Western philosophy on Idealism & Realism topics

[Guest guest]

Dennis wrote:

> I feel it is extremely

> valuable to see how the West came to similar conclusions as Advaita but

> through purely intellectual considerations rather than revealed truth.

 

I must say that I feel very uncomfortable with the notion of "revealed

truth". From the context you seem to imply that while Western philosophy is

of human origin, Advaita is of divine origin. I can't take this. One can't

say that part of phenomenality comes directly from Brahman, while the rest

doesn't. Either everything is Brahman's manifestation or nothing is. I think

that (along with politeism, rebirth and the caste system) divine revelation

may be a Hindu tenet, but not an Advaitin one.

 

 

Miguel-Angel

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis,

 

It's hard to know whether your questions are exegetical or philosophical.

That is, are you asking what Absolute Idealists would say about these

questions? Or are you asking about what really really makes sense? For

example, you ask this, which sounds like a scholarly research question:

 

I did not see, therefore, how anyone putting forward

an Absolute Idealist theory could consider it meaningful

to talk about egos etc. Isn't it comparable to

discussing the personalities of characters in our dreams?

 

This sounds like an exegetical question, i.e., a question to ask an author

based on a passage from their text that promulgates Absolute Idealism. You

can get more info on this by reading those authors.

 

Your second question, about monism and Absolute Idealism. What kind of

answer are you looking for, could you clarify that a bit? Is your main

question about what the difference is? People in constructing monisms like

to reduce complexity to simplicity in different ways, and end up with

different stuff. You say it is the same whether it's all water or all

Idea... To say these are the same puts lots and lots emphasis on the claim

of One-rather-than-many. And it overlooks differences, such as this huge

one: that a monism of Idea can account for something like sentience in a

way that all-is-water claim cannot. Some monisms are more encompassing

than others!

 

The third question, about Absolute Idealism differing from Advaita. Let me

ask - what kind of criterion are you using to accept sameness and

difference? The biggest difference is the the soteriology and practices of

advaita and leading to it (including bhakti, jnana, karma and raja yoga,

with the overall motive of liberation). But it sounds like you mean

metaphysical or ontological differences. But again, this goes back to the

exegetical question - whose Absolute Idealism are you comparing to Advaita?

Which writer, which presentation, which claims? We know these answers in

the case of Advaita, but I think we could discuss the Western angle better

if you cited a few passages from one of the philosophers.

 

You mention the ring of gold, and the gold ring. Here's another difference

between a Western monism and advaita. The seeming paradoxicality in the

main tenets of the latter. Now I haven't read every Absolute Idealist work

or even every writer. But I'm not aware of any Western philosopher saying

anything like this about the basis of his ontology. Viz., Shankara's words

on the world and Brahman:

 

Brahman is real.

The world is unreal.

The world is Brahman.

 

A Western monist to my knowledge hasn't made the seemingly paradoxical set

of statements like these:

 

Water is real.

The world is unreal.

The world is water.

 

And even in the case of the Absolute I have never seen any such statements.

But again, this gets back to what people have said - exegetics...

 

Gotta go now. See you!

 

Harih om!

 

--Greg

 

 

Greg Goode (e-mail: goode)

Computer Support

Phone: 4-5723