Is the meaning in your life inside or outside?

[Belindi]

In philosophy, idealism and materialism are both forms of monism. Monism posits only one substance. A materialist thinks that everything is material stuff and mind emerges from the material world including anatomical brains.

An idealist thinks that the material world, including brains and other anatomical ideas and all other sciences and all other ideas of things , emerge from minds.

There is another important monism called neutral or dual aspect monism which holds that both materialism and idealism are true, depending on your perspective which can and does change at frequent intervals.

[Sy Borg]

Everyone has ideas of how society's affairs should be organised. What separates the usual from the idealistic is the latter's wishful disregard of Realpolitik.

[Pattern-chaser]

In philosophy, idealism and materialism are both forms of monism. Monism posits only one substance. A materialist thinks that everything is material stuff and mind emerges from the material world including anatomical brains.

An idealist thinks that the material world, including brains and other anatomical ideas and all other sciences and all other ideas of things , emerge from minds.

There is another important monism called neutral or dual aspect monism which holds that both materialism and idealism are true, depending on your perspective which can and does change at frequent intervals.

I can never quite get my head around this sort of discussion. Philosophically, and in other ways too, I've always been an unashamed 'cherry-picker'. I steal the bits I like, and move on. In this case, there are elements of Materialism that I like, and areas of Idealism too. Must we always select only one option, then defend it against all comers? I don't think so.

Before anyone says so: there are surely areas of Materialism, Idealism, and so on, that directly contradict one another. In this case, one could hardly support or agree with both. But this is not usually the case. Usually, one can simply spot an attractive idea and nick it.

[LuckyR]

In philosophy, idealism and materialism are both forms of monism. Monism posits only one substance. A materialist thinks that everything is material stuff and mind emerges from the material world including anatomical brains.

An idealist thinks that the material world, including brains and other anatomical ideas and all other sciences and all other ideas of things , emerge from minds.

There is another important monism called neutral or dual aspect monism which holds that both materialism and idealism are true, depending on your perspective which can and does change at frequent intervals.

I can never quite get my head around this sort of discussion. Philosophically, and in other ways too, I've always been an unashamed 'cherry-picker'. I steal the bits I like, and move on. In this case, there are elements of Materialism that I like, and areas of Idealism too. Must we always select only one option, then defend it against all comers? I don't think so.

Before anyone says so: there are surely areas of Materialism, Idealism, and so on, that directly contradict one another. In this case, one could hardly support or agree with both. But this is not usually the case. Usually, one can simply spot an attractive idea and nick it.

You are pointing out the difference between the study of philosophy and it's practice.

[Pattern-chaser]

In philosophy, idealism and materialism are both forms of monism. Monism posits only one substance. A materialist thinks that everything is material stuff and mind emerges from the material world including anatomical brains.

An idealist thinks that the material world, including brains and other anatomical ideas and all other sciences and all other ideas of things , emerge from minds.

There is another important monism called neutral or dual aspect monism which holds that both materialism and idealism are true, depending on your perspective which can and does change at frequent intervals.

I can never quite get my head around this sort of discussion. Philosophically, and in other ways too, I've always been an unashamed 'cherry-picker'. I steal the bits I like, and move on. In this case, there are elements of Materialism that I like, and areas of Idealism too. Must we always select only one option, then defend it against all comers? I don't think so.

Before anyone says so: there are surely areas of Materialism, Idealism, and so on, that directly contradict one another. In this case, one could hardly support or agree with both. But this is not usually the case. Usually, one can simply spot an attractive idea and nick it.

You are pointing out the difference between the study of philosophy and it's practice.

I am? Then I must be a practitioner of philosophy who has no interest in its study.

[Sculptor1]

What matters, or what matters more, the state of your mind and the ideas and opinions within it, or your accomplishments and effects upon the outside world?

When Alexander the Great came to meet Diogenes, he asked him if there was any favor which he could do for him. Diogenes asked Alexander to move out of his sunlight so that he could continue enjoying the warmth. One man had conquered the world, and one had conquered the need to conquer the world. Which did something better for himself or for the world or for mankind? Alexander has a long list of cities that still bear his name. There is no "Diogenopolis" of which I am aware. Virtually everyone you might ask is likely to have heard of Alexander, yet fewer will know of Diogenes. Which, if either of them, appeals to you as a role model?

What about you? Do you seek to impose your will upon the world, to shape it in your own image? Do you wish to acquire or accomplish things before you die? Will your legacy be the material things or titles that you may pass on? Or, do you wish to acquire self-respect or tranquility? Will your legacy be confined mostly to the example of how to live well that you set while you were alive or the wisdom that you might pass on to others, so that they might also live in this way?

