Our Abstracted Path and The Way To Enlightenment

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Any doctrine of Realism is based on what we experience where as any doctrine of Idealism is based on what we think. Idealism becomes unreal when it demonstrates its inability to account for what we experience by what we think. Realism becomes unideal when it demonstrates its inability to account for what we think through what we experience. Realism and Idealism are doctrines of the most basic and natural sort characterizing what is truly human. What has occured is that our imagination has got the best of us. We simply got tired of efforts in strict accordance with the doctrines of Realism and Idealism.

Schopenhauer was the first individual infact to really pay attention to the ways of abstraction we were following at the hands of philosophers like Hegel, Fichte, and Schelling. Existentialism, Phenomenology, Post-Modernism, Positivism, Pragmatism, Anti-Realism, Reism, Existential Phenomenology, Neo-Kantianism, Structualism, Post-Structualism, Functionalism, Holism and the rest are all signs of this abstracted path we are following. When Transcendentalism arrived with Kant we had finally returned back to the thinking involved in the old conflict between Realism and Idealism. Transcendentalism sought to solve the ultimate conflict that has made Philosophy totally disfuncational as to operating as an actual Science. The conflict has left Philosophy split in two and due to the lost cause of fixing the ultimate division between Realism and Idealism philosophers have made endless abstractions on behalf of either side to win but never suceeding. The Realists ignore and dismiss Kant because they want to continue the battle for Realism against the Idealism which Kant clearly expounds in his Transcendentalism. The Idealist bless and accept Kant because they also want to continue the battle for Idealism seeing Transcendentalism as a means to convert Realists into Idealists.

I have realized in my study of Philosophy and various message boards on the internet the total uselessness of people’s efforts as all they seek is to continue this stupid battle. It has become nothing more than Politics in which rationalization, proof, and intellectual debate cover the political reasons with a seemingly more enlightened goal of truth. Enough of these futile politics! Lets go back to study the basic division between Realism and Idealism and try and solve the conflict. Both Realists and Idealists ought look to Kant as a symbol of an individual who truly wants to resolve this fundamental philosophical conflict. I think it is time for Enlightenment!

2

you think they ought? (-:

maybe they’re getting what they want - to self-determine and self-satisfy through arguing, not to get somewhere

3

I am very interested in this idea… However my qualification in philosophy will make of me a spectator… I just hope the scene won’t remain empty…

Marc

4

Ok, then, go for it. I’m listening! You’re going to have to get this one started because I don’t seem to be either a Realist or Idealist. My thoughts and experience are not separate. My thoughts are deeply involved in the experiences I have and my experiences play a deep role in the thoughts I think. To be thourough, I checked my drivers liscence and social security card too but they were no help. :slight_smile:

Seriously, though, I don’t see how you can buy into Kant so strongly then blanketly classify “Hegel, Fichte, and Schelling. Existentialism, Phenomenology, Post-Modernism, Positivism, Pragmatism, Anti-Realism, Reism, Existential Phenomenology, Neo-Kantianism, Structualism, Post-Structualism, Functionalism, Holism” as simple abstractions.

Take Hegel, for example. When it comes to collapsing the dualism between ideology and reality he’s more Kanitan than Kant himself. In holding onto the ‘thing-in-itself’, Kant doesn’t have the balls to really ‘solve the problem.’ Hegel (in the Phenomenology) gives us a vivid picture of how realism leads to idealism, which leads back to realism, in different ways and with various results. In the Logic he delves into great detail concerning the ways that it doesn’t make sense to separate ideal structures from the ‘real’ world and vice versa. If you want to become enlightened and think that solving the real-ideal delemma is the way to get there, Hegel’s you’re man!

Dave

5

Kantians ‘do it’ out of duty.

6

AvatarofDave,

I do not belief I spoke of Kantianism but only Kant himself. I never spoke of Transcendental Idealism the doctrine but merely Transcendentalism. I praise Kant for his efforts to try and find a resolution to the conflict between Realism and Idealism. I praise Kant’s Transcendentalism because even when he could not find a solution he sought about developing a methodology in which one could be achieved. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism is crap because he reverts to hypothesizing when he cannot come to an understanding about the nature of experience.

Which should continue the work on Transcendentalism and abandon the political shit that happens when we hypothesize about theories of Realism and Idealism even if they are branded with “Transcendental” making it seem like it rises above Realism and Idealism.

