Yes, it is a good question whether it is my own question or one of our time. I am going to bed now as it is after 1am but if you or anyone else is interested I think that Kant and Descartes are essential for thinking about this. That is because they have been so central to the development of Western philosophy, but I am sure that this is only a starting point.

I just think that you need to avoid the creation of stereotypes and I am not convinced that you are going to really going to do any justice to the questions of truths of science in this way. As someone said earlier to you, the full story of Galileo and Darwin are not straightforward. To try to fit science into the fierce divisions of modern politics is going to create tense and unnecessary divisions.

Thank you, I will keep reading and thinking it through because I do see it as an important recurrent philosophical issue.

I created a thread as if it would involve some deep discussion over the weekend. In actual fact, I have probably created a topic that it would take a whole life to answer in any depth. But, it will keep me busy, and I am probably my own worst philosophical enemy in raising the question.

Of course, it is entirely up to you how if you wish to form your hypothetical discussion but I would think that to take it out of historical context is not going to be the most truthful way.I would have thought that the two examples you give about Newton and Darwin point to the complex politics of science. In doing so, I think you are going to create stereotypical extremes of arguments, just recasting science in the territory of all the heated conflicts of the politics of our present time.

I don't think that you can possibly explain the whole division between capitalism and socialism in one sentence. It is so much more complex. You say it depends on much the 'politicians can be corrupted' in the favour of the masses or in the accumulation of capital. I don't consider myself as a political expert at all but do not believe that the politicians, from their point of view see it as being 'corrupt' as such.

I don't come from a wealthy background, so was initially drawn to left wing politics, but then moved more in the direction of thinking about the ideas of the 'new economics' as suggested by Fritjof Capra and E. F. Schumacher. These thinkers point to the whole way in which need to go beyond the surface of the left and right, socialism and capitalism, to find ways beyond the basis of the consumer culture. I

t may involve a whole new way of thinking about money and also addressing the needs of ecology, but on a deeper level. Perhaps, we have got to the point of crisis, as many people are going to be plunged into poverty, where people have to unite rather than be caught in the conflict between capitalism and socialism. Perhaps, the distribution of the vaccine in the world may be about ending divisions which have been prevalent.

I do believe that there already has been so much politics underlying science historically and that this has been extremely complex. A large part of it has involved religious belief, especially Christianity. I don't see that you can possibly explore this question without an exploration of this.

Yes, I do see that the question I have raised is rather large. I was thinking how it is central to all philosophy and that is why I raised it. But as I read the various angles I felt my head exploding.

I even downloaded a book called 'The Deception of Materialistic Western Philosophy', by Julian Hamer. The font was so small on my Kindle( and enlarging it was not very helpful as I couldn't read a whole sentence properly) and I got a headache.The gist of the book, as much as I read, was that Western philosophy has reduced thinking to science. It suggested that a return to archaic ways of seeing was not helpful, but it did not seem to give a clear alternative in the conclusion.

Another person pointed to the importance of Greek philosophy, so I do plan to go further with that direction of thinking. I did read Hume at one point, but I had not thought of him directly in relation to this area of thought. I do believe that Kant's thinking is also important, but I have to admit I got a bit stuck as to whether Kant sees the transcendent as actually underlying the empirical order.

At this stage, I have not seen a really convincing argument beyond that of the Eastern thinkers, but that doesn't mean that does not mean that I am about to abandon the Western tradition of philosophy. I guess that I just plunged into deep water and have to learn to swim, because the question I have raised is very complex indeed.

I am hoping that the crisis of the current time may call for the best combination between capitalism and socialism. Consumer materialism is starting to collapse and this was happening before the beginning of the pandemic and is likely to increase more than ever now.

I feel that the battle between capitalism vs socialism needs to be transformed altogether to meet the needs of humanity in the widest possible sense.

Many may disagree with what I am about to say, pointing to the need to be extremely systematic, going through the various important thinkers and fields of thought. That seems to be the advice given to you.

I take a different approach and say start with the thinkers and aspects of philosophy which interest you. I believe that is the way to make it the most comprehensible and meaningful. Maybe, the rest of theoretical exploration can come at a later stage. But, in the meantime, perhaps you should follow your passions more and read what seems to really speak to you on a personal level, even it is not the texts which are the ones which are considered to be the essential classic works..

I agree, because the more I have thought about the nature of reality over the weekend, I come to the conclusion that Eastern philosophy has probably a more synthetic understanding. The split between mind and matter, seems to permeate most viewpoints within Western philosophy,

Perhaps morality needs to combine the intentions and consequences. That is because a mere emphasis on consequences is a limited insight because it it is not possible to predict the effect of any action entirely. On the other hand, intention involves a certain amount of motivation towards an outcome.

If a person was simply acting in a certain way with an inner sense of being righteous for following a certain principle, rather than without any consideration of the effect of action, it might just really be self-righteousness.

