Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Realism or idealism?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    August 2013
    Location
    Entre Rios, Argentina
    Age
    39
    Posts
    109
    Rep Power
    163

    Question Realism or idealism?

    Hello, I would like to hear your arguments in favor of realism or idealism.
    Personally, I reject solipsism, but I wouldn't deny the possibility of objective idealism. I mean, If Brahman alone exists, and Brahman is pure Consciousness, then even prakriti must be a projection of consciousness.
    When I sleep, my mind projects its own "reality" in dreams. When I'm awake, the "reality" I experience doesn't depend just on my mind to exist, then the "reality" we all experience in our waking state could be the dream of a higher Mind.

    What do you think about it?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Realism or idealism?

    hari o
    ~~~~~~
    namasté

    Quote Originally Posted by ale84 View Post
    Hello, I would like to hear your arguments in favor of realism or idealism.
    Personally, I reject solipsism, but I wouldn't deny the possibility of objective idealism. I mean, If Brahman alone exists, and Brahman is pure Consciousness, then even prakriti must be a projection of consciousness.
    When I sleep, my mind projects its own "reality" in dreams. When I'm awake, the "reality" I experience doesn't depend just on my mind to exist, then the "reality" we all experience in our waking state could be the dream of a higher Mind.

    What do you think about it?
    We cannot offer our thoughts till you define your terms... What is realism to you , and idealism not to mention solipsism? You can be thinking X and others are thing Y and Z. You may wish to set the stage for the reader.

    It would be like me asking, what do you think of the weather? Well yajvan the weather in the east ? west ? Africa ? America's ? Or the upper atmosphere ?


    It is advised to help and coach the reader along so we can be good contributors.

    iti śiva
    Last edited by yajvan; 21 July 2014 at 02:57 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  3. #3
    Join Date
    August 2013
    Location
    Entre Rios, Argentina
    Age
    39
    Posts
    109
    Rep Power
    163

    Re: Realism or idealism?

    Hello, Yajvan.

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    What is realism to you


    That the "reality" we experience when we are awake is the ultimate truth.
    Then, if I'm right, Shankara's realism says that this reality exists, but compared to the ultimate truth it's mithya. (I think this is not in conflict with objective idealism).

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    and idealism


    That prakriti depends on consciousness for it's existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    not to mention solipsism?


    Only my mind exists, and the outside world is unreal.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    July 2010
    Location
    The Holy Land - Bharat
    Posts
    2,842
    Rep Power
    5499

    Re: Realism or idealism?

    Namaste,

    For what it is worth, all the definitions of esoteric terms aside, there is the scriptural religious philosophy for spiritual advancement and pragmatism and common sense for the mundane decisions of life. Outside of that, one may perform mental gymnastics and come up with a hundred different terms and define them to the 'n' th degree of precision; but for WHAT? Just to occupy one's idle mind? Is that what life is all about? I would rather watch the grass grow. At least that does not involve any conflict.

    Pranam.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    August 2013
    Location
    Entre Rios, Argentina
    Age
    39
    Posts
    109
    Rep Power
    163

    Re: Realism or idealism?

    Hello Believer

    Quote Originally Posted by Believer View Post
    Namaste,

    For what it is worth, all the definitions of esoteric terms aside, there is the scriptural religious philosophy for spiritual advancement and pragmatism and common sense for the mundane decisions of life. Outside of that, one may perform mental gymnastics and come up with a hundred different terms and define them to the 'n' th degree of precision; but for WHAT? Just to occupy one's idle mind? Is that what life is all about? I would rather watch the grass grow. At least that does not involve any conflict.

    Pranam.
    I've read a series of articles in an advaita page in favor of the realistic view. I just want to know the diverse opinions of different users here. It's not my intention to generate conflict.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    February 2014
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    264
    Rep Power
    638

    Re: Realism or idealism?

    Dear friend ,
    What we think realism is perceptual reality and what you refer as idealism is absolute reality . As long as we are under the influence of illusion we are in perceptual reality .We feel , think , experience everything from that perspective .Though it is termed as mirage , as long as we are in it , it is perfectly real. To be frank enough , even if we are out of that , we do have all the experiences but we stop getting influenced by them . That happens in case of one in millions.

  7. #7

    Re: Realism or idealism?

    Hello and Namaste.

    There are three philosophical terms we need to understand first: idealism, Realism and Materialism.

    "All materialists are realists, in that they postulate that reality is outside of mind. Materialism adds another notion: Mind itself is supposedly created by matter. There are realists who are not materialists: For instance, dualists are also realists, but not materialists".

    I do believe in Idealism for many reasons, mainly because pure materialism sounds too absurd for me. In the words of Bernardo Kastrup, a philosopher of science:

    "The materialist worldview entails that matter is the primary medium of reality, and that subjective experience is somehow generated by matter in the form of a brain. The implication of materialism is that everything you experience is actually a kind of hallucination generated by your brain, and resides solely inside your head. This way, when you see the stars at night, materialism states that your skull is actually beyond the stars.

    The 'real' reality, according to materialism, is not what you see, hear, and feel everyday, but an abstract world of subatomic particles and energy fields fundamentally beyond direct empirical verification. This is highly inflationary, unprovable, and extremely counterintuitive.

    The strength of materialism is that it can explain the consistency of experience across observers. People seem to agree that they all share the same world. Materialism can explain it by postulating that the 'real' world is outside of anyone's mind, and modulates each person's experience of it. But the price materialism pays for this explanation is that unprovable, counter-intuitive universe outside of mind that I spoke of above.

