Idealism promises a clean escape from the problems of substance ontology.
If the world is too messy or contradictory, just collapse it into mind.
No external stuff, no external relations, no awkward ontological furniture—
just consciousness doing all the heavy lifting.
But idealism inherits all the fractures of substance ontology
and then adds a new one:
it has to explain mind without appealing to anything mind is in relation with.
The result is an ontology that either collapses into solipsism
or sneaks in a forbidden dualism.
And in both cases, relation becomes the unacknowledged ground.
Let’s apply pressure.
1. Dissolving the World Does Not Dissolve the Problem
Idealism replaces “things” with “ideas,”
but ideas are no more self-grounding than substances.
What individuates one idea from another?
What counts as a distinction?
What counts as coherence?
Every answer—without exception—appeals to relational organisation.
You can call the building blocks mental rather than material,
but if you treat them as independent units,
you’ve just rebuilt substance ontology inside your skull.
Idealism changes the label;
it doesn’t change the logic.
2. The Mind That Contains the World Cannot Explain Itself
If everything is mind, then mind must be self-grounding.
But:
-
What is mind made of?
-
How is mind structured?
-
What differentiates one mental state from another?
-
What allows transitions?
-
What anchors the space of possible mental phenomena?
You cannot answer any of these questions
without appealing to relational constraints—
perspectival, structural, experiential, interactive.
Idealism tries to place mind at the base of the stack,
but mind already presupposes a stack.
A closed mental universe is not a metaphysical solution.
It is a hall of mirrors.
3. The Closure Problem: No World, No Subject
Idealism says:
“The world is a projection of mind.”
But then:
What is the mind a projection of?
What is the ground of its organisation?
What affords its distinctions and potentials?
If you say “nothing,” you get solipsism—
a world with exactly one point of view and no constraints.
But solipsism cannot explain:
-
error
-
learning
-
surprise
-
coherence
-
anything that exceeds one’s current construal
If you say mind is shaped by something beyond it,
you have reintroduced a relation to what is not-mind.
Which means idealism is not monistic.
It is covert dualism.
Either way, mind is not metaphysically primary.
4. Experience Is Relational, Not Intrinsic
Idealists depend heavily on the intuitive certainty of experience.
But experience is already constituted relationally—
as a perspectival actualisation of a structured potential.
You cannot have:
-
attentional distinctions
-
temporal differentiation
-
contrastive phenomena
-
interpretive shifts
-
emergent meanings
if the mind is a sealed bubble.
Experience is not a self-contained glow.
It is a relational articulation of possible meanings.
Idealism misunderstands experience
because it treats first-order meaning as a substance.
5. Thought Cannot Think Itself Into a World
Idealism bets that thinking can generate worldhood.
But thought is a semantic process realised through meaning,
and meaning is constituted through relational organisation.
You cannot bootstrap meaning
from a solitary, unstructured consciousness.
A mind without a relational horizon
cannot think, know, differentiate, or sense.
The solitary mind is not a metaphysical bedrock—
it is an impossibility.
6. The Punchline: Idealism’s Ground Collapses Into Relation
Once we follow the argument through:
-
A mind must have structure.
-
Structure is relational.
-
Relationality cannot be generated by a solitary substance.
-
Therefore, mind is not metaphysically primary.
-
Relation is.
Idealism is, in the end, just another attempt
to locate a foundation that does not need relation—
and it fails for exactly the same reason substance ontology does.
Retreating into mind does not save you.
It just makes the contradictions more vivid.
Relation is the ground.
Mind is an instance—a perspectival cut through relational potential.
Idealism was always looking in a mirror
and mistaking reflection for foundation.
No comments:
Post a Comment