Realism or Idealism?
(If you would like to translate this story into a more readable English, please do not hesitate!)

The position that one adopts often must be radical to please our judges who, so, can place the subject that they have in front of them. It is indeed reassuring to be able to "know" the others without coming to light itself: it is the means to protect and especially to keep(guard) some influence on those that revealed us their secrets or their thoughts. Nevertheless, it does not seem that it is necessary to be Manichean but on the contrary always to be able to qualify his(its,her) reflections and his(its,her) shooting to enrich his(its,her) sensations and his(its,her) faculties(powers) of difference.

So, that is not contradictory to be idealistic profoundly being at the same moment to everything there very realistic. Still it is necessary to explain itself over this position, not intermediary, but rather conciliator. But at first, let us explain briefly these two terms idealism and realism.

Idealism consists of the faith that real world, the world of things itself are after all established(all constituted) by pure ideas, by states of consciousness. The being would be idea, thought, consciousness, that is that there is no material world and that there is nothing except ideas, thoughts and except consciousness. Realism is on the contrary a doctrine according to which the being is, in kind , other thing(matter) that thought and can not be pulled(fired) of thought. In this perspective, "material("subject") is reality objectivizes that exists except my spirit and except any spirit and that does not need any spirit to exist.

In a first stage(stadium), before any reflection on the subject, the human being makes proof of an artless realism: real world is established(constituted) of all objects that I perceive because they exist. The fact that I perceive objects with five different senses(directions) me confime that the subject of my perceptions exists except my thought, except my spirit: sight could deceive me, for example by a 3-dimensional effect, but touch is there to restore reality.

This attitude arouses some important objections. All the sensations that we have result only from perceptions which cross the filters that are our senses(directions). When, for example, I look at an object, I do not perceive in fact the object directly but only a part of the light which is reflected there. On the other hand, I may distinguish the totality of elements separately but only a set(group) that I name(appoint) the object. If moreover I perceived all the details, then I could not, of a perception in the another one, "recognize" the object, because a lot of parameters would have changed (for example, lighting or even position of molecules the some with regard to the others) and it would not be any more the same established(constituted) entity of the same elements in the same state that I would have under eyes.

So so, it is necessary to distrust our perceptions and especially the irrefutable character of the truth that we attribute(award) to them.

In passing in the stage(stadium) upper of reflection, the doubt of the existence of the material things succeeds the previous certainty and it gives walk(step) very known for Descartes in its Metaphysical Considerations.

Berkeley relieves it to deny all other reality in the world which surrounds us that that of our perception: " I do not want to transform ideas into things, because the immediate objects of the perception which according to you are only the appearances of things, I consider them as the real things themselves ". So, not only what we perceive objects are only images of these objects but, furthermore, for Berkeley, these images establish(constitute) only concrete reality: nothing exists except these images, except these sensations; everything is idea and state of consciousness. When I bang against a wall, the vision of wall, the impression(printing) tactile and pain are only states of consciousness. This shape of idealism possesses an irrefutable character but that can not persuade: one can not or demonstrate that Berkeley is right, or that it is wrong.

Is it so necessary to choose between idealism and realism? In fact, it seems that it is necessary to reconcile two notions. Verb be caractèrise the essence, " make him(it) exist except any thought, except any existence ". Verb to exist caractèrise on the contrary that is due to the man and to its consciousness. The man perceives world with a lot of imperfections, also it is forced to abstract constantly to recognize the objects which surround him(it). But "objects" limit themselves of this fact only to abstractions in the consciousness of the man: they exist. And it is doubtless because the human being can accèder in the essence of the objects only he exists them in his consciousness. In fact, if one goes farther down, one can not really distinguish objects in their essence: this distinction is already a human interpretation; So one can say that only the universe is, except any consciousness, and that any attempt of the spirit to discern there other essences would be vain because because of the passage by the consciousness, it would not be any more about essences but a lot of existences.

Obviously, the man needs to reassure, and he would be reduced to the inactivity and to the pondering if he accepted the only essence of the universe. So it(he) invents a reality, an existence, the existence of the surrounding world replacing for him the essence of the universe in which it(he) can not accèder because she(it) is him(her) transcendante, that she(it) exceeds him(it) in what she(it) is previous to him and especially independent from the consciousness. Existence is so an invention, but it is an invention allowing the man to live, it is its life. When one says to me, for example, that the Earth is a sphere, I accept this reducing transformation of the essence in existence to be able to arrest(dread) reality: I may now characterize, qualify and imagine myself the Earth. But, in fact, it does not want to say anything that the Earth is a sphere because, on the one hand the sphere is a concept invented by the man (also, all the other "objects" appeal to concepts invented by the man) and, on the other hand this concept is far from being enough to describe all the essence of the Earth. Moreover, the simple fact to say " the Earth " presupposes that I distinguish an element among others and there is so intervention of my spirit: the Earth exists more than it is really. The universe is. But if one wants to act, to think, in brief, to live, it is necessary to exist.

This way, one can be profoundly a materialist (the universe is, it does not need any consciousness to be) at the same time as idealist (the man exists things and so of the simple fact that he exists, everything(however) is for(to,however) him(her) thought and consciousness). From then on, the questions of the type: " How does the universe work? " Have no foundation because they refer only to things, that in laws which exist but which are not. The man must be cosncient that this kind of questions not anème to reflect that on the existence of things and so on its own inventions: they establish(constitute) an entertainment finally, certainly profitable because they him permetttent to live and to keep(guard) a reason to live.

So, the only and real question which should worry the human being, because it only possesses an intrinsic foundation, except any consciousness, except any shape of thought and so any existence, is:

" Why the universe is? "