Is the main function of facts to shape shared experience? Civilization is just people sharing experience, in the mode of either agreement or disagreement. And whether or not this is the end of civilization is probably precisely determined by the prevalence of agreement over disagreement.

Edit: That's why, as I mentioned elsewhere, I'm a melioristic optimist. It seems to me most rational choice to prefer agreement.

Does physical or mental reality precede one another, and how do we disentangle the two in a way which is meaningful to us? — Jack Cummins

Dualism is an old concept, and I would say it's "meaningful" in the sense that it does seem to capture an aspect of human existence - we do divide the world into deterministic nature and free individuals.

As I said, there seems to be a contradiction: Everything material must ultimately be mental, since we live inside our minds, and the world we interact with must therefore also be "in here" with us.
At the same time everything mental must ultimately be material, as since we experience things that are outside of us, there must be some shared reality that both our minds and whatever is not our minds are part of, which can then not itself be mental (at least not our mental).

We are living it daily, with all the horrors it entails — Jack Cummins

We are living it daily, with all the joys it entails, as well.

What about our favorite foods; natural scenes of which we are fond (sunsets, birds, trees, flowers, mountains, rain, snow, all that); fine films (even TV shows we enjoy); poetry, music, or just familiar voices we like to hear; the joys of carnal pleasures; savage cartoons of stupid politicians; big planes taking off; our dogs keeping a watchful eyes on us; storms; big waves crashing on the shore; robot vehicles on mars. There is so much good that the material world entails--much of it for free!

Of course, the horrors tend to be free too. No down-payments are required for cancer, arthritis, heart disease, brain tumors, worms, flesh-eating streptococci, vehicle crashes (even 2 wheels foot powered ones), or the relentless drag of gravity.

From dust we have come, unto dust we shall return--the material reality of life. Nonetheless, we material beings spend a lot of time thinking about transcendence. It's a very compelling idea, seductive, lovely. Sometimes we find a teasing taste of transcendence. I am not sad that transcendence isn't on the menu. That we descendants of dust and ashes can imagine, even experience a moment of the sublime, is wonderful.

I'll rest my case there.

I don't think that the question is about the whole dualist debate alone but about the whole way in which we think about life and death, trying to figiure neat categories of body and mind, life and death. Perhaps the reality is more complex indeed.

I do not deny that we are living within the material dimensions of existence. I am raising the question as one which is underlying most philosophies of the world.

whether the material world is the most absolute form of reality — Jack Cummins

If you are using "absolute" in an empiricist way, where the "maximum to be reached would be the absolute of sensations" - aka the material world - and "reality" as "what is not imaginary" then yes, the material world is the most absolute form of what is "real".

However, if we take into account the complex and totally subjective human experience and existence, with its "wish" for the absolute other than the physical - metaphysical -, then the material world is not the most absolute form of "reality".

The point is that both scenarios lack something - their counterpart - because if you discuss a totality, it must necessarily contain all the probabilities and options. There cannot be just a metaphysical world and not just a materialistic world, because ideas without a projection mechanism do not exist, and matter without purpose and/or essence does not covet existence.

It is necessary that "reality" be idealized, contemplated, projected and expressed so that it is "real". The only force capable of being its own motivation, means and ends, without needing any stimulus, is the human ego. Egoism is the craving for craving - It "IS", therefore, "absolute" -.

Not even reality is capable of being real without the participation of third parties...

Others see reality in terms of the basis of physical reality, such as Sartre's belief that essence proceeds existence, — Jack Cummins

I don't know if anyone else had mentioned it, but this is reversed - Sartre's famous aphorism was that 'existence precedes essence'. That is a succinct rejection of traditional metaphysics, which holds that the essence is what most truly exists.

With respect to the general question, one point I would raise is the distinction made in most forms of classical philosophy between the conditioned and the unconditioned. Put very briefly, the domain of the conditioned is the domain of particulars and general laws. Individual particulars come into and go out of existence dependent on conditions, and all of their components are likewise composed of parts which come into and go out of existence.

The question in the classical tradition is, what it is that gives rise to all of the myriad of individual particulars that are forever coming to be and then passing away. The philosophical origin of the analysis is with Parmenides and the response to Parmenides by the Platonist tradition. But over the intervening centuries, the residue of this understanding became incorporated into Christan theology, which of course designated 'the unconditioned' as an aspect of the divine..

In any case, that is the background to the idea that the material world is at a low level in the grand hierarchy of being (a.k.a 'the great chain of being'). You still see remnants of this idea preserved in the great philosophers of the 17th century, including Liebniz, Spinoza and Descartes.

