For Dennis / Western philosophy on Idealism & Realism topics

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis and others,

 

I'm finally getting to this - a small write-up on some of the Western

philosophical concepts that Dennis had mentioned. I'm not addressing the

previous thread directly, and don't even know too much about Sri Nanda

Chandran's ideas on these topics. Maybe they will come out if discussion

develops.

 

Here are the definitions given in this message:

 

Perceptual realism

Direct realism

Representational realism

The theory of Material Substance

Idealism

Subjective idealism

Berkeleyan idealism

Monism

Absolute idealism

 

Interesting points in passing:

 

1. One of the traditional Western oppositions is between realism and

idealism. Also, the theories of materialism (not discussed here) and the

theory of material substance (discussed below) are "realist" theories. See

the theory below called "representational realism." Most people, including

many advaitins I have met, probably adhere to some common-sense notion of

representational realism.

 

2. Berkeley's arguments against material substance have never been

successfully overthrown in the Western school. But ironically enough in

his official work, Berkeley holds to a theory of mental substance, e.g.,

that which perceives ideas. But Berkeley's same kinds of arguments could

be used against the notion of mental substance as against material

substance! He is rumored to have subsequent private writing where he

repudiates even the notion of mental substance. I have never seen such

writing, but would like to...

 

3. Advaita Vedanta is not too much like any of these, but Absolute Idealism

comes the closest. If we were explaining this to a Western philosophy

undergrad class (inaccurately), we could say that the Absolute as rendered

by most Western philosophers is a bit like a being or very intelligent

person, the only one such. And Advaita's Absolute Consciousness is more

like a consciousness-principle.

 

4. The point behind Advaita Vedanta is soteriological. The point behind

Western philosophy, as practiced, is an academic discipline. Yet my

Berkeley studies and meditations can attest that Western philosophy *can

be* used for soteriological purposes.

 

 

 

=============================

Topics and quick definitions

=============================

 

Perceptual realism

===================

Material objects exist independently of our perception of them.

 

 

Direct realism (aka "naive realism")

====================================

We perceive material objects directly, without their being mediated by

ideas or sensory apparatus.

 

 

Representational realism

========================

Material objects exist independently of our perception of them, although

what appears to us is not a true copy of the object but is somehow mediated

by our sensory, psychological and intellectual equipment. Thisview is

largely motivated by the common experiences of sensory relativity and

optical illusions. But good theories of idealism can also account for

these phenomena. Our ideas "represent" what is Out There. Most people

adhere to some notion of representational realism.

 

 

The theory of Material Substance (from John Locke, (1632-1704))

===============================================================

Composed of three tenets:

(i)

There exists material substance (whether this substance be understood as

atomic particles, or earth, or other elements, or even simply chairs and

tables).

 

(ii)

This material substance has "primary" qualities of bulk, figure, texture

and motion. These qualities are called "primary" because they are

inseparable from the substance itself, no matter how small the substance is

subdivided. The substance together with its qualities, also has the

ability to cause ideas in sentient perceiving beings like humans and

animals. These caused ideas are called secondary qualities, and are ideas

of colors, sounds, smells, tastes, etc. These ideas are really in us, not

in the substance, even though we might think they are really in the

substance. What really is in the substance is bulk, figure, texture and

motion, as well as the ability to cause ideas in us. One interesting

distinction between primary and secondary qualities is this: those things

said to be primary qualities are said to be common to more than one sensory

modality. E.g., bulk or figure (shape) or motion can be seen and felt.

This is why they are thought to be in the object itself. On the other

hand, those things said to be secondary qualities are sense-specific.

Color cannot be smelled, sound cannot be seen. This is why they are

thought to be in us.

 

(iii)

This material substance exists regardless of whether there is a mind or

perceiver observing it.

 

 

Idealism

========

The metaphysical theory that only ideas or mental entities exist.

According to idealism therefore, physical things exist only as ideas or

perceptions.

