The British authors and teachers of Philosophy  Helen Beebee, Nikk Effingham and Philip Goff wrote in his book «Metaphysics»:

«Phenomenalism and idealism are closely related philosophical positions and basically amount to the view that the external world (and the familiar objects that populate it - trees, cars, bananas and so on) is really no more than a collection of sensations or experiences or sense data. As George Berkeley put it, "esse es percipi" or "to be is to be perceived". Phenomenalism and Idealism are both version of anti-realism(...); because on both views the existence and nature of the external world are mind-dependent (indeed the external world are mind-dependent (indeed the external world just is mental, it is just a collection of sensations).»(Helen Beebee, Nikk Effingham and PhilipGoff, Metaphysics, The Key Concepts, pages 162, Routledge, London and New York, 2011; the bold is put by me).

It is true that for idealism the external world just is mental but that is not a correct definition  for phenomenalism as a hole. Phenomenalism is not, necessarily, anti-realism. There can exist four versions of phenomenalism: idealistic (like Hume, Kant), realistic, phenomenological, skeptical. What is phenomenalism? It is empiricism: the view that we only know the phenomena, the objects as they appear to us, the data-sense, and that we can only infer, by metaphysical intuition, in a vague way, the nature of what is behind the phemonena (an unknown matter, as realism says; a spiritual world or nothing, as idealism sostains; something unknown, as skepticism).

Why was David Hume an idealistic phenomenalist?  Because he sostained that the permanence of the objects and their matter were ideas of our imagination, and not realities in themselves. However, no author of analitical philosophy classifies Hume as an idealist: they don´t have a clear vision of ontognosiology. Idealism is beyond empiricism, on the ontological plan. And Kant was also an idealistic phenomenalist: he maintaind that we only know the phenomena (for example: houses, dogs. cities, humans bodies), which are creations in our external mind (the space), and that the real objects are the the noumenon, metaphysical beings outside of space and time, that is, outside the sensibility of each person (noumenon : God, Soul, Freedom).

«Phenomenalists and idealists do not want to deny obvious facts such as the fact that my feet still exist when I am asleep, and the difference between them comes to exactly how they account for those facts. Idealism - the position advocated by Berkeley -  appeals to the existence of God: you might not feel your feet when you are asleep, but God is all-seeing, and he perceives your feet, thus ensuring their continued existence.»(...)

«Phenomenalism makes no such appeal to God. On the phenomenalist view an object is (as J.S.Mill put it) a "permanent possibility of sensation».

  (Helen Beebee, Nikk Effingham and Philip Goff , Metaphysics, The Key Concepts, pages 163, Routledge, London and New York, 2011)

It is an error to assure that « phenomenalists and idealists do not want to deny obvious facts such as the fact that my feet still exist when I am asleep». In fact, the phenomenalist David Hume has doubts about the existence of our feet when we are sleeping, since the notion of permanence resides in us, in our mind, and not in the problematic external world, including our body. Of course some idealists and phenomenalists guarantee the invariably permanence of our feet organically linked to body while sleeping,  but not all support this opinion.

Another error of this text above is to postulate that «Idealism - the position advocated by Berkeley -  appeals to the existence of God». Some kind of idealistic Buddhism holds that the world is illusion and there is only my spirit and need not conceive of God. Even Descartes, when formulating the reasoning «I think therefore I am», plunges into solipsistic idealism without needing the existence of God.

«The phenomenalist denies that there is any distinction between the way the world is and the way our experiences represents it as being.»(Helen Beebee, Nikk Effingham and Philip Goff , Metaphysics, The Key Concepts, pages 165, Routledge, London and New York, 2011).

This is a falsehood. All phenomenalists distinguish between the sensa-data, the way they perceive the problematic external world, and the partially or totally ignored constitution of these last. For example, Kant, a phenomenalist, distinguish between phenomena and noumenon, the unknown reality. Only the naive realism identify the content of the external world and the content of empirical perception of it.

This blog requires thousands of hours of research and reflection and produces knowledge that you won´t find anywhere else on internet. In order for us to continue producing it please make a donation to our bank account with the IBAN PT50 0269 0178 0020 4264 5789 0.

 www.filosofar.blogs.sapo.pt

f.limpo.queiroz@sapo.pt

© (Direitos de autor para Francisco Limpo de Faria Queiroz)

In the entry Realism of the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy is written:

«Realism can itself be subdivided: Kant, for example, combines empirical realism (within the phenomenal world the realist says the right things - surrounding objects really exist and are independent of us and our mental states") with transcendental idealism (the phenomenal world as a whole reflects the structure imposed on it by the activity of our minds as they render it intelligible to us». (Simon Blackburn, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2005, pag 309; the bold is put by us).

 That is a complete want of comprehension of Kant´ s gnosiology. This philosophical defect is not exclusive of Blackburn but spreads to the most part of cathedratic teachers of Philosophy and authors of philosophical books in all world .

Blackburn presents the theory of Kant as if it was bicephalous in gnosiology: adding idealism to the realism. It is not that way.

 Empirical realism means only this: the material world seems real in itself observed from our empiria, from our sensorial organs. But, in essence, empirical realism is metaphysical and physical idealism , that is to say, phenomenal world is a creation of our minds and is not real per se. The two expressions mean the same thing. Empirical realism is not material, physical. metaphysical  or gnosiologic realism: is physical or metaphysical idealism.

The text of Blackburn reveals also a want of comprehension about what is transcendental idealism: the phenomenal world is not only a reflection of the structure of our mind but stays as a whole inside of our human mind.

Blackburn interprets Kant as a no natural realist , a phenomenalist realist philosopher, but on ontology Kant is anti realist, idealist.

This blog requires thousands of hours of research and reflection and produces knowledge that you won´t find anywhere else on internet. In order for us to continue producing it please make a donation to our bank account with the IBAN PT50 0269 0178 0020 4264 5789 0.

www.filosofar.blogs.sapo.pt

f.limpo.queiroz@sapo.pt

© (Direitos de autor para Francisco Limpo de Faria Queiroz)