Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Epistemic facts are trivially mind-dependent under Berkeleyan idealism.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Berkeley grounds epistemic norms in God's infinite mind, which is not trivially identical to finite human minds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A standard grounded in an infinite divine intellect retains objective authority independent of any particular knower's mental states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, epistemic facts under Berkeley's system are mind-dependent on God, not trivially mind-dependent in the subjectivist sense implied by the claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Berkeley's idealism distinguishes real ideas (coherent, law-governed, God-sustained) from imaginary ones, preserving a robust reality/appearance distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An epistemic standard that tracks God-ordained regularities in the succession of ideas is not 'trivial' but answers to constraints no finite mind controls.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The trivially mind-dependent reading conflates Berkeleyan idealism with Humean or Kantian positions that Berkeley himself explicitly argued against.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Under Berkeleyan idealism, anything we know is known because some mental state of affairs obtains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Berkeleyan idealism denies that there is a mind-independent objective reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If there is no mind-independent objective reality, then all truths and epistemic facts are internal to the mind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.