Posted: Dec 07, 2016 10:15 am
Little Idiot wrote:Obviously you have not refuted idealism, although I doubt if the term 'accepted' is very suitable as used in the sentence.
Obviously it isn't necessary for me to refute it.
Little Idiot wrote:As long as you are happy to agree idealism isn't refuted by your 'mallet to the head' example, or anything else, then of course it is not necessary to refute idealism.
My point is that you have provided nothing to refute. Idealism is not in any way remotely established or evidenced. Therefore there is nothing for me to refute.Whereas at least with mallets to the head, I can evidence that there appears to be a connection to the mind with the physical form. This isn't a refutation of idealism but, evidence for the mind being a physical product.
Little Idiot wrote:While metaphysics doesn't do proof, there is no reason why it cant refute. Knowing whats wrong is a step towards whats right, ya know.
You need evidence to refute. And you've got none.