, there is an 'absolutisation of the objective' — Wayfarer

I agree that this is a problem, comparable to reification. One should not absolutize what is not absolute to begin with, just as one should not "thingify" what is not a thing, just as one should not reify what is not a res. And one should certainly not objectify what is not an object. That, is one possible argument, and further line of inquiry.

Yet, for the very same reason, you seem to be suggesting that one should not materialize what is not material. And I would agree with you: that should not be done. It would be a category mistake to do even do such a thing.

But then you seem to be suggesting that one should not idealize what is not idea. And I expressed, even said plainly, that I agree with you: one should not do such a thing. It would be a category mistake to even do such a thing.

So I sincerely do not understand what is the actual difference between our Philosophies. The only difference that I perceive, the only difference truly "worthy" of the name, is a difference-making Aesthetic difference, and only that. Allow me to explain what I mean, with the help of a metaphor. Speaking less formally, here's the "picture" that I would suggest as a conceptual metaphor of "what I've been saying" in this specific Thread.



It is, as you already know, the symbol of the Yin and the Yang. We can "appeal to erudition" if you want, in this discussion, yet I would begin in a non-erudite way. In other words, I would "go about it" as a commoner would, because that is precisely what Wikipedia does:

In Chinese cosmology, the universe creates itself out of a primary chaos of material energy, organized into the cycles of yin and yang, form and matter. 'Yin' is retractive, passive and contractive in nature, while 'yang' is repelling, active and expansive in principle; this dichotomy in some form, is seen in all things in nature—patterns of change and difference. For example, biological and seasonal cycles, evolution of the landscape over days, weeks, years and eons (with the original meaning of the words being the north-facing shade and the south-facing brightness of a hill), gender (female and male), as well as the formation of the character of individuals and the grand arc of sociopolitical history in disorder and order. — Wikipedia

I sincerely do not understand what is the actual difference between our Philosophies — Arcane Sandwich

But you've said a number of times that you advocate scientism and materialism. Scientism is the belief that science is the adjuticator of all knowledge, materialism the belief that only the physical is real, and everything is reducible to it. The Blind Spot is arguing against those beliefs. So you can't agree with both sides.

At that point of your own phenomenology journey, one becomes a materialism. — Arcane Sandwich

OK, I can't leave this just like this. Let me invent an excuse for it (yep, 100% honesty mode right not).

First of all, the syntax. It's not necessarily wrong. Because what I clumsily said in my original quote might qualify as a garden path sentence.

So, what I said, now means "At that point of your own phenomenology (your personal Phenomenological) journey, one becomes (through a process of increasing abstraction), a "materialism" in the sense that one has forgotten about oneself as a subject in the ontological sense of the term.

How about that?

If you mean, materialism is a tendency at a certain point of the development of cultures, then sure. It is also true that it is a belief system that individuals can adopt and also leave.

materialism is a tendency at a certain point of the development of cultures — Wayfarer

Hmmm... Do I agree with this? This is the part where it becomes a complicated discussion. Just for the record, no, I do not believe that materialism is a tendency at a certain point to the development of cultures. Maybe it was in the past, in some instances. But it is not today, and has not been, for a very long time. And, honestly speaking, I don't think that materialism will ever be in a position to "get that back", so to speak. But that is of no important consequence, for "materialism" is not my only premise. Whatever deficiencies materialism might have as a premise, it compensates for its weakness by drawing strength from the other premises of the system, premises such as realism, atheism, and scientism. Lately, I've been considering the public addition of literalism to that list, but the system already had it as a "secret" axiom.

In any case, I don't see why I would switch the term "materialism" for the term "idealism". What do you "get out of" idealism that you don't get out of materialism? What "objective benefits" does idealism bring to the table, that materialism can't bring? I'm listening.

What do you "get out of" idealism that you don't get out of materialism? — Arcane Sandwich

Do you understand the difference between them? Not according to your personal philosophy, but what would be said in an encylopedia or what you would say if you were asked to explain it for an exam question. An objective explanation.

Do you understand the difference between them? Not according to your personal philosophy, but what would be said in an encylopedia or what you would say if you were asked to explain it for an exam question. An objective explanation. — Wayfarer

Right. But I'm just stupid like that, mate. I mean, if that's how you want to phrase this talk, then I'll tell you that I'm just plain stupid. As in, you're literally smarter than me. So, should I feel bad about that? I don't don't think so. I genuinely don't see how our Philosophies are different, @Wayfarer. I appreciate the fact that you're trying to explain to me that there even is a difference to begin with, but my brain just can't process such a notion, so I'm kindly asking for a more simple, common-sense friendly explanation, if you would be so kind.

Unless, of course, you tell me that you are somehow unable to do such a thing.

what would be said in an encylopedia — Wayfarer

Like Wikipedia.

what you would say if you were asked to explain it for an exam question. An objective explanation. — Wayfarer

Then I would explain it like so. Materialism is the black part of the Ying Yang, Idealism is the white part of the Ying Yang. Apply the rest of the ying-yang theory accordingly.

So, again, what I call the absolute, can be pictured like the symbol of the ying-yang. So, let us proceed:

I declare that the Phenomenological Subject is the "white dot" inside the black part that is Materialism. And I also declare that the Noumenological Object is the "black dot" inside the part that is Idealism.

And that, is what I call "The Absolute". Its truth is in its Spirit, not in its Letter. Its Law, however, is outside of itself as mere symbol, and its Chaos is what we do with...

... well, you "catch my drift", so to speak.

EDIT: And what I call "The Blind Spot of Science", is the black dot in the white part: what I have called the Noumenological Object.

And what I call "The Blind Spot of Phenomenology" is the white dot in the black part: what I have called the Phenomenological Subject.

EDIT 2: From the preceding hypotheses (for they are only that), the following can be deduced:

The Blind Spot of Science = The Noumenological Object
The Blind Spot of Phenomenology = Phenomenological Subject

Perhaps that makes no sense. Either way, there are 2 possible expressions that I have not used yet:

1) The "noumenological subject", which would be the Scientist as a subject (i.e., the scientific subject, as distinct from the phenomenological subject), and:
2) The "phenomenological object", which would be the object related to intentional consciousness.

EDIT 3: The scientific subject (also known as the noumenological subject) wishes to know, from a scientific standpoint (that is, from what Husserl calls "the natural attitude"), what is the noumenological object (the world itself, as science understands it, as existing independently of all subjects, both scientific as well as phenomenological).
In doing so, the scientific subject forgets about its constitutive blind spot, which is none other than the noumenological object itself, it is the way that the world is, which science cannot access. This awareness has somewhat of a "bracketing effect" on the scientific subject, in the sense that the "scientific" part is "bracketed out" by a sort of "sui generis époché). In other words, the "scientific" part is momentarily ignored, and only "the subject" remains. But that mere subject quickly becomes a phenomenological subject, which gazes at the world in an attempt to intuit the essences of the phenomenological objects in general, as related to that very same subject that is conscious of them.
However, there is also the realization that the subject may freely flow from one state of awareness to the other, and vice-versa.

EDIT 4: The white dot is the idealistic part of materialism, and the black dot is the materialist part of idealism. There is usually some idealism within materialism as a philosophy, and there is usually some materialism within idealism as a philosophy.