This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Education High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Engineering High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Invention High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Metaphysics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Metaphysics

Sorry, it has been a few years since I have thought about the conventions of wikipedia article editing and talk pages, so this is likely not how I'm supposed to do it, but shouldn't this passage be given a qualifier, considering it is not fact, but rather the the definition of idealism as opposed to materialism?

"Ideas embody the prototypes of objects and concepts of reality, driving civilization and governing the institutions of social life support, culture, spirituality, ideas carry a semantic weight, thus filling and motivating the purpose of the personality's existence with a special meaning." Alex parsimoniae (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas generate from a human body’s brain from what he receives inputs from his six senses.in all the senses images (sight sence) plays an important role in his ideas. Then the area he belongs,his life views, his thearies.. all becomes ideas.ideas are classified into two. 1) good ideas Ideas that are harmful to him /her and to the other living beings 2) bad ideas Ideas that are harmless to him/she and to other living beings Anooj v a (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I hear no objection, I'm slimming down the section on adventitious v. innate, adding it as a postscript to the Kant section (since "adventitious v. innate ideas" are a minor riff on Kant's "concept v. idea" that do not appear to be part of a major current and appear to derive from ephemeral secondary and tertiary sources as opposed to philosophical primary sources). Also I think we should ax the semantics section, and--even though he's not a major I don't personally mind--move Samuel Johnson up into the Philosophers section. Be back in a few days to see if there are any dissenters on this rearrangement.ThomasMikael (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]