As to you being a Realist or Idealist. It is impossible to be neither or both. In theory one can whip up a whole lotta crap making it seem like one can transcend or unify dogmatically (seemingly logically or seemingly empirically) these divisions that exist definitively in reality. In reality a individual is either Realistic or Idealistic, either hope drives him dogmatically toward a reality that does not exist or cynicism carries him down real and viable paths to ultimate beneficiality. Its called a personality and unless you do not have one or suppose you have one never has ever seen you cannot get beyond these empirically evident behaviors.

7

AvatarofDave,

There are two personality types, one type is a Idealist and the other type is a Realist. In every doctrine that I am familiar (except Transcendentalism) it comes down to the philosopher either developing a theory to defend their Realism or their Idealism. Theories, however will design a world in which puts oneself as correct while opposing theories are established as incorrect. Realists debate amongst themselves about which Realistic world is real and Idealists among themselves about which Idealistic world they want. This gets us nowhere. Transcendentalism is about progressing the method of Philosophy to allow certainty to its method of inquiry and solution.

I mean Kant’s Transcendental Method may not be correct but he created it to find a means of universal inquiry and methodology.

Do you not think we ought to continue Transcendentalism and seek the proper methdology all philosophers should abid by to ascertain truth?

8

Is.,

In every doctrine that I am familiar (except Transcendentalism) it comes down to the philosopher either developing a theory to defend their Realism or their Idealism.

Actually this is not strictly true, unless you cling to some form of absolute Realism, and regard all things non-Realist by default as Idealist. Neo-Pragmatism is non-Realist in that epistemological truth does not result from correspondence, but it is not Idealist either, in that “minds” are not by and large regarded as things or essences in their own right, mental predicates being only interpretive and normative attributions

Dunamis

9

Dunamis,

Do not abstract yourself with theoretical non-sense. A person by their personality is either an Idealist or a Realist and their Philosophy is either an Idealism or an Realism due to this. Particular theories theoretically in our imaginary set of rules can be considered not to be or different from Realism or Idealism but in reality the individual proporting the theory is either an Idealist or Realism so the theory itself being nothing more than a justification of self is an Idealism or a Realism.

It is time to get out of this fairytale we now call Philosophy because all this theory building is deluding us from the reality of the situation. We forgot that the reason we went into Philosophy which was to come to an understanding of ourselves and of others. In doing so we faced ourselves recognizing ourselves as either Idealists or Realists and the goal of philosophy then became to determine a solution to this conflict. We have betrayed our Purpose! We have betrayed Philosophy! We have neglected our role in life which is to be the enlightened thinker and to help our fellow man. Our goal was to understand life so that we may assist others in their lives but appearently philosophers have become so unenlightened that they cannot even help themselves from the theoretical chaos they have trapped themselves in.

Wisdom! People! Wisdom! We really should get some. We need to cut the ego and get back to reality.

10

Is,

Do not abstract yourself with theoretical non-sense.

Oh, I get it. I should abstract myself with your theoretical nonsense. Great idea. Too bad if you don’t understand a theory, or the relevance of a theory, you simply assume it fits into your archaic and comfortable divide.

A person by their personality is either an Idealist or a Realist and their Philosophy is either an Idealism or an Realism due to this.

What you don’t understand is that this divide is produced by assumptions of what “truth” is, and when you get rid of those assumptions (residual correspondence theory or dualism), you get rid of your two tiny little boxes.

In any case, the statement you made two posts above is correct simply due to the hermetic horizon of your ignorance and malconceptions of the possibilities of positions other than your own.

Dunamis

11

Hi, isis. I was wondering where this idea comes from. What, in other words, makes you think this is the proper purpose of the philosopher?

12

Dunamis you are putting a false dilemma into a false dichotomy. The two positions he mentions aren’t necessarily exclusive to themselves. An “idealism” would need something to think about, the idea content, something to be aware-of, and therefore idealism needs experience of something…it needs objects. The “world” is certainly real, and idealism couldn’t exist without it. In this sense it is not all mind, but mindfulness of something and awareness of that, in experience. There cannot be a true idealism I don’t think.

Realism is like epiphenomenalism, the mind is a by-product, but very real and distinct, so neither is it a truely possible position.

Each are not reducible to themselves and are instead contingent upon an interaction and process of relating to themselves. A pure mind couldn’t exist without mindfulness- it would need to posit some object intentionally- there would be a world to experience.

