Idealism Is Hardly Ideal
I think "external material world" is a dualistic habit we continue to carry from religious language. It presupposes that there is some homunculus that is presented the external world in a mental theatre inside our head. But it serves our syntax well . The use of a subject and predicate places the I in the brain by tradition. Our language almost insures it. But if we posit a monism would not the only difference between a physical monisim and a mental one be semantics? What would be the means of comparison? What is internal to that spiritual/mental "external world?"
If thought or consciousness is a terminate of a causal chain then it is simply a physical effect of a whole neural correlate of interacting physical events. They find their nexus as a symbolic effect of that which is sensed. The real issue is a causal one when dualism is set aside. Does a person's thought effect what occurs or does what occurs effect what one experiences? Obviously we mean the latter.
Solipsism, the antithesis, is rare and seems to be held only by contrary philosophers. We mistake the Eastern view of claiming the world is an illusion as meaning it is unreal. An illusion is quite real. "Illusion" simply means the experience of something real other than it is. That something is experienced but misinterpreted. Illusion is that which deludes us. The Eastern mystic ( esp. Buddhists) ask one not to be attached to sensory experience (in other words not to make biased judgements of an experience). This leads to better analysis of a real world. So I am uncertain as to what religion idealism would actually be valid.
Panentheism and pantheism have a monism. Buddhism has no real internality in that it posits the ego as a symbolic construct mistaken as the self or the experiences occurring. The "within" means direction...toward the self. Hinduism posits that the internal and external are one. The Atman is but a manifestation of Brahmin. Brahmin is all. Atman is but its objectification. It is similar to the use of Logos as the relative image or form of God who is boundless or absolute.
So external and internal would be more of a linguistic device so that the narrative world as analog to the real world is distinguished. I really do not know of many idealists save those of philosophical history. Ultimately and practically those philosophers can not practice their belief consistently or legitimately.
Written by Tommy G. Baker.
If thought or consciousness is a terminate of a causal chain then it is simply a physical effect of a whole neural correlate of interacting physical events. They find their nexus as a symbolic effect of that which is sensed. The real issue is a causal one when dualism is set aside. Does a person's thought effect what occurs or does what occurs effect what one experiences? Obviously we mean the latter.
Solipsism, the antithesis, is rare and seems to be held only by contrary philosophers. We mistake the Eastern view of claiming the world is an illusion as meaning it is unreal. An illusion is quite real. "Illusion" simply means the experience of something real other than it is. That something is experienced but misinterpreted. Illusion is that which deludes us. The Eastern mystic ( esp. Buddhists) ask one not to be attached to sensory experience (in other words not to make biased judgements of an experience). This leads to better analysis of a real world. So I am uncertain as to what religion idealism would actually be valid.
Panentheism and pantheism have a monism. Buddhism has no real internality in that it posits the ego as a symbolic construct mistaken as the self or the experiences occurring. The "within" means direction...toward the self. Hinduism posits that the internal and external are one. The Atman is but a manifestation of Brahmin. Brahmin is all. Atman is but its objectification. It is similar to the use of Logos as the relative image or form of God who is boundless or absolute.
So external and internal would be more of a linguistic device so that the narrative world as analog to the real world is distinguished. I really do not know of many idealists save those of philosophical history. Ultimately and practically those philosophers can not practice their belief consistently or legitimately.
Written by Tommy G. Baker.
0 comments:
Post a Comment