The question of whether the mind is a thing. — Wayfarer
You said, well, it's an immaterial thing - to which I responded, what are some other examples? But the examples you provided turned out to be things you don't think exist, so they're not actually examples at all. — Wayfarer
I've asked on this thread since the start of one thing that requires a materialist/idealist viewpoint and no one has presented anything. It seems both positions can say the same things, provided you use their respective definitions. — khaled
no materialist or physicalist system will accept matter or the physical to be to any degree determined by aims, teloi. — javra
Either under the construct that mind emerges from physical substrata via emergentism such that a property dualism unfolds or, else, that of brain = mind with no property dualism involved — javra
The second alternative results in a stark contradiction between experienced reality and theorized reality. For just as we know that minds occur, — javra
Else expressed, the reality of purpose in any facet of the world requires a non-physicalist metaphysics, of which idealism is one form. — javra
one of Aristotle conclusions given his premising of teleology what that of an ultimate final cause/telos as the unmoved mover of everything that changes/moves. Our of curiosity, would you say that this notion then conflicts with a purposeful materialism? Why or why not? — javra
So I take it that for you it makes perfect sense to deem material substance, or the physical, as purposeful. — javra
If it's "unmoveable" then yes (conflicts). If it's "unmoved" then no. If it's fundamentally unmovable it's not physical. — khaled
I'd ask whether or not you think a self driving car has purpose. And if it does, when exactly did we add the immaterial "purpose sauce"? Seems to have risen naturally. — khaled
I thought we were for the time being addressing the (now pejorative ?) purposefulness as as something material. And not as something immaterial. — javra
As to the natural arising part: If mater, or the physical, is that which is natural, and if this is in itself purposeful, then you are just expressing that purposeful given X arose from purposeful given Y. So there's no add-on of purpose involved — javra
Are idealists necessarily more susceptible to a bunch of unverifiable tosh? — Tom Storm
How does one discern 'good' idealism from 'bad' and how does this play out in a quotidian life? — Tom Storm
It's not a matter of it being offensive - it's a matter of it being false, on account of the fact that the rational, linguistic and imaginative capacities of h. sapiens places us in a different category. — Wayfarer
There's nothing about reason, language and imagination that leads an unbiased person to infer a second fundamental kind of stuff, some of-the-gaps arguments notwithstanding. — Kenosha Kid
Idealism _is_ unverifiable tosh. — Kenosha Kid
The universe is of the nature of a thought or sensation in a universal Mind … To put the conclusion crudely — the stuff of the world is mind-stuff. As is often the way with crude statements, I shall have to explain that by "mind" I do not exactly mean mind and by "stuff" I do not at all mean stuff. Still that is about as near as we can get to the idea in a simple phrase. The mind-stuff of the world is something more general than our individual conscious minds; but we may think of its nature as not altogether foreign to feelings in our consciousness … Having granted this, the mental activity of the part of world constituting ourselves occasions no great surprise; it is known to us by direct self-knowledge, and we do not explain it away as something other than we know it to be — or rather, it knows itself to be. — Arthur Eddington
I'm unaware of a good idealism. Could you provide an example? — Kenosha Kid
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?
Accept or lean toward: non-skeptical realism 760 / 931 (81.6%)
Other 86 / 931 (9.2%)
Accept or lean toward: skepticism 45 / 931 (4.8%)
Accept or lean toward: idealism 40 / 931 (4.3%)
Their "tosh" is psychologically verified (i.e. "believing is seeing") rather than publicly corroborated.Are idealists necessarily more susceptible to a bunch of unverifiable tosh? — Tom Storm
"Good idealism" consists of noncognitive descriptions (e.g. phenomenology, hermeneutics, existentialism) and "bad idealism" posits noncognitive explanations (e.g. Buddhism, Platonism, Hegelianism). The latter derives life's meaning from 'a priori teleology' and the former from 'intersubjective (discursive) experience'.How does one discern 'good' idealism from 'bad' and how does this play out in a quotidian life?
A (philosophical) materialist, in order to be consistent, claims "immaterial g/G or persons (i.e. souls / spirits) do not exist". For her, material is synonymous with existent.What’s the actual difference between the two positions? What’s a significant position that cannot be put into materialist/idealist terms (whichever you want) without being contradictory. — khaled
My question then is what really is the difference between idealists and materialists other than the words they use to describe the stuff that exists. — khaled
The point about reason, language and imagination is that it can 'see into the possible' - it can discover ideas and make them real. No animal can do anything remotely similar. — Wayfarer
We have weighed and measured the cosmos, created technology that has changed the world. — Wayfarer
As a physics lecturer, you must be aware of these and many other similar ideas expressed by modern physicists. — Wayfarer
Bear in mind we're coming from a world that was taught that God made us bespoke, with His divine breath, and made the universe just for us: being ever so special is important to many. — Kenosha Kid
Idealists cannot rule out supernatural explanations, whereas materialists can. — Pinprick
Nevertheless it may well be us that is wrong on this. :razz: — Tom Storm
isn't idealism about the part ideas play in the makeup of the world? — frank
If we are not subtle, we will find that we are all homeless according to the material proposition. If the walls of my house are just infinite electrons appearing and disappearing as the space it is in changes constantly and ridiculously fast as earth circles the sun, then I do not have a physical home. — Gregory
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.