Idealism is the idea that says "Whatever is real must be in some sense mental".
It is a denial that matter is something intrinsically different from mind.
I don't quite get why these philosophers think must is the right choice of word when making such a statement. Author promises to show the idea of idealism is fallacious, and I am very curious about how the book is to go about doing that.
My opinion on idealism, for now, is that it seems unknowable, if this proposition is true. By the very idea the book previously talked about, that truly knowing things beyond what our sense data tells us is an impossiblity.
"The grounds on which idealism is advocated are generally grounds derived from the theory of knowledge."
IV. Idealism, page 29
I remember, I was out, drinking with new friends I had made at Hyderabad, a city I was in for the first time.
At some point, my interest in etymology came up. Someone suggested I should also "check out Epistemology". I looked at Wikipedia page for it quickly, it turned out it's a completely different thing, similar to etymology only by the name. Of course, we were all drunk, so I don't expect everything we talked about to make sense.
I did not think much of that after.
Today, as I continue to read this book, specifically the chapter on Idealism, I disocover Epistemology myself. Although by it's more common name "Theory of Knowledge".
Theory of knowledge, a.k.a. Epistemology asks and explores:
Of course, this broad overview of the subject does not do justice to it. Perhaps in future I will come back to take a closer look.
For now, I want to continue reading the chapter.