 

Subjective idealism

===================

The word "subjective" here modifies the term "idealism" by making the

meaning of "idealism" somehow based on the personal or subjective. Regular

Idealism itself is neutral on whether there are actual persons.

 

 

Berkeleyan idealism (from Bishop George Berkeley, (1685-1753))

==============================================================

In a nutshell, it is that the world consists of minds and ideas. The

nature of a mind is to perceive. The nature of an idea is to be perceived.

"Essi ist percipi" -- "To be is to be perceived." Nothing but an idea

can be perceived. Berkeley argued tirelessly against Locke's view of

material substance, saying that it posits an unperceived thing, material

substance. is literally inconceivable to imagine a thing existing

unperceived, as Locke's material substance is supposed to do.

 

Berkeley's main question:

 

Can you prove or even imagine a sensible object that

exists totally independently of any perceiver?

 

Locke claims that the answer is Yes. But for Berkeley, the answer can

never be Yes, because the proof or imagination of such an object makes it

present in one's mind, so in that sense it is *not* independent of any

perceiver.

 

Berkeley argues that everything we know about physical objects can be 100%

accounted for by talking about sensible qualities, and that the idea of a

substance underlying these qualities makes no sense. He rejects the

distinction between primary and secondary qualities, saying that *all*

qualities are nothing other than ideas in us.

 

Where do ideas come from? One of the perceivers is also God, who keeps

things in existence by perceiving them when all humans are asleep. Also,

the only source of ideas that enter one's mind is God. Ideas are never

caused by external physical objects, because for that, they would have to

exist external to the perceiver.

 

 

Monism -

========

There is only one thing or one kind of thing in existence.

 

 

Absolute idealism

=================

(e.g., G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) , F. H. Bradley (1846-1924), and Josiah

Royce (1855-1916))

 

Instead of an individual mind being the perceiver, it is the Absolute which

is a perceiver. It is a being, but unique and alone, as well as

unconditioned, independent, self-contained, self-caused, and

all-encompassing. Everything is composed of the Absolute. Various writers

have different takes on the relation between the Absoute and seeming

particulars, as well as between absoute consciousness and the consciusness

of the individual ego.

 

That's it for now!

 

OM!

 

--Greg

 

Greg Goode (e-mail: goode)

Computer Support

Phone: 4-5723

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

> Namaste Dennis and others,

>

> I'm finally getting to this - a small write-up on some of the

Western

> philosophical concepts that Dennis had mentioned. I'm not

addressing the

> previous thread directly, and don't even know too much about Sri

Nanda

> Chandran's ideas on these topics. Maybe they will come out if

discussion

> develops.

 

Are we the Self or the expression?

 

This poem below is from the Hafiz list. I thought it was interesting

& relates to the individual's search for truth amongst concepts.

 

~*~~

 

Someone Should Start Laughing

 

I have a thousand brilliant lies

For the question:

 

How are you?

 

I have a thousand brilliant lies

For the question:

 

What is God?

 

If you think that the Truth can be known

>From words,

 

If you think that the Sun and the Ocean

 

Can pass through that tiny opening

Called a mouth,

 

O someone should start laughing!

 

Someone should start wildly Laughing --

Now!

 

(I Heard God Laughing - renderings of Hafiz by Daniel Ladinsky)

[Guest guest]

Collette posted: - (I think it merits repeating)

 

Someone Should Start Laughing

I have a thousand brilliant lies For the question:

How are you?

I have a thousand brilliant lies For the question:

What is God?

If you think that the Truth can be known

>From words,

 

If you think that the Sun and the Ocean

Can pass through that tiny opening

Called a mouth,

 

O someone should start laughing!

Someone should start wildly Laughing-

Now!

 

(I Heard God Laughing - renderings of Hafiz by Daniel Ladinsky

 

Excellent! I like it and well worth saying! (Or, perhaps in the words of

Sandeep, where he still contributing, LOL!)

 

Dennis