In contrast to contemporary philosophers, most 17th century philosophers held that reality comes in degrees—that some things that exist are more or less real than other things that exist. At least part of what dictates a being’s reality, according to these philosophers, is the extent to which its existence is dependent on other things: the less dependent a thing is on other things for its existence, the more real it is.

https://iep.utm.edu/substanc/#H1

In Spinoza, for example, what is truly real is that which is self-existent and self-created and so, not dependent on anything else for its reality. This is how Spinoza describes God, although his depiction of God was certainly not universally accepted. But, leaving that aside, it simply helps to frame the question of what it means to question the reality of the phenomenal domain or physical world in the context of traditional philosophy. In order for the question to be meaningful, there needs to be a conception of 'the unconditioned' as that which 'the conditioned' is dependent on.

Your response gives some useful points. In particular, I am glad that you noticed that I had written Sartre's idea back to front. I am surprised that no one had not commented on this before. Perhaps they were just familiar with his philosophy, so either did not mention or notice. I will go back and edit, so that the sentence reads as it should have done, so thank you for pointing it out.

It is also helpful to think about the views within traditional philosophy, including Parmenides. I am more familiar with Plato. I have read Liebniz and a bit of Spinoza. But, the only one of these who have really influenced me is Plato. I do believe that there may be archetypal forms, underlying the physical world. Really, I guess that my question does ask is there a God? Probably, I had not thought about the question in that way because I am inclined to understand God as the Tao described by Capra in 'The Tao of Physics'. I am also influenced by the Gnostic understanding of God.

As a result of my own reflections about the nature being based on views which are not traditional I often do not think about the existence of God in the framework that many do, but see God as an underlying source. However, in that view I am believing in some kind of underlying invisible force. But I would also argue in favour of what the physicist David Bohm argues, the idea of an implicate order within an explicate order. The implicate order is the invisible and the explicate is the outer. I do believe that these ideas which stem from quantum physics may sit comfortably alongside Plato's views.

You speak about shared experiences of people.In thinking about this aspect of the question, I would point to the idea of the collective unconscious. The collective unconscious is made up of the individuals but can be seen as objective too. So, I would say that what is happening to civilisation as a whole may emerge from within the collective unconscious itself.

As a result of my own reflections about the nature being based on views which are not traditional I often do not think about the existence of God in the framework that many do, but see God as an underlying source. — Jack Cummins

I feel the same. I wrote an essay back in my undergrad years that 'God is not God', which was about the idea that 'God' often amounts an amalgam of ideas and conventions grounded in social history. I wanted to argue for something like 'the unknown God' which forever eludes definition but which is revealed through meditation.

As for Parmenides, I've come to realise that he is the real founder of westerm metaphysics. And of course metaphysics gets a bad rap in modern philosophy, for good reasons, as it has become ossified into verbal formulations which no longer convey anything truly vital. But I think that's because metaphysics proper demands a kind of cognitive shift, without which it is empty repetition and sterile argument. That is why in the Platonic tradition, metaphysics requires metanoia, nowadays misleadingly translated as 'repentance' but meaning something much deeper than that.

Like many, I encountered Bohm through his dialogues with Krishnamurti. I think I even own, or did own, his Wholeness and the Implicate Order. I feel a kind of intuitive affinity with it, but I'm wanting to understand the questions through the perspective of classical philosophy. I've recently discovered a classic textbook on Plato and Parmenides (Cornford) which I intend to try and study this year.

To go back to your question - I'm of the view that the phenomenal domain (sensory domain, physical domain) has no inherent reality. That is why I think materialism is a mistaken view - it takes the physical world as intrinsic or inherently real, independently of any judgement. Whereas, I say, whatever we assert to exist, relies upon judgement. So reality has an irreducible subjective pole, which is never disclosed to objective analysis, because it is always 'that which knows'. What 'the knower' is, is impossible to say, because we're never outside or, or apart from, that. This is something which is made much more clear in Upaniṣadic philosophy than in Greek philosophy.

The current culture however is overwhelmingly 'sensate' in its philosophy and view of life so naturally it invests the sensory domain with a reality which it doesn't have. Criticizing that or going against the mainstream in this matter, is an essentially subversive or couinter-cultural act.

I'm quite convinced that consciousness operates at a collective level. Trivially insect colonies do. I think that currently humankind is on the cusp of transitioning to a self-aware social consciousness. When I was younger I had an active distaste for the social; now it is the focus of all my energies and efforts at self-improvement.

I would say that consciousness and unconsciousness are probably interrelated in a very complex way. They cannot be separated and and consciousness is probably the outer manifestation of the unconscious. What do you think about this?

I am glad that someone on this site has read David Bohm and Krishnamurti, as I do believe that they are very important writers.

