In today's post I have chosen to approach this topic and to give you the opportunity to have an 1 on 1 insight of how do I perceive the hole idea of idealism.

Idealism

Dualism, which makes the opposition between the finite and the infinite, does not simply make the observation that in infinite fashion this is only one of the two terms and that by this it is reduced to something particular, to which the finite is the other particular. Such a finite, which is only private, which is beside the infinite, having within its boundary and its boundary, is not what it must be; he is not infinite, but only finite. In such a relationship, in which the finite is in one part and infinite in the other, the first placed here, the other beyond, is assigned to the finite the same dignity of subsistence and independence as the infinite; it is made of the finite being an absolute being; In such dualism, the being of the finite is fixed to itself. Touched, to say so, of infinite, she would be annihilated. But she (the being) doesn't have to be able to be touched by the infinite; between them, there must be an abyss, an impassable gap, the infinite remaining far beyond, and the finite here.

While the assertion of the rigid persistence of finiteness in the face of the finite is believed to be beyond any metaphysics, it lies only in the plane of the most common metaphysical of the intellect. Here is the same thing that infinite progress expresses: once it is recognized that the finite is not in and for itself, that it is not a self-standing reality, nor an absolute being, but that it is only a passing thing;

On the other hand, this is immediately forgotten and the finite is presented only in opposition to the infinite, completely separate from it, and escaped the destruction, as it persists independently for itself. While thinking believes that this way ascends to infinite, it is precisely the opposite; it reaches an infinite that is only finite; and the finite that she just left, she keeps it, giving her an absolute character. If, after the previous consideration of the nullity of the opposition established by the intellect between the finite and the infinite (consideration that can be useful compared to Philebos of Plato), it is easy to fall, and here in the formula that the infinite and the finite are one, that the truth , the true infinity, is determined and expressed as the unity of infinite and finite; such an expression contains something fair, but it is equally wrong and false, as I mentioned earlier about the unity of being and nothingness.

This statement goes further, to the fair objection of reducing the infinite to finite, to the objection of an infinite finite; for, in the formula above, the finite appears to have been left intact; it is not expressly expressed as suppressed. Or, if one were to reflect that the finite, as one with the infinite, could no longer remain what was outside this entity, it should at least suffer a change in its determination ( as we know, potassium in contact with acid loses it's properties) then the same thing should happen to the infinite, which, as a negative, would also be healed in his contact with the other. This really happens with the unilateral infinite, abstract,of the intellect.

But the true infinite does not just act as unilateral acid, it is maintained as such. The negation of negation is not a neutralization; the infinite is affirmative and only the finite is one being out of proportion. In the being-for-self has emerged the determination of ideality. The fact-in-fact, considered first only in its being or its claim, has reality, so fineness is also found first in the determination of reality. But the truth of finite is rather its ideality. Likewise the infinite of the intellect, which, sitting beside the finite, is not himself but one of the two finite ones, he is also something untrue, something ideal.

This ideal of finite is the main thesis of philosophy, and therefore any real philosophy is idealism. It is, however, not to be taken as infinite, which by its determination is immediately transformed into something particular and finite. That is why we have insisted here more extensively on this distinction; the basic concept of philosophy, the true infinite, depends on it. This distinction is solved by very simple reflections and that may therefore appear insignificant, but firm.

Although I could talk a lot more on this subject, I think it's better to try to find my way towards the end of this article, but not before asking you what you think about my take on the concept of idealism. I admit that my most complex understandings on this subject are the result of studying several works presenting idealism from a phylosofic perspective, works from which, one illuminated and inspired me in particular, called - "Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences, Part One - The Logic" by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and I'd like to to use this opportunity to grant credit for a few ideas I used throughout the article because of the distinct point of view they offer on the issue in discussion.

If you liked this post, please upvote it and feel to express your opinion on this topic in your comments.