What it does though is give us the principles required to understand the priority of the spiritual over the material. — Metaphysician Undercover
I hear you. But I guess it is saying there is no 'material', so there is only ideas or mind. In such a reality, is there a difference in how we develop a priority of ideas and how would we go about determining what is important for human beings? — Tom Storm
In this type of philosophy, it is difficult to establish a temporal coherency, or a continuity of existence from one moment to the next in time. So process philosophers end up positing some sort of spiritual element which produces a relationship between one moment of time and the next, to account for the observed temporal continuity and apparent consistency of being as time passes. — Metaphysician Undercover
But I guess it is saying there is no 'material', so there is only ideas or mind. — Tom Storm
Physicalism—whether it ultimately turns out to be philosophically correct or not — is hypothesized to be partly motivated by the neurotic endeavor to project onto the world attributes that help one avoid confronting unacknowledged aspects of one’s own inner life. — Bernardo Kastrup, The Physicalist Worldview as a Neurotic Ego-Defense Mechanism
Metaphysical realism is the thesis that the objects, properties and relations the world contains, collectively: the structure of the world [Sider 2011], exists independently of our thoughts about it or our perceptions of it. Anti-realists either doubt or deny the existence of the structure the metaphysical realist believes in or else doubt or deny its independence from our conceptions of it. Realists about numbers, for example, hold that numbers exist mind-independently.
Even given a consistent idealist ontology, that the fundamental constituents of knowledge are not objects but ideas and sensations, this doesn't mean that pain is not real, because it is experienced as real, and that experience is apodictic (cannot plausibly denied). — Wayfarer
Mr Kastrup — Tom Storm
At the risk of taking this thread back on topic, there is an article on SEP directly addressing the titular issue. — Banno
Heidegger spent a whole career introducing a new way to think about the word ‘is’, such as S is P. — Joshs
Does a walk exist? Does a cartwheel exist? Does a backflip exist? — NOS4A2
idealism vs materialism is not actually the same debate as realism vs non-realism. Idealism is not non-realist, but claims that the external material world has no intrinsic or inherent reality outside the experience of it. So it may be opposed to what you think is 'realist' but to declare that it is non-realist actually begs the question, that is, assumes what needs to be proven (that the external material world is inherently real and that the denial of this constitutes non-realism.)
I think the assumed version of realism behind that article is scientific realism. — Wayfarer
Well, a few tried to address that issue. Perhaps that's the positive. — Banno
(but then Wayfarer denied that of logical rules, which he still maintains are 'real'), something like 'exists outside of individual minds', but then idealism is in hot water requiring God already (usually reserved for the end of a conversation!) — Isaac
The thesis seems to be that reality is fundamentally mental - not only in your mind alone, or my mind alone, but also (and here's the thing) in a transpersonal, spatially extended form of mind. — Tom Storm
formal logical structures, like mathematical operations and logical laws, are structures in the experience-of-the-world. They're neither private or subjective, nor external and objective - they transcend or at least straddle the subject-object distinction. So causality is neither in the world, nor in the mind, but in the experience-of-the-world. (This is the meaning of Quantum Baynsienism.) — Wayfarer
The collective unconscious appears to consist of mythological motifs or primordial images, for which reason the myths of all nations are its real exponents. In fact the whole of mythology could be taken as a sort of projection of the collective unconscious. We can see this most clearly if we look at the heavenly constellations, whose originally chaotic forms are organized through the projection of images. This explains the influence of the stars as asserted by astrologers. These influences are nothing but unconscious instrospective perceptions of the collective unconscious.
- C.G. Jung The Structure of the Psyche Collected Works 8
I wasn't trying to separate dream from dreamer. I was pointing out that if you can talk about it must exist. The manner in which it exists is irrelevant. You, as the doer, are dependent upon other things for your existence just as your dreams' existence are dependent upon your existence. The Earth is the doer and you are the deed.Does a walk exist? Does a cartwheel exist? Does a backflip exist?
Our language no doubt attempts to abstract actions from the extant being that performs them. But at no point should we take this to mean there is an actual, existing distinction between doer and deed. They are like the morning and evening star, one and the same. — NOS4A2
Language habits left over from when humans thought of themselves as special and separate from nature.I never said that. Plainly from the perspective of a subject, myself, other beings appear in some sense as objects, but we do not regard other beings as objects, which is why we refer to them with personal pronouns rather than as ‘it’ or ‘thing’. — Wayfarer
When did we start calling chimps and dolphins "beings"? Who have you heard say that? I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just wondering about the evolution of the word, "being".(For that matter, reflect on why humans and some of the higher animals are called ‘beings’.) — Wayfarer
What makes something both a subject and object and not just an object? Which came first? Are subjects dependent upon their accompanying objects existence? Is a subject a part, or a fraction, of their accompanying object or does the subject exhaust what it is to be the object?Philosophy has long been aware of the paradox that we ourselves are subjects of experience, but are also objects in the eyes of other subjects. — Wayfarer
I'm just wondering about the evolution of the word, "being". — Harry Hindu
What makes something both a subject and object and not just an object? Which came first? — Harry Hindu
I wasn't trying to separate dream from dreamer. I was pointing out that if you can talk about it must exist. The manner in which it exists is irrelevant. You, as the doer, are dependent upon other things for your existence just as your dreams' existence are dependent upon your existence. The Earth is the doer and you are the deed.
Your body and mind are just as much a deed as a doer. One might even say that the deed of living and the doer (your body/mind) are one and the same.
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.