- #1
heusdens
- 1,738
- 0
One Singular Reality = One Singular viewpoint of/on Reality?
This website and this forum is about to discuss amongst people of various beliefs and non-beliefs the reality of God, and - since not all people are believers in God - we should add here: the reality of the world itself, and wether or not it exists in the form of God, or not.
We can of course distinguish in this debate two positions: those who are convicted that the foremost important reality is the reality of God, and those who are convicted to the fact that reality itself exists objectively and can be adressed as nature or matter.
Most discussions here show that both realities are taken as being opposite to each other in a fundamental way. This does not mean that there is no agreement on anything, but at last in a fundamental way, the viewpoints are opposing each other.
The intention of this discussion thread is as follows:
Firstly it starts from the viewpoint that we witness only one reality, and that all our perceptions and ideas about reality, come from this reality, which is hold to be something objective.
Secondly it acknowledges the fact that no one knows everything about the nature of the objective reality, and that knowing the truth of everything that exists objectively is beyond what is possible.
and Thirdly, we want to explore all the arguments, which are hold to oppose each other in further detail, and find out if there is a way of conceiving reality in such a way, in which both opposing viewpoints could be united.
=============================================
Some issues to be dealt with:
One Reality - The first issue is of course, if and how we can know that there is only one reality. This already is a dillemma.
The opposing ideas are here that:
- Wether or not an objective reality exists is not knowable; the only reality we will ever know about is that which is given by our own consciousness which by it's nature is subjective
- At least we must make the distinction that reality exists in two separate ways: in an objective way in the form of matter, and in a subjective way in the form of consciousness
- Reality contains at least two separate entities: that of matter and that of consciousness. Materialism states that matter is primary, and consciousness is secondary. Idealism states that consciousness is primary, and matter is secondary. And there is the dualistic viewpoint in which both or neither are primary (matter and consciousness are both uncreatable and indestroyable entities which coexist in the world).
Objective reality
--------------------
The idea of an objective reality means a reality which is independend of something else, exists on it's own, and for which there aren't causes for it's existence. These are the necessary criteria for objective existence.
We hold it that this objective reality, whatever it's nature is and how we look on it or perceive of it, has primacy (exists in first or primary instance) and forms the causes for all other forms of existence we know about.
Important to add is that we, when defining this objective reality, have not yet stated the nature of this objective reality, we only acknowledge the fact that such must exist, and must be the primary cause of everything that exists.
Secondly it is important to acknowledge that defining this primary and objective existence, does not mean that we know in a direct way about this objective reality, since:
- we can only know about reality through our subjective existence, through our consciousness
- the way we can perceive of reality, of that which is outside, apart from and independend of our consciousness, is through observation
- The act of observing reality means that in some or other way, a material existence form causes an awareness, wether that is directly through our own sensory perceptions, or through a perceptory instrument which is outside of ourself.
- Our knowledge about the material existence forms (f.e. light, sound, etc) has indicated that these material existence forms are always only secondary features of that primary substance which exists objectively.
- Which means that we do not have a real perception of what this primary substance that exists objectively in fact is.
Not knowing what this primary substance that exists objectively is, does not disallow us to give it a name. At the same time however, giving it a name does not include that we know it any better as before, but it is at least convenient to know what we talking about.
Helas, at this point we must admit that people do not come into general agreement how to name this primary substance that exists objectively.
Depending on the school of thought, there are (at least) two different names that have been given to this primary substance/primary entity, which are:
Matter (from the school of Materialism)
God (from the school of Idealism, although also the terms: fundamental principle or Absolute Idea are used throughout philosophic literature)
We state here again, that a name is just a name, and does not - in itself - reveil us any more about the nature of that primary substance or entity.
Nevertheless, within the schools of thought that proposed these names, the term used of course refelcts on a particular point of view that accompanies that defined term.
What can often lead to confusion and misconceptions is that noth schools of thought use the term matter, but they do not refer to the same entity or thing.
Within materialism matter is the primary objectively existing substance or entity, that exists independend of anything else. We can never know about matter directly but can only perceive of specific existence forms of matter. As for instance: light, electrons, atoms, molecules, living organisms, stars, galaxies..
Within idealism however the term matter is not the primary substance, but a secondary existence form. The primary substance or entity within idealism is God (or a fundamental principle or an Absolute Idea)
matter in idealism therefore denotes something that is dependend on this primary substance or entity (God or a fundamental principle or an Absolute Idea)
Note also that the philosophical term matter is something different then the physical term matter. In physics matter are specific physical existence forms, which have the property of (rest)mass. Atoms, protons, electrons, denote matter, whereas light denotes something else.
