Idealists hold that a material object (like a painting) is just a set of ideas or experiences in our mind or in God's mind; realists say that a material object is objective real. Ayer would say that
Idealists hold that a material object (like a painting) is just a set of ideas or experiences in our mind or in God's mind; realists say that a material object is objective real. Ayer would say that
The idealists and realists both intend their statements in such a way that the issue can't be resolved empirically. So the issue betweem them is meaningless -- so neither side is right.
In the normal sense of "objective material object," we could show by sense experience that the painting is an objective material object.
Idealists hold that a material object (like a painting) is just a set of ideas or experiences in our mind or in God's mind; realists say that a material object is objective real. Ayer would say that
The idealists and realists both intend their statements in such a way that the issue can't be resolved empirically. So the issue betweem them is meaningless -- so neither side is right.
In the normal sense of "objective material object," we could show by sense experience that the painting is an objective material object.
Idealists hold that a material object (like a painting) is just a set of ideas or experiences in our mind or in God's mind; realists say that a material object is objective real. Ayer would say that
The idealists and realists both intend their statements in such a way that the issue can't be resolved empirically. So the issue betweem them is meaningless -- so neither side is right.
In the normal sense of "objective material object," we could show by sense experience that the painting is an objective material object.