I think that I may go back to some of the traditional writers, including the Greek thinkers.I was thinking of the way in which our cultural perspective is very 'sensate'. This is especially true in philosophy. I am not sure how much is coming from philosophy itself. Certainly, I believe that materialism is an implicit assumption behind many perspectives of philosophy and that is why I wished to bring the idea of materialism to the forefront as an area for questioning and exploration. Personally, I do believe that materialism as starting point for seeing the world is a limited perspective, but, in saying this I am probably coming from a countercultural angle.

I would say that consciousness and unconsciousness are probably interrelated in a very complex way. They cannot be separated and and consciousness is probably the outer manifestation of the unconscious. What do you think about this? — Jack Cummins

I've studied the unconscious from the Freudian superego-ego-id, eros-thanatos perspective and the Jungian perspective. Honestly, I don't know. I wonder if the unconscious is just a blanket term we employ for whatever hidden mechanisms we have trouble excavating?

An early iteration of my personal philosophy centered around cognitive biases, which could be lumped in with the unconscious inasmuch as they are unseen determinants of conscious thought. Much of that effort was focused on excavating and identifying hidden prejudices. I've read many times that our shared lifeworld consists of preconceptions that are so fundamental, they resist direct inspection or conceptualizaion.

I have to admit that I am not coming from an empirical perspective really. I cannot say that philosophies such as that of John Locke or the determininists have convinced me completely, because there seems to be something lacking.

One philosopher who I would agree with is Hegel. He draws upon oriental ideas, including Indian metaphysics. In 'The Philosophy of History' he speaks about dreams in the following way: 'For we have not the dreaming of an actual Individual, possessing distinct personality, and simply unfettering latter from limitation, but we have the dreaming of the unlimited absolute Spirit'.I would agree with the idea of Spirit, as adopted by Hegel.

However, I do believe that you are right to see the q for a 'counterpart' and do think that spirit or mind need a body. This is different from the idealist perspective, which seems to see the two as independent. That is one of the problems which I see arising in many systems of belief about life after death. The implication is that the mind can survive beyond death as an independent entity in its own right. I do see mind and body as interrelated and hard to separate, in a holistic way, although there does need to be some kind of source from which everything arises, or has done. I think that many philosophers are opposed to the idea of the invisible but we know that it operates in some ways, such as in electricity or Wifi, which just seem to be generated through signals.

I also do think in terms of the collective unconscious, described by Jung. Generally, I think that the interrelationship between mind and body has not been addressed adequately. I think that the basis of this has stemmed from the dualism of Descartes. I would also say that the dualism has meant that body and mind have been seen in a shallow way and the instinctual side has been underplayed. What occurred within Western philosophy is that we have ended up with too much emphasis on the empirical, especially within reductionist determinism.

I have read a lot of Jung and Freud, as well as other writers on the unconscious. It is hard to know to what extent the unconscious refers to hidden mechanisms which we do not understand.However, I am inclined to view the unconscious as a source.

One book which I read but, unfortunately, don't have any longer is a book by Victor White, 'God and the Unconscious.' But the idea of the associated between the two is interesting. Perhaps the idea of the unconscious and God, refer to the same reality, although it is likely that this perception of God would be a bit different from the conventional idea of God in most mainstream religious beliefs in Western thought.

What is reality? Collections of collections of collections etc. What else could there be?

And I mean all possible collections, because what is the difference between "possible" and "real", after all?

Our material world is a part of that, perhaps a rather small part.

I think that many philosophers are opposed to the idea of the invisible but we know that it operates in some ways, such as in electricity or Wifi, which just seem to be generated through signals. — Jack Cummins

I’ll add that cultures, goals, and values (to list just a few examples, the unconscious as just one more) are all invisible - imperceptible by the physiological senses - and hence non-empirical (in today’s understanding of the term “empirical”, which no longer signifies experiential). Most would deem each of these to be addressing immaterial givens, yet each of these will hold its own type of quite real determinacy upon us as conscious beings and, in consequence, upon how we interpret the world—including in relation to the question which the OP raises.

I would see cultures, values and goals as arising from humanity, but they are are part of the collective unconscious. I am not sure if this is what you are saying, or asking?

is energy material? Are conscious concepts material? Is experience of the material material? This is the metaphysics of reality. What is the material basis of emotions such as love?

I think material cannot account for all phenomena in the universe as strictly speaking: materials must be manipulated and what better to manipulate the physical than the non physical. Furthermore if there is only material existence there cannot be a “nothing” To contrast such an existence and as far as I know all things have an opposite. No matter how fundamental.