I am sorry to hear that your grandson is struggling. I think that your story is one which highlights the way in which what is going on in the world impacts on individuals. The media shows life from a very general point of view and the suffering going on behind the scenes may get missed. I think that in England, there is recognition that children are being affected by the pandemic, as well as adults, in terms of mental health.

That is what makes all of this disaster so complicated. Obviously, it is important to protect the physically vulnerable. However, I do believe in the aftermath of all this, a whole vast explosion of other underlying problems are going to arise. I think many people are aware of this, but this is not being addressed fully at the moment.

Afterwards, I noticed that you asked about any suggestions. I am afraid I don't have any practical suggestions about the situation you describe because I don't really know many children at present. But I would say that if your grandson is hearing voices it may be helpful if a GP knows. Obviously, that may mean going down the pathway of adolescence psychiatry services, which you may see as not the best option, but I would think that, on the other hand, there is a danger in just ignoring what is happening. Perhaps, some kind of counselling might be offered.

I was interested in your specific point about the way in which you use you say that you prefer the word physical to the word material. At the time when I wrote this post I chose the word material and I think that I was thinking primarily about what is the underlying basis behind existence. So, having reflected and the way in which material possibly is more ambiguous, do you think my question would have been of a different nature, from your point of view if it it has been posed as is the physical world the absolute 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?

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.

I would say in argument against your point of view that truth can also be ugly. Here, I am speaking of realities such as poverty, injustice and suffering. Here, we could say that many wish to turn away from and neglect these aspects of life, but they are real and true for many people on a daily living 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.

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 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.

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

To a large extent, I would suggest that the purpose of life is not an intrinsic one, but is one which we create. We can find our own meaning and purpose in life.

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.

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.

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 think that my phone may have sent my post before I sent it because I was charging it.

What I would say is that while I do value social distancing I do believe that what is happening now is important to consider.Social distancing is important to protecting the vulnerable, but the restrictions of our time are also important.

A whole new vulnerable are being created and it is highly likely that many who were healthy previously are likely to die many years earlier due to the way in which restrictions are having upon their physical and mental wellbeing. I believe that we are at the beginning of something which is much larger and that it is possible that wider devastation is in our midst, although I hope that I am wrong. But I am really worried about the underlying rhetoric of the idea of social distancing, because I do not foresee the pandemic to end within the couple of years, at least, in spite of vaccines. I do believe that the inevitable is that hundreds and thousands of people are going to be affected indirectly due to the pandemic, and it is not simply those who are elderly or those who are considered vulnerable at present

You say that it is unlikely that lockdowns will be in place for long. Certainly, the way I see it in England is that the current one may go on for at least six months and that is not counting almost a year of restrictions already.

NB. I have edited this slightly because I wrote it late at night when I was feeling fed up and miserable. I am not coming from the point of view of not agreeing with social distancing itself, but more with a view that this needs to be balanced with concern about the implications of lockdown etc. I am sure that the leaders and policy makers are indeed struggling with this conundrum

I believe that we need to wake up now. I hope that I am awake to the many dimensions of the problems of our time. However, what I see in so much of the thinking of our times is slumbering I am certainly in favour of seeing the vulnerable. However, my biggest fear is that the pandemic is creating a whole new vulnerable, which will be evident in the aftermath.

I realise that you were not trying to narrow any views. I believe that we were both logging into the same thread at some point. Personally, I think that it is possible that we are living in hard times, possibly the end of civilisation as we know it. I am inclined to think that there are not any easy solutions. I am not sure that materialistic or nonmaterialistic solutions can provide the answers. I believe that we are stepping into the unknown.

I am certainly not wishing to deny the material world. We are living it daily, with all the horrors it entails, including Covid_19.


However, I do wonder about other perspectives, including the ideas of philosophers on the transcendent, the ideas of the Eastern philosophy and many other perspectives which do not see the material realm as the supreme sphere of experience. Some philosophies seem to be about narrowing rather than enhancing the scope of perception.

I would be interested to know what you think we are agreeing or disagreeing with, because I do wonder if the material world can or cannot be taken at face value.

Personally, I believe that there is is truth in this world we perceive but I do believe that there are many additional dimensions of perceptions. In that respect, I would not wish to dismiss the reality which we see on a day to basis, but would wish to be aware of subtle, other ways of perception which do not necessarily contradict but enhance our perception of reality.

I would admit that I believe that there is a fine line between the material world and aspects beyond it, and it is from that angle that I raise the area for debate, because I believe that it is an underlying issue which is often ignored.

You raise a good question too, in asking what is material. In particular, how does the emotional stand, and to what extent is this simply an expression of the material, or something more?

I appreciate your answer. I would just say that I think that the whole question is of so important, because so many philosophical views are dependent on metaphysical assumptions about reality. This is because philosophies are hinged on premises about the nature of the material world and how real it is.

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

It is questionable how we approach others points of view. How much is respect, and how much is about whether we think we know more than others. Who can say that they have the most absolute picture of truth and reality?