belief that "I exist, and everything and everyONE else is a figment of my imagination." Apart from being very similiar to megalomania, it would be very difficult to live out a life if you truly believed yours was the only mind. To believe in an external reality is the one that gives me the most satisfaction, although sadly, I cannot prove it.
Specforces
Comment