    Now, the strength of idealism is that it does not need to postulate such unprovable universe, granting reality only to what we can verify empirically and directly: subjective experience itself. As such, idealism is more skeptical. Its challenge is to explain the consistency of experience across observers. People tend to ask how our minds can conspire to create the illusion of a shared reality under idealism. Yet, this very question is based on a misunderstanding: If idealism is correct, then it is our bodies -- including our brains -- that are in mind, not mind in our bodies.

    You could think of your body as an avatar in a collective dream, like in the movie Inception. The brain, in my view, is just an image of a mental process, analogously to how flames are just an image of the process of combustion. For the same reason that flames aren't the cause of fire -- but the image of fire -- the brain isn't the cause of mind, but an image of a mental process.

    There is no reason to think that there are separate minds; there is no need to require any conspiracy. Reality can be a projection of a single 'collective unconscious,' similarly to how a part of your mind generates the universe of your nightly dreams.

    Mind may be, and probably is, just one. Our personal psyches may be just split-off complexes of a single mind, similarly to how someone suffering from Multiple Identity Disorder can host multiple split-off complexes in his or her psyche.

    Let's suppose that realism could account for everything in nature. That still wouldn't make it the best explanation, for realism requires many unprovable assumptions. For instance, it requires that there be a whole universe fundamentally beyond experiential knowledge, and that processes in this unprovable universe actually generate consciousness by some magical step. If one could explain nature without making these extraordinarily inflationary and unprovable postulates, one would certainly have a better explanation.

    Now, having said all this, it is not true that realism can explain the whole of nature. For one, it cannot explain the most obvious and overwhelming aspect of reality: conscious experience itself. There is simply no explanation for how dead matter, under certain circumstances, can suddenly light up with awareness, which is called the 'hard problem of consciousness' in philosophy.

    In its 125th anniversary edition, Science magazine has selected the 'hard problem' as the second most important unanswered question in science. It should have been the first".

    Pranams.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    August 2013
    Location
    Entre Rios, Argentina
    Age
    39
    Posts
    109
    Rep Power
    163

    Re: Realism or idealism?

    Hello, Ekam

    Quote Originally Posted by Ekam View Post
    Hello and Namaste.

    There are three philosophical terms we need to understand first: idealism, Realism and Materialism.

    "All materialists are realists, in that they postulate that reality is outside of mind. Materialism adds another notion: Mind itself is supposedly created by matter. There are realists who are not materialists: For instance, dualists are also realists, but not materialists".

    I do believe in Idealism for many reasons, mainly because pure materialism sounds too absurd for me. In the words of Bernardo Kastrup, a philosopher of science:

    "The materialist worldview entails that matter is the primary medium of reality, and that subjective experience is somehow generated by matter in the form of a brain. The implication of materialism is that everything you experience is actually a kind of hallucination generated by your brain, and resides solely inside your head. This way, when you see the stars at night, materialism states that your skull is actually beyond the stars.

    The 'real' reality, according to materialism, is not what you see, hear, and feel everyday, but an abstract world of subatomic particles and energy fields fundamentally beyond direct empirical verification. This is highly inflationary, unprovable, and extremely counterintuitive.

    The strength of materialism is that it can explain the consistency of experience across observers. People seem to agree that they all share the same world. Materialism can explain it by postulating that the 'real' world is outside of anyone's mind, and modulates each person's experience of it. But the price materialism pays for this explanation is that unprovable, counter-intuitive universe outside of mind that I spoke of above.

    Now, the strength of idealism is that it does not need to postulate such unprovable universe, granting reality only to what we can verify empirically and directly: subjective experience itself. As such, idealism is more skeptical. Its challenge is to explain the consistency of experience across observers. People tend to ask how our minds can conspire to create the illusion of a shared reality under idealism. Yet, this very question is based on a misunderstanding: If idealism is correct, then it is our bodies -- including our brains -- that are in mind, not mind in our bodies.

    You could think of your body as an avatar in a collective dream, like in the movie Inception. The brain, in my view, is just an image of a mental process, analogously to how flames are just an image of the process of combustion. For the same reason that flames aren't the cause of fire -- but the image of fire -- the brain isn't the cause of mind, but an image of a mental process.

    There is no reason to think that there are separate minds; there is no need to require any conspiracy. Reality can be a projection of a single 'collective unconscious,' similarly to how a part of your mind generates the universe of your nightly dreams.

    Mind may be, and probably is, just one. Our personal psyches may be just split-off complexes of a single mind, similarly to how someone suffering from Multiple Identity Disorder can host multiple split-off complexes in his or her psyche.

    Let's suppose that realism could account for everything in nature. That still wouldn't make it the best explanation, for realism requires many unprovable assumptions. For instance, it requires that there be a whole universe fundamentally beyond experiential knowledge, and that processes in this unprovable universe actually generate consciousness by some magical step. If one could explain nature without making these extraordinarily inflationary and unprovable postulates, one would certainly have a better explanation.

    Now, having said all this, it is not true that realism can explain the whole of nature. For one, it cannot explain the most obvious and overwhelming aspect of reality: conscious experience itself. There is simply no explanation for how dead matter, under certain circumstances, can suddenly light up with awareness, which is called the 'hard problem of consciousness' in philosophy.

    In its 125th anniversary edition, Science magazine has selected the 'hard problem' as the second most important unanswered question in science. It should have been the first".

    Pranams.
    Nice post.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Nyaya Darshana
    By wundermonk in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07 May 2012, 04:48 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06 November 2007, 12:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •