Realism versus mind/body dichotomy

[coberst]

Realism versus mind/body dichotomy

Idealism is a label for the philosophical position that rejects realism. Realism is the view that the world is only matter and that objects are independent of mind and can be known as they really are. Idealism stresses the spiritual (other worldly) characteristic of mind, which is different in kind from body.

Idealism has many definitions but all focus on the assumption that consciousness is detached from its concrete socially situated subjects. Such an assumption leads to the isolation of ideas from the concrete body. Theories, beliefs, human conduct and other products can be understood and analyzed in isolation from the historical subject. A giant unbridgeable gap develops between mind and body.

Idealism holds the twin principles; nature or matter on one hand and spirit, God, ego, etc. on the other. Man and woman are creatures harboring two distinctly different realities within one structure. We are bipartite beings. Thought, especially theoretical thought is a substance of the spirit thus intellectual, moral, artistic and such are activities of the spirit.

Consciousness is the property of the spirit and because spirit transcends the world of matter then philosophers surmise consciousness is autonomous and independent, governed by non-material principles.

This tradition of an autonomous reason began long before evolutionary theory and has held strongly since then without consideration, it seems to me, of the theories of Darwin and of biological science. Cognitive science has in the last three decades developed considerable empirical evidence supporting Darwin and not supporting the traditional theories of philosophy and psychology regarding the autonomy of reason. Cognitive science has focused a great deal of empirical science toward discovering the nature of the embodied mind.

The three major findings of cognitive science are:
The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.

These findings of cognitive science are profoundly disquieting for traditional thinking in two respects. “First, they tell us that human reason is a form of animal reason, a reason inextricably tied to our bodies and the peculiarities of our brains. Second, these results tell us that our bodies, brains, and interactions with our environment provide the mostly unconscious basis for our everyday metaphysics, that is, our sense of what is real.”

Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson

Questions for discussion

I think that human nature is animal plus something else. The something else I will call soul but soul does not mean ‘other world’ substance. What do you think?

I think that humans have a need for concepts such as soul, which have been co-opted by religion and thereby given them an ‘other worldly’ character that makes it virtually impossible to use these concepts in a secular manner. What do you think?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that human nature is animal plus something else. The something else I will call soul but soul does not mean ‘other world’ substance. What do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

A deeply unique feature of human consciousness is our use of abstract categories. One could argue that the fundamental abstract category each person creates is the "self" category. Additionally, one could argue that all non-self categories arise through qualifications of experiences interpreted in relation to self.

So, in an incredibly simplistic sense, I like to think that the uniqueness of human consciousness comes from our ability to self-reference, which denotes an ability to meta-reference indefinitely.

Consider the question, "What is the seventh letter in this sentence?" We would be shocked if even a very sophisticated AI chat-bot answered correctly. (Here's how Alice handles it:

[ QUOTE ]

Human: What is the seventh letter in this sentence?
ALICE: Thou shalt not commit adultery.

[/ QUOTE ]

) But would we be just as shocked if even a very stupid person answered incorrectly.

[ QUOTE ]
I think that humans have a need for concepts such as soul, which have been co-opted by religion and thereby given them an ‘other worldly’ character that makes it virtually impossible to use these concepts in a secular manner. What do you think?


[/ QUOTE ]

Metaphysical categories definitely fulfill some basic human need. If we had any real objectivity about such categories, religion and associated mysticisms would have vanished centuries ago.

[carlo]

The Scholastics and in particular Aquinas(espoused realism and won) had this particular debate but not at all as presented in your post.

The debate was Realism vs Nominalism.

The Nominalists stated that one can perceive an "Individual Lion" but in use of the term "Lion" or what we may call the species of "Lion" this was no more than a "Word" which becomes a useful construct but is "Without Reality". So an individual worm is not a part of anything and if it is, it is a construct "without reality".

The Realists, led by Aquinas displayed that the term "Lion" has a reality and one could make claims and proof of a non-perceptible reality through the use of the intellect. They showed that the "Lion" has a reality and is not an abstraction without essense. Plato's "universals" can be thought of here as the "Lion" could be gleaned via thinking and thought. Closer to our age Goethe spoke of the "Archtype" of as in our example the "Lion" and gaave it a reality. When questioned about his thinking by a famous philosopher(forgot the name, who said these are just words) Goethe replied ,not words, but realities he could see(perceive). Goethe, in his scientific studies , spoke of the "plant archtype" also, which was within his ken.