Likewise, a pure world would exist inertly, with no time or movement or space. Although evolving from material circumstances, I think the mind can be considered to have a degree of freedom from determination and/or causality. The “unbinding” of time and space, so to speak. The “upsurge,” as Frenchy put it. “Coiled at the heart of Being.”

And to not beg the question, allow this. A pure world couldn’t exist without being in mind; “I have this in mind,” is a proof.

But in getting rid of this dichotomy properly, you shot a straw missle at it. Two tiny boxes or fifteen, that doesn’t make or break the truth. You suppose “truth” is both positions combined. I’m saying that it is neither position because it a false dichotomy to begin with.

“This divide” is not produced by assumptions about truth. It is produced by a misunderstanding of truth, the uneccessary division of Idealism form Realism, or vice-versa.

Look man, just admit there are objective truths. Just name one, that’s all you gotta do. You can have Immanence and Panpsychism, and I’ll even throw in Rorty (that goofy looking fella), but you’ve got to believe in at least one objective truth.

So let’s hear it.

[looks at watch and yawns]

13

Mr. Aquarius stellium,

I am holding you to your promise never to address philosophical points to me again.

Post unread past the point necessary to see that you are breaking that promise.

Dunamis

14

Dunamis,

In life I either accept my conditions and try to adapt myself to them (Realist) or I deny my conditions and try to adapt them to me (Idealist). Any theory will suppose that we accept what is real or we accept what I think is real or what is unreal and what I think is unreal. Nothing can escape the grasp of this. An observation of behavior is self-evident because all of us experience time where we are idealistic and times when we are realistic. Behavior itself is merely an understanding but not a truth for I do not understand the reasons behind behaviors nor I have I claimed such. I merely explained what is evident with every experience, action, and thought which is nothing more than a pattern that occurs in every moment of life.

15

Alright, but you really should reconsider…

“Immanence and Panpsychism, and I’ll even throw in Rorty”

You won’t get that kinda deal from anyone else around here but me.

But do what you like.

16

detrop,

Alright, but you really should reconsider…

“Immanence and Panpsychism, and I’ll even throw in Rorty”

I never got that far. It will do you good if one of us takes you seriously. Let this be my gift you.

Dunamis

17

detrop and Jerry,

Realism is when I adapt myself to nature and Idealism is where I try and adapt nature to me. Two simple behaviors. With every moment we act with one or the other behavior. The ultimate goal of Philosophy is to resolve the conflict. We are forced to resolve it because we cannot adress on side or the other objectively for we always look toward Realism or Idealism with one of the two behaviors. In not ultimately understanding the nature of these behaviors we cannot be sure of any action, any thought, or of anything at all. The only way to come to an understanding to resolve the conflict between them. In resolving the conflict between them it can be hoped that we may gain objectivity and finally understand Realism and Idealism instead of endlessly abstracting ourselves.

Jerry: I hope that explains things.
detrop: Get your head out of the clouds.

18

Is.

In life I either accept my conditions and try to adapt myself to them (Realist) or I deny my conditions and try to adapt them to me (Idealist).

And which of your straightjacket understanding of alternatives describes the coevolution of the organism and the environment through changing fitness landscapes?

Any theory will suppose that we accept what is real or we accept what I think is real or what is unreal and what I think is unreal.

I’m sorry Neo-pragmatism and monisitic Immanent thinking does neither, in the manner in which you seem to define them. Sorry to offer you something that does not fit neatly into your boxes.

I might also add that Spinoza does not seem to fit into your helpful boxes, either.

Dunamis

19

Dunamis,

All individuals have to encounter what is real in everything the experience and if the directly derive from this they can be nothing other than experiences. All individual encounter what is real can chose deny it and think about what the experience and subvert what the experience into many other things they think more ideal.

If any individual who is a Neo-Pragmatist, a Monist Immanent thinker, or a Spinozist is not bound to the reality of the objective and subjective experience (prehaps some sort of God or at least a Half-God like Hercules) then you may be right but I highly doubt this.

It may be difficult to relate reality to those abstract theories but the theories being based in the experiences and thoughts of individuals are faced with the restrictions reality provides them with.

20

Well, a little. I was just wondering how you make the connection that, according to your earlier post, the purpose of the philosopher is to help our fellow man and “understand life so that we may assist others in their lives.”

How do we know this is the purpose?