Materialist vs. Idealist

 

Materialist vs. Idealist

There is a philosophical concept called “Idealism” which is opposed to “Materialism”, the view held by the vast majority of humans in western society. Here are brief definitions which I copied from an internet site on philosophy: “Idealism is the belief that the mind and ideas is the primary structure of reality and that physical or material reality is secondary. Materialism is the opposite of Idealism and sees matter as the primary reality and all other things including thoughts as the product of interactions of matter.”

It is difficult to have a meaningful dialogue between idealists and materialists because it is almost impossible to establish, as a starting point, anything on which the two agree. For example, if we ask the question, “Can matter generate an original thought?”, the materialist answers, “Of course, because thoughts are generated in the brain, which must be matter because there isn't anything else”. But the idealist answers, “The idea that a chunk of matter can actually think is so ridiculous that it's surprising that anyone could believe it.” So, it's impossible for one side to prove anything to the other, because there is no common ground to serve as a starting point.

The vast majority of us are materialists, because the material world is what we experience almost every waking moment of every day. We see it, hear it, touch it, etc., and naturally conclude that the concept of any kind of immaterial life is speculative at best, and no more than a matter of opinion. Now, I'm going to attempt to describe the Idealist thinking - not with any hope or expectation of convincing anyone of its authenticity – but simply as a matter of providing an insight into this less conventional line of thinking.

The Idealist points out that since all five bodily senses can be experienced in a dream, when the body itself is dormant, then there is no logical necessity for the complicated mechanisms of the physical body. Somehow, its apparent existence is due to some kind of misunderstanding. In Easter mystical philosophies like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, this misunderstanding is called Maya, which means “Illusion”.

In Western philosophy, the Idealist concept takes various forms. There is the extreme view that since there no definitive proof of the existence of anything outside of one's consciousness, and since there is no logically consistent meaning for the lives that we live, then those lives have no existence other than possibly a projection into our awareness of an illusion like a dream, by an outside power; possibly for its own entertainment.

But the majority of Western Idealists hold a more moderate view – one that considers orders of reality. They don't deny that the external physical world exists in some sense, but that its existence is not what it purports to be. After all, a dream is something (it's a dream!), but it isn't what it seems to be while it is being experienced. Likewise, a game, like Monopoly, is something (a board game), but the transactions involving cash and properties are not real.

This comparison of life to a game is, in some ways, preferable to comparing it to a dream. A game does have rules, just as the physical world adheres to the laws of physics with remarkable consistency. Furthermore, even in matters involving ideas and emotions, our decisions have consequences that at least on a short term basis seem logical, just as they would, say, in a computer game. And finally, when the game ends, nothing real has been accomplished, just, apparently, like human life. On the other hand, the game player is always aware that the game is not real, but the dreamer is more than likely under the illusion that his experience is real.

The reason that we should be interested in this subject is that we want to avoid the mistake of devoting our lives to that which appears to be real, but is not. But that reason only skims the surface. The interactions between the real and unreal can strongly affect our lives.

So far, the idealist criticism of materialism has not, by any means, proved the nonexistence of the physical world. It has merely demonstrated that the evidence for its existence is unreliable. But now the idealist raises a crucial point. Both Freud and Jung found undeniable evidence of supernatural phenomena, such as telepathic dreams. Such phenomena were termed “synchronicity” or the external activity of the archetypes by Jung. Furthermore, innovative scientists, like Hadamard, documented the power of sustained focused thought to accomplish the seemingly impossible. Materialism assumes that the only thing that exists is the physical world, which is bound by the laws of physics. Those laws cannot account such supernatural phenomena.

The materialist also has a second problem – one that is rarely recognized. The physical world has no logical foundation. Its laws apply only to matter, space, and time. But when the question is asked, “Where did they come from?”, the materialist has no reasonable answer. He may say that they originated with some kind of “Big Bang” phenomenon, but that would violate its own fundamental law, conservation of mass/energy; i.e., it would be miracle. So, the materialist relies on a miracle to establish his world.

The idealist, on the other hand, has no trouble with either of these problems. He considers himself to be, like the Dalai Lama, a soul who has a body. That soul is in contact with other souls through the Universal Unconscious, which provides the means and explanation of synchronicity effects. Also, the idealist has no problem with establishing the physical world, because he doesn't recognize its existence as what it purports to be.

Since the idealist viewpoint depends on the concept of maya, or illusion, we'll explore that concept more closely in the next post.

Return to table of contents for this label:

Table of Contents for Philosophy Label (augustmarsblog.blogspot.com)