What's wrong with Idealism?

What's wrong with Idealism?

I mean, why advanced Idealism is an autistic thing, a world of words, a neutralization of the mind, and nothing else?

the fact that it solves it all and so leaves you with nothing else to do.

also, you chose the worst possible manifestation of idealism. that is why it is the most famous, because you can do something with it, ie it is a misunderstanding of it.

Transcendental idealism is something to seriously consider. materialists seem to forget that substance is a concept of the mind, and hence can't be grasped without a subjective lens of our perception of it.

Hegel is really interesting since he wants to explain that the objective and the subjective(particular consciousness) are manifestations, coming into being as one absolute reality(spirit).

Op here. Ok, I'll try to explain my point - but i'm not a scholar of philosophy, neither a great reader of it, neither a native english speaker.
I hate Berkeley, Baudrillard, Hegel, Hume (oh god, Hume), Sartre and similiar. I love Kant, Marx, Wittengstein, Plato.
My doubt is: the philosophy of the first five, is a philosophy of the reality, or is it just a bunch of words, out of reality?
Does reading the full opera of Berk leads you to the madness of the metaphysic? Does Hegel talks about the real world, or is it just HIS world?
It is a punishment of mine the fact that someone says to me: "nothing exists", or, "all is in the mind of God", ecc. I accept without doubt the noumenon, but shit, they go further and further. And Hume sings like: "the cause and the effect are not there, my boy". Damn, help me

you sound like ou could try the eastern forms of idealism. like the indian madhyamaka cittamatra school, or the taoist philosophies that merge with religion and art.

if ou dont feel like taking that path, maybe our list lacks some phenomenology, fr those are the one who attempted to describe ideas from experience not from abstractions. they failed tho.

because its literally based in the ideal

i'm not saying its completely useless but its the dreamers ideology and in order to be used to its full potential it requires balance with realism

balance bruh

It isn't ideal

So you are saying you accept the dualism of critical idealism - the distinction between phenomenal and noumenal, i.e., the necessary awareness that the phenomenal structures the noumenal as we "receive" it. But you don't like so-called absolute or subjective idealisms, that turn the phenomenal into "all there is," really and actually, so that the phenomenal construction/disclosure/unfolding of "the world," for us, actually IS "the world."

I'm not entirely sure why you hate Hume or Baudrillard - I hate Hume too, but because he's a naive empiricist with weak respect for "good idealism" (Kantian critical dualism). If that's your hate of Hume too, then I get you. When it comes to Baudrillard I'm not sure though. I will say: Baudrillard is a social ontologist, not a metaphysical subjective idealist.

Anyway, I agree with you that this "bad idealism" is a problem especially with these post-Kantian, hypertrophied forms of idealism. A few stray comments that probably won't help much: Berkeley's idealism is somewhat more subtle than this, but I don't know exactly how. I just know that there are readings of Berkeley that aren't as naive as he often seems in thumbnail sketches.

Also:
>Does Hegel talks about the real world, or is it just HIS world?
This is an ongoing dispute. A dominant recent school of Hegelians claims that Hegel is actually just a social ontologist - basically a proto-Heideggerian theologian, and not as presumptuous as he seems when he's read as an absolute idealist in the usual way. Some like Houlgate say otherwise. And there is a third possibility that is more interesting - that takes him to be trying to do justice to both the noumenal and phenomenal, so that he's at least aware of the division, rather than reducing the n to the p.

Why do you love Plato though if you like Kant? Plato is doing substance ontology, he is honestly closer to Hegel except he places universal Being in the mind of God and "out there" in Nature rather than in the unfolding Subject.

wishful thinking

My problem is with their language. I think that to well describe the reality - every part of the reality - the author should use a clear, accurate, exact language. With Saussure, every form of the reality come to us with a sign (signifier+signified), connected to a referent.
So, by this point, where are the referents of some philosophers' phrasal structures?
In Hegel, we have the hell, and the same in Baudrillard. In Hume the problem is that he try to explain the non-existance of the reason (causes and effects), using the reason.
For this reason i love Wittgenstein. On the other hand, Kant is very clear to me, not to mention Marx.
If I tell you that on that table there is a sphere, do you understand me, of course. If I tell you, that, in-table, over-table of the table, in front of the reality of the idea of the table there is not a 'sphere', but a non-so-realistic-sphere, called X, and Y is the negation of the table, under my pants, that are trousers and gloves at the same time... and so on. Ok, this is a just a joke of course.
Anyway, this is my point, but I repeat, i'm not a philosopher by study of profession, and maybe I'm just allergic to this science

>feels over reals

Is German idealist really all about feels though? It's more of an attempt to BTFO and point out how Kant dropped the ball with empiricism than any appeal to emotions (after all the Germanic tradition is not exactly famous for ever having any emotion).

Yeah I see what you mean. Though I think the Hume problem is different from the Hegel problem. The Hume problem is that he is indeed doing Bad Philosophy - as Husserl (a very careful writer) said, Hume is doing a kind of proto-phenomenology or naive phenomenology that isn't honest about itself, isn't honest about all its "elements."

That's different from the problem with Hegel. With Hegel, there is simply the historical problem of deconstructing the fucking mammoth system of sui generis phrases and concepts that refer ONLY TO HEGEL'S WEIRD WAY OF USING THEM, which is a jumble of 19 references to *other*, previous ways of using them, that he just expects you to know. You simultaneously aren't to confuse them with any of the other 19 senses, but to perfectly understand Hegel's very strange deployment of them in a new Hegel-y fashion.'

The problem with this is exactly that the errors in Hegel's thinking become obfuscated as a result - when he says "the Negation of the Negation of itself," or something like that, as a solution to some more concrete problem ("Is there a fucking sphere or not?"), the interpretation becomes an issue not of logical clarification, but of a bunch of Hegel experts arguing back and forth whether they "truly got" the Hegelian sense of Negation, truly and actually understood all the intricacies and vagations of its construction from the 19 precursors Hegel is mixing together. Throw in the fact that Hegel changes what he means by terms (OR DOES HE??? another point of interpretation) between early, middle, and late periods, and you have a massive clusterfuck.

I don't see how this problem is limited to idealists though. Baudrillard is certainly guilty of the same thing, to an extent, but not nearly as badly as Hegel - Baudrillad is tedious to learn, but you can figure out his webwork of metaphors and presuppositions eventually. Hegel is literally still opaque today because of his opacity.

it is a different type of feels but it is still feels nonetheless

>Hegel is still opaque because of his opacity
Behold the depth of analytic clarity.

Idk how people get so confused about Hegel, pretty clear if read in logical order. Clarity is not ease.

Aren't you "Anal Water," that namefagging autist from lefty/pol/ and Reddit who insinuates himself into every post even tangentially about Hegel so you can advertise your blog?

Clarity is the non-clarity, so it's opacity, but a opaque clarity, in the clear opacity

t. Schopenhauer

his blog unironically helped me with the force and understanding shenanigans

this honestly

hegel is throwing people a discursive ladder

>throwing
you mean bludgeoning

as the master-slave dialectic shows sometimes violence is required

What was the noumenon again?

Taking the presumptuous out of Hegel takes the only good thing out that there was. Reading him say that he has achieved Absolute Knowing and finished the course of human knowledge in doing so is fun.

lol

yikes, I'm embarrassed for you

non-dualism > idealism

Hegel's all about unity of opposites though.
Freedom is necessity, substance is subject, finite and infinite are both finites which are part of a bigger infinity, every immediate is mediated, and science of logic literally starts with the identity of being and nothing.