.
Monist Idealism holds that only consciousness exists. Dualism holds that both mind and matter exist. Is there really a conflict between these ideas, or is the dispute a distraction?
The discussions of Idealism seem to regard
Monism and Dualism as an either / or issue.
While I understand that ultimately, everything is unified, this unity
exists only on a level that is forever and fundamentally beyond our grasp. This is not the monism of Idealism, in which
the only thing that exists is mind.
There are both monist and dualist aspects to reality, among
other aspects as well.
A loose analogy would be the human anatomy, in which the
body (the organism) is a unified whole, but one that cannot dispense with its
separate organs and tissues. One cannot
begin with a body and subdivide it into organs; nor can one begin with organs
and assemble them into a functioning body.
The organism is holistic. It is
an interpenetration of unity and fragments.
The Idealist concept of Mind-at-Large (in some schools of thought) is that it alone exists, that
is to say, it is the ultimate existence.
It perceives itself, and creates fragments of itself and perceives
them. Thus, monist Idealism does not
conceive of anything higher or more fundamental than Mind-at-Large itself.
In a sense, this is to place the Monist Mind-at-Large in the
role of God, surely a matter of high emotional contention, if one takes that
literally. I do not. I might be called, a Christian Idealist.
Consciousness itself is a fundamental reality, but there are
higher, more fundamental realities.
Reality exists as a system of hierarchy.
If Mind-at-Large is consciousness, then one might ask, what is it that
is conscious?
To say that consciousness is itself conscious, and conscious
only of itself and of its self-divided parts, is to miss out on other
fundamental realities, such as life and free will, such as good and evil, such
as love and indifference.
The Hindu-Buddhist tradition expresses well why the search
for ultimate reality and ultimate meaning are futile. The tradition holds that nothing can be said
about the ultimate reality, not even this.
In more physicalist terms, when we seek to explore the ultimate reality,
we arrive at a singularity, where all definitions fail.
Idealism has much to offer, both to philosophy and to
science, both to psychology and sociology.
It displaces physical reality as the source of mind, and shows physical
reality to be more the product of mind—but not an illusion of mind. Physical reality and immaterial reality are
interpenetrating realities. In this
respect, they are one and the same, but that is more a semantic evaluation than
an empiric definition.
In the end, Idealism will benefit by demoting the monist/dualist
argument to a side issue. Mind does not
arise from matter. They are interactive
with each other. Physicalists have yet
to accept that.
= = = = = = = = = =
My opinion here is restricted to a narrow scope. It is that Idealism need not overly concern
itself with monism / dualism. The
concepts are too ambiguous, and do not lend themselves to practical
consequence.
Some Idealists seem to be of the opinion that practical
consequences are irrelevant, that instead, what is relevant is reason that gets
to the truth. Well and fine, if one
actually could get to the final truth, and do so through reason. I do not think we can.
In the intermediate range, I think that some religions do
tend toward both, toward truth as far as we can know it, and toward practical
applications that help us to overcome our worst instincts, and become a
benevolent, altruistic society.
Hindu--Buddhist-Eastern philosophies contribute much to the
contemplation of inner reality, and have the beneficial aspect of encouraging
humility and peaceful benevolence. It is
no coincidence that monasticism is common to both Western and Eastern
religions, and resemble each other remarkably.
They are both on to something.
In my opinion, Evangelical Christianity, despite the abysmal
failures attributed to many of its proponents, does the same as Hinduism, and
has enormous potential to do better. It
relies less on reason than on divine revelation, but once divine revelation has
set the course, reason is enhanced. (This idea was eloquently expressed by the late Bishop Fulton J Sheen.)
However, this brings us full circle back to the discussion
of practical applications. Once the
discussion of monism versus dualism has played its limited role, it should be
placed to the back of the classroom, so that the more important and practical
consequences of Idealism can be formulated and put into action.
One of the great enemies of philosophical progress is
secular materialism, a philosophy that regards humans as mere chemicals without
an inherent spiritual nature. Such a
philosophy, once it displaces religion, will necessarily tend toward
technological barbarism, a society in which humans will be seen as mere tools
of the powerful, expendable commodities, disposable at their convenience.
Opposition to that trend is a worthy endeavor, even
noble. Idealism has great potential to
undertake that struggle.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment