One Answer

  1. , in fact, are very conditional. First of all, it should be noted that the concepts of “subjective idealism” and “objective idealism”are quite different.In some cases, they may be convenient, but trying to strictly fit philosophy into such a framework is a very big stretch.

    The concept of “subjective idealism”is particularly bad. Hypothetically, subjective idealism is a philosophical concept that deduces the existence of the universe from the activity of an individual subject, his consciousness in the broad sense of the word. In this case, the only consistent form of subjective idealism is solipsism, but this position is extremely exotic.

    Kant is called a subjective idealist because in his philosophy the phenomenal (perceived by us) universe is considered as a product of the activity of our consciousness. Nevertheless, according to Kant, this activity itself is inspired by the impact on consciousness of external “things-in-themselves” that exist quite objectively, independently of us. So in the full sense of the word, Kant cannot be called a subjective idealist. Strictly speaking, we cannot say at all whether he was an idealist or a materialist, since in Kant's philosophy things-in-themselves are fundamentally incomprehensible, and therefore we cannot say anything about their nature.

    Thus, the definition of Kant's philosophy as subjective idealism, although widespread, does not really accurately reflect his philosophical views.

    Hegel, in turn, refers to objective idealism because in his philosophy the basis of everything is the “Absolute Idea”, a certain objectively (i.e., independently of man) existing immaterial reality that reveals itself in the process of history.

Leave a Reply