Which matters more to you and why?

The answer here is that both Diogenes and Alexander had influence on our lives in different ways. But we are not here to talk about any idea, thought, concept or theory had by Alexander but we are here discussing something Diogenes said.
The denizens of Alexandria, or Iskandar rarely think about Alexander, but live their lives like they do in neighbouring cities.

Alexander was a killer, who was poisoned. His legacy is murder, and his bone are indistinguishable from the bones of a slave.
Diogenes ordered his death body to be thrown over the city wall the be consumed by wild animals. He contributed something on his death. On the other hand Alexander's death only accomplished the waste of a bushel of honey into which his body was interred, to be lost in the desert.

[Nick_A]

In philosophy, idealism and materialism are both forms of monism. Monism posits only one substance. A materialist thinks that everything is material stuff and mind emerges from the material world including anatomical brains.

An idealist thinks that the material world, including brains and other anatomical ideas and all other sciences and all other ideas of things , emerge from minds.

There is another important monism called neutral or dual aspect monism which holds that both materialism and idealism are true, depending on your perspective which can and does change at frequent intervals.

I can never quite get my head around this sort of discussion. Philosophically, and in other ways too, I've always been an unashamed 'cherry-picker'. I steal the bits I like, and move on. In this case, there are elements of Materialism that I like, and areas of Idealism too. Must we always select only one option, then defend it against all comers? I don't think so.

Before anyone says so: there are surely areas of Materialism, Idealism, and so on, that directly contradict one another. In this case, one could hardly support or agree with both. But this is not usually the case. Usually, one can simply spot an attractive idea and nick it.

Sometimes it makes sense to admit the obvious. I answered this in the Great Beast a a social organism thread. "Maybe cursing out Trump is the philosophy of the future? If it is then real philosophy must go underground where the awakening value and purpose of philosophy will continue to be respected.

Fragmentation manifesting as materialism has become dominant in society replacing wholeness manifesting as ideals. The only question is if an individual must go down with the ship or if they can inwardly profit and grow by consciously seeing the human condition for what it is?

[LuckyR]

In philosophy, idealism and materialism are both forms of monism. Monism posits only one substance. A materialist thinks that everything is material stuff and mind emerges from the material world including anatomical brains.

An idealist thinks that the material world, including brains and other anatomical ideas and all other sciences and all other ideas of things , emerge from minds.

There is another important monism called neutral or dual aspect monism which holds that both materialism and idealism are true, depending on your perspective which can and does change at frequent intervals.

I can never quite get my head around this sort of discussion. Philosophically, and in other ways too, I've always been an unashamed 'cherry-picker'. I steal the bits I like, and move on. In this case, there are elements of Materialism that I like, and areas of Idealism too. Must we always select only one option, then defend it against all comers? I don't think so.

Before anyone says so: there are surely areas of Materialism, Idealism, and so on, that directly contradict one another. In this case, one could hardly support or agree with both. But this is not usually the case. Usually, one can simply spot an attractive idea and nick it.

You are pointing out the difference between the study of philosophy and it's practice.

I am? Then I must be a practitioner of philosophy who has no interest in its study.

You and me both, brother.

[chewybrian]

In philosophy, idealism and materialism are both forms of monism. Monism posits only one substance. A materialist thinks that everything is material stuff and mind emerges from the material world including anatomical brains.

An idealist thinks that the material world, including brains and other anatomical ideas and all other sciences and all other ideas of things , emerge from minds.

There is another important monism called neutral or dual aspect monism which holds that both materialism and idealism are true, depending on your perspective which can and does change at frequent intervals.

It seems absurd to me at face value to accept either idealism or materialism, or any form of monism. I am the little kid who dares to declare that the emperor has no clothes. It is clear to me that there are at least two distinct types of things or events in the universe. There is matter and there are ideas, there is energy and will, inertia and contemplation, and each category has its own kind of effects. One kind of effect is perfectly predictable and understandable and one is not. One plays by the rules and one does not. I can test things and events outside my mind (not including other people!) and find that if I do enough research and careful testing, the rules hold. I can look inside my mind and quickly prove to my own satisfaction that the rules do not hold. What could resolve this dichotomy more easily that to assume that I am seeing two different categories of things and events?

When others do not come to this same painfully obvious conclusion, I assume that they are suffering from some kind of cognitive bias. They are anchoring to an understanding that serves them well in some respects and refusing to see that it does not always serve them well. They are conflating their models of reality with reality itself, setting theory on a pedestal above experience. They are too anxious to understand what is yet to be understood, and may never be known. Perhaps the fear of not knowing is worse to them than the dissonance caused by repressing what they see and experience, just as some choose to hold fast to religion to spare themselves from facing what they perceive in a world without religion.

