Our true nature is sattva, because we are carriers of the Divine Spark. But our illusion of being material beings and only material things existing leads us to follow the modes of Rajas (passion and hedonism for material things) and Tamas (indulging in unhealthy, vile, evil or insane phenomena). — Dharmi
I think they're complimentary. Kant and Schopenhauer, same with Husserl. — Dharmi
The world is empirically real and transcendentally ideal. No objects without subject, but more interestingly, no subject without object. — Manuel
if we had enough information, we would know everything we could know about how the world is given to us. But we don't, so we investigate it. But what we investigate must have a "correlative" in our nature, because otherwise we couldn't make any sense of experience. — Manuel
What do terms like ‘information’ and ‘given to us’ imply here? It sounds like the world as an independent reality that the idealist subject organizes according to internal categories. But aren’t the subjective and the objective
merely poles of an indissociable interaction , before any a priori subjective formalisms or empirical realities? Isn’t this the primordial a prior , that of radical interaction of the subjective and the objective? — Joshs
There's this thing we call the world, there are subjects, and the a priori should be what we bring to the world prior to experience. — Manuel
How can we bring anything to the world
prior to experience? — Joshs
All our concepts (tree, large, planet, rock, danger, river, person, pleasure, interesting, book, left, right, animal, books, grass, etc., etc.) , our ability to experience anything, language, the capacity for all our senses - all of these are innate. The world helps activate them, but the world doesn't "teach" us to see or to conceptualize. — Manuel
I think there's independent existence absent human beings. But I don't think we can access this independent existence. — Manuel
What we empirically experience is not 'material stuff' but merely qualities of experience. Someone, somewhere, sometime, decided to call these qualities 'material' but there's no actual reason to do so. And as far as I know, nobody has ever given a reason to do so. — Dharmi
Qualities exist, what they are called is, as far as I can tell, irrelevant. The real question is: are these qualities true, and real? — Dharmi
but even these biological structures are shaped and realized in relation to an environment — Joshs
All of the concepts you mentioned (tree, large, planet, rock, danger, river, person, pleasure, interesting, book, left, right, animal, books, grass, etc., etc.) are constructed via interaction with a world. There are no innate concepts or perceptions. — Joshs
Do we access existence or do we construct it? Does our knowledge mirror an independent world or do we construct that world , contribute to its development? — Joshs
as soon as someone can find a way to acquire reliable knowledge outside of what we call methodological naturalism, let's hear it. — Tom Storm
Yes, this is a robust and familiar argument against materialism. Bertrand Russell described this one well decades ago in the History of Western Philosophy. John Searle has a series of rebuttals to this argument which I will try to dig up.
I think the best we can do is say this - as soon as someone can find a way to acquire reliable knowledge outside of what we call methodological naturalism, let's hear it. Until then we have no choice but to assume that physicalism is all we have access to and can measure. It serves us well
However, in an a priori state of knowledge, we know that ideas and at least one mind exists, so to claim reality is made of mind(s)/thoughts begs a lot of interesting questions that don't have answers, but it has one crucial advantage over materialism: the existence of mind and ideas can't be doubted. — RogueAI
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.