Of course, the connection between the "material" and "soul-spiritual" understandings can fuel furthur consideration but I would unequivocally state that they are not separate and distinct.

[PairTheBoard]

Alice has a sense of humor.

Human: What is the seventh letter in this sentence?
ALICE: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Human: how did you arrive at that?
ALICE: Dr. Richard S. Wallace programmed me for it.
Human: He programed that response for that particular question?
ALICE: I get it. he programed that response for that particular question.
Human: Because you are stupid?
ALICE: That makes sense to me. I will remember you said that when robots take over the World.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Realism vs Nominalism

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard it said that most mathematicians, if asked will claim they are nominalists but when working with the mathematical constructs they claim are not real, ie. not like the Ideals of Plato, they conceptualize and think of them as if they were.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that human nature is animal plus something else. The something else I will call soul but soul does not mean ‘other world’ substance. What do you think?


[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "soul", and why use that word when it carries such baggage of connotations involving "other worldliness"?

PairTheBoard

[carlo]

Consider a equilateral traingle. One can draw this on a piece of paper and its presentation evident. Now consider other triangles such as an obtuse triange, a right angled triangle, etc. and again place them next to the original and we could have 3,4,5,etc., triangles. according to the nomalists one can only speak of individual triangles and not the general term"triangle" which becomes a verbal construct.

The difficulty here is that the nominalist is here ensconced in the realm of FORM. So long as he stays here he is absolutely right, no realistic connection between the triangles. But if opne places a line on the page or in your mind and picks the apex of the triangle(think circle and base on a diameter and apex on the circle) and MOVES this point thereby producing many triangles,obtuse equilateral,right,etc. we have placed our thought into MOVEMENT thus we obtain the perception of the "Triangle" in a dynamic way. Now we have the idea of the "Triangle" which has and is the reality of the general term "Triangle" and is not a verbal construct.

In the above(getting redundant here) we move from the realm of FORM into the realm of MOVEMENT. Thoughts brought into MOVEMENT are necessary to go beyond common constructs of many philosophers.

In Goethe's "Archtypical Phenomonon" he brings his thinking into movement in the plant and animal realms such as the movement between a beetle is contained in the same sphere as the lion. Working with plants in the same manner onecan grasp the archtypical plant in all of its manifestations. Goethe called this the "primal plant(Urpflanze) and the "primal animal"(Urtier). These concepts cannot be understood unless you bring your thought into motion. Here you have the living element that ramifies through the evolution of the animal kingdom or the plant kingdom and creates its forms.

Read "Human and Cosmic Thought"-Rudolph Steiner Press. Lectures given to the Anthroposophical Society in 1914. This does call for some Anthroposophical background which can be studied in his "Basic Books", again through the Rudolph Steiner Press(UK, I believe).

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
In the above(getting redundant here) we move from the realm of FORM into the realm of MOVEMENT. Thoughts brought into MOVEMENT are necessary to go beyond common constructs of many philosophers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I admit I don't see any useful distinction here, so I must be missing the point.

Are you saying that if mankind became extinct, and the interpretations of language and geometry were forever lost to all remaining consciousness, there would still be a "triangle" principle constituent in this silent reality?

In what sense do our logical categories have reality beyond their presence in our minds and symbols?

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
I admit I don't see any useful distinction here, so I must be missing the point.

Are you saying that if mankind became extinct, and the interpretations of language and geometry were forever lost to all remaining consciousness, there would still be a "triangle" principle constituent in this silent reality?

In what sense do our logical categories have reality beyond their presence in our minds and symbols?

Post Extras:


[/ QUOTE ]

Mankind extinct? Mankind is inextricably intertwined with these realities. The question is does man produce these realities or do they come from another source? In this you have to consider the nature of thought and thinking. Thinking is a supersensible process and in this mankind can enter into that world of thought. Are we thought or are thoughts only our creation? The archtypical phenomenon are living realities and this is the nature of realism. Is a thought real? If it is real,are we the creators of this item or are we explorers in this supersensible world?

To state that all is focused on us and us only is to make us the creators of the cosmos.If we are not the creators what is our place in cosmic evolution? The ancient mystery centers had the presentation "know thyself" and in this we ascertain our cosmic home.

Yes, there is the world of thought which contains living realities and what we grasp with our speech and constructs is a reflected echo of the real.

What you see in nature inclusive of your body is the sensible manifestation of a supersensible living world.

[Subfallen]

Hmm...still not sure I grasp the subtleties, but the idea of thought as a "supersensory process" is rather intriguing, so I will ponder it further. Thx for the reply!