[Belindi]

Chewybrian wrote:

It is clear to me that there are at least two distinct types of things or events in the universe. There is matter and there are ideas, there is energy and will, inertia and contemplation, and each category has its own kind of effects.

That is a pretty clear claim you are a substance dualist. I note you and Lucky are not interested in philosophy but here you are anyway.

[chewybrian]

Chewybrian wrote:

It is clear to me that there are at least two distinct types of things or events in the universe. There is matter and there are ideas, there is energy and will, inertia and contemplation, and each category has its own kind of effects.

That is a pretty clear claim you are a substance dualist. I note you and Lucky are not interested in philosophy but here you are anyway.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Am I not able to be interested in philosophy yet have some opinions about what I perceive in the world and in my own existence? Am I excluded because I haven't joined the masses of philosophers in some preferred set of opinions? What could be more natural and expected in philosophy than differing opinions? I'm not sure what exactly constitutes an effort to engage in philosophy, but I don't think it involves denying what I perceive to be true, but, if anything, just the opposite.

There are many subsets of philosophy, like science, psychology or religion. At the science end, people tend to dismiss thoughts and emotions as "effects". At the religion end, people tend to ignore science and focus on thoughts, wishes and fears. I don't see that any one of these eclipses the others and holds more value for every human. Rather, each of us is a unique subject and naturally one of these or something else is likely to appeal most to each of us, and not one to all of us. For me, psychology holds the most appeal. Philosophy teaches me how to live well, to be tranquil, to have some measure of self-respect and happiness in a world that would otherwise be a terrifying an wholly unsatisfying place to live. It neither tells me the meaning of life nor that there could never be meaning. If someone else "does" philosophy differently, I don't believe I get to say that they are doing it wrong. I can only say that their way is not my way.

[Pattern-chaser]

It is clear to me that there are at least two distinct types of things or events in the universe. There is matter and there are ideas, there is energy and will, inertia and contemplation, and each category has its own kind of effects. One kind of effect is perfectly predictable and understandable and one is not. One plays by the rules and one does not. I can test things and events outside my mind (not including other people!) and find that if I do enough research and careful testing, the rules hold. I can look inside my mind and quickly prove to my own satisfaction that the rules do not hold. What could resolve this dichotomy more easily that to assume that I am seeing two different categories of things and events?

I have a slightly different take on this. I too have always been bothered by the two sorts of things in reality: matter/energy and ideas. But the only thing that really bothers me is how I can see those two as one, as two equally valid - and indivisible - portions of the whole that is life, the universe and everything. All I would really like to see is an agreed vocabulary that allow us to acknowledge the reality of matter and ideas, even though their 'reality' is different.

[LuckyR]

Chewybrian wrote:

It is clear to me that there are at least two distinct types of things or events in the universe. There is matter and there are ideas, there is energy and will, inertia and contemplation, and each category has its own kind of effects.

That is a pretty clear claim you are a substance dualist. I note you and Lucky are not interested in philosophy but here you are anyway.

"not interested" is inaccurate.

Though I admit that between philosophy's past, present and future, my interest is mostly concentrated on the future, then present and lastly as a distant third it's past.

[chewybrian]

Chewybrian wrote:

It is clear to me that there are at least two distinct types of things or events in the universe. There is matter and there are ideas, there is energy and will, inertia and contemplation, and each category has its own kind of effects.

That is a pretty clear claim you are a substance dualist. I note you and Lucky are not interested in philosophy but here you are anyway.

"not interested" is inaccurate.

Though I admit that between philosophy's past, present and future, my interest is mostly concentrated on the future, then present and lastly as a distant third it's past.

Well, I would choose the past first, the future second and the present a distant third. I feel like we have things pretty muddled up a the moment, just as I felt about music, fashion and cars in the 80's. I feel vindicated about the 80's now, but who knows about the philosophy?

[Sy Borg]

Chewybrian wrote:

It is clear to me that there are at least two distinct types of things or events in the universe. There is matter and there are ideas, there is energy and will, inertia and contemplation, and each category has its own kind of effects.

That is a pretty clear claim you are a substance dualist.

Reality may or may not be dual at base level (my own guess is that we would perceive actual reality without special filtering by the brain as bizarrely psychedelic and incomprehensible).

However, reality certainly operates in a dualist manner from a human perspective. Reality consists of stuff, ie. energy/matter and the configuration of that stuff. Hardware and software. Yin and Yang.