I have explained to the readers on this forum that Idealism can be split in two main forms: objective idealism and subjetive idealism.Originally posted by Lifegazer
Via your narrative of solipsist opinion (in that thread about solipsism), I was able to show why my views are not solipsist. In fact, I remember deviating from your very first narrative.
My philosophy leads to no preconceived doctrine. And I have never discussed the full implications of my philosophy (and neither have you); so you're not in a position to comment.
The later, subjective idealism, indeed leads to nothing else but solipsism. Objective idealism as such does not, but this goes on the cost of having to invent a "Deity" of some sorts.
But both directions in Idealism have a common viewpoint. They refuse to accept that there is an objective material reality, outside of our senses and perceptions and thoughts.
Idealism seeks for truth and understanding outside of the material world we actually perceive. Instead of adopting the idea that the source for our sensations, when observing a chair for instance, must be based on the reality of that chair as something that does not exist within our mind, but outside of it, and cause our sensations of that chair, as materialists claims, idealism deals with this as follows:
In first instance they claim they only 'see' things in their mind, and that outside of that nothing exists. This can be argued to lead to solipsism, which contradicts the fact that not only you but also someone else has the same sensory percecptions about the chair. In order to 'escape' the conclusion that the cause for the sensations about the chair, is the real existing chair itself, objective idealism then comes up with a Deity, which causes the sensations in the mind.