I think your question as to whether energy is material is an important one. I think that it is at the core of physics. I am not a physicist but I believe that we have moved away from the Newtonian model which looks to structures. The quantum physicists are showing that the universe is much more complex and are less inclined to look for explanations in purely material terms.

What is the material basis of emotions such as love? — Benj96

Oxytocin. I think all emotions have a material basis in terms of hormones, enzymes and the like. What's not explicable through such means is selfless devotion and self-sacrifice.

The most absolute form of reality is not material, but conflict. Nothing is real until opposition and impossibility emerge. When I see something, it is real because it is just an appearance, not completely visible and obscuring what is behind it.

When interacting with others, the difference between their desires and mine is what makes them real.

I would see cultures, values and goals as arising from humanity, but they are are part of the collective unconscious. I am not sure if this is what you are saying, or asking? — Jack Cummins

I wasn't intending to offer an ontological position, but simply wanted to supplement your statements that that which is invisible is often very important - and this regardless of ontological stance.

Since you bring up the collective unconscious, and in keeping with the thread's subject, if physicality isn't to be interpreted as ultimate, or absolute, reality, would you then view physicality to of itself be a product of the collective unconscious?

I'm asking out of a curiosity to better understand your point of view. As for myself, to be forthright, my leanings are toward an objective idealism, with the ultimate/absolute reality being along the lines of the Neo-platonic "the One" - which makes me open to notions regarding the collective unconscious. I haven't read Jung in a long while, though.

I would say that the question of whether the cause of physicality is a very good one. That would be going to the point of seeing the collective unconscious as being like a God force. I think that to see physicality arising in this way would be pushing Jung's ideas way beyond the way he speaks of it. The physical world has been around for a long time, so we are looking at the whole birth of the universe.

I am not sure how the Neo Platonists view the origin of the universe. I am familiar with some objective idealism. Surely, this sees mind as more essential than matter. I think that which is more primarily is the underlying question I raise. I don't have a clear answer as this is something I do wonder about a lot. However, I do think that mind and matter are so intricately bound together and think that they cannot be separated. So, if the universe and all others collapsed entirely, the question is what would be left, other than the debris. Would the laws of the physical world have collapsed. We could say that invisible laws, such as gravity are independent of physical reality to some extent, but not necessarily universal. Gravity does not operate when people are walking on the moon.

As I was writing that paragraph I felt that I was dealing with complex knots and it made me think why many philosophers believed in God, on the basis of the argument by design. I am tempted to use Jung's ideas of the collective unconscious as an explanation, but I feel that this is stretching the whole idea out of context. A similar idea is Rupert Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance, which speaks of morphic fields as an underlying memory within nature. In my own quest to understand these complex matters, I think that I will keep reading a mixture of philosophy and the philosophy of physics.

I was reading one of the replies which you sent to me and I see that you of how we 'can't distinguish between the real and unreal'. Surely, this complex matter can at least be spoken of in some ways by Kant's ideas about objective reality, as well the ideas within physics. Perhaps it is the whole way in which so many different theories have arisen in physics which has put as in a Tower of Babel and , as a result, we have become lost in being able to get any grasp of what is 'reality' at all.

The phenomenal domain can be accorded reality without according it inherent or intrinsic reality.

I was reading one of the replies which you sent to me and I see that you of how we 'can't distinguish between the real and unreal'. Surely, this complex matter can at least be spoken of in some ways by Kant's ideas about objective reality, as well the ideas within physics. Perhaps it is the whole way in which so many different theories have arisen in physics which has put as in a Tower of Babel and , as a result, we have become lost in being able to get any grasp of what is 'reality' at all. — Jack Cummins

Kant supposedly wanted to unify rationalism with empiricism; he took an eclectic approach and was of the opinion that though we perceive the world through our senses, our minds shape sensory perceptions and the final picture of reality is a kinda sorta synthesis of the two. How does this weigh in on the issue of real vs unreal? Well, if one subscribes to some variation of rationalism, ideas, whatever they may be, are real, as real as the apples Kant may have partaken of during one of his meals. If so, everything would be real. :chin:

The way in which I believe that Kant's ideas are applicable is his whole idea of the transcendent. As far as I see it would mean that despite empirical reality, he thought that this was an objective reality underlying all else. Of course, he was coming from the angle of Christianity. However, I do believe that if we dismiss his theory of knowledge with regards to the idea of the transcendent, then we must in some way reject his whole logic of a priori knowledge and settle for a posteriori reality.

You say that,
'The phenomenal domain can be accorded reality without according it inherent or intrinsic reality'. Are you saying that there is no intrinsic reality as far as the limits of our human knowledge, or that the whole question of trying to find it is not that important?