The term matter in materialism denotes a philosophical category of all that which exists independend, apart from and outside of consciousness.
In summary
---------------
Both viewpoints (that of idealism and materialism) define some primary substance or entity that exists objectively and which is the cause for all forms of existence, and is independend of anything else.
The difference between idealism and materialism, is that idealism defines the primary substance or entity to exists in a consciouss form primarily and in material form only secondary, while materialism defines the primary substance or entity to exist in material form primarily, and in consciouss form only secondary.
So, the distinction between these two opposing philosophical viewpoints focuses on the issue of what is there in primary instance: matter or consciousness?
Some related issues
==============
The philosphical question as what is the primary substance or entity of the world, is known as the basic question in philosophy.
In the course of this thread, we do not just want to state and mention and explore the various ways in which those two viewpoint (both in theoretical and in practical ways) oppose each other, but the primary interest of this thread is to explore a viewpoint in which these opposing viewpoints can be united within a broader framework.
The basement of that approach is that no matter how far and in what way opposing viewpoint on reality exist (within the human mind), we must conceive of the fact that an objective reality does in fact exist, and since the world exist singular (there is only one world, and it exists objectively), there would be - in theory - also only one way of perceiving reality.
So, the question then is: does such a viewpoint exist, in which these opposing viewpoints of reality, can be merged and united together into a singular point of view? And if not, why not?
Some agreements
-----------------------
Between the mentioned opposing viewpoint (materialism and idealism) at least the following agreements exist:
1. There is objective existence, and objective reality
2. That what exists objectively is primary, in the sense that it's existence does not depend on anything else
3. Everything that exists, exists in the form of 'existence forms' (wether that are electrons, light, living organism, or human consciousness) which are caused by this primary entity or substance
4. Since this primary suibstance or entity was not caused itself, it has therefore eternal existence. It is uncreatable and indestructable.
[TO BE CONTINUED]
This website and this forum is about to discuss amongst people of various beliefs and non-beliefs the reality of God, and - since not all people are believers in God - we should add here: the reality of the world itself, and wether or not it exists in the form of God, or not.
We can of course distinguish in this debate two positions: those who are convicted that the foremost important reality is the reality of God, and those who are convicted to the fact that reality itself exists objectively and can be adressed as nature or matter.
Most discussions here show that both realities are taken as being opposite to each other in a fundamental way. This does not mean that there is no agreement on anything, but at last in a fundamental way, the viewpoints are opposing each other.
The intention of this discussion thread is as follows:
Firstly it starts from the viewpoint that we witness only one reality, and that all our perceptions and ideas about reality, come from this reality, which is hold to be something objective.
Secondly it acknowledges the fact that no one knows everything about the nature of the objective reality, and that knowing the truth of everything that exists objectively is beyond what is possible.
and Thirdly, we want to explore all the arguments, which are hold to oppose each other in further detail, and find out if there is a way of conceiving reality in such a way, in which both opposing viewpoints could be united.
=============================================
Some issues to be dealt with:
One Reality - The first issue is of course, if and how we can know that there is only one reality. This already is a dillemma.
The opposing ideas are here that:
- Wether or not an objective reality exists is not knowable; the only reality we will ever know about is that which is given by our own consciousness which by it's nature is subjective
- At least we must make the distinction that reality exists in two separate ways: in an objective way in the form of matter, and in a subjective way in the form of consciousness
- Reality contains at least two separate entities: that of matter and that of consciousness. Materialism states that matter is primary, and consciousness is secondary. Idealism states that consciousness is primary, and matter is secondary. And there is the dualistic viewpoint in which both or neither are primary (matter and consciousness are both uncreatable and indestroyable entities which coexist in the world).
Objective reality
--------------------
The idea of an objective reality means a reality which is independend of something else, exists on it's own, and for which there aren't causes for it's existence. These are the necessary criteria for objective existence.
We hold it that this objective reality, whatever it's nature is and how we look on it or perceive of it, has primacy (exists in first or primary instance) and forms the causes for all other forms of existence we know about.
Important to add is that we, when defining this objective reality, have not yet stated the nature of this objective reality, we only acknowledge the fact that such must exist, and must be the primary cause of everything that exists.
Secondly it is important to acknowledge that defining this primary and objective existence, does not mean that we know in a direct way about this objective reality, since:
- we can only know about reality through our subjective existence, through our consciousness
- the way we can perceive of reality, of that which is outside, apart from and independend of our consciousness, is through observation
- The act of observing reality means that in some or other way, a material existence form causes an awareness, wether that is directly through our own sensory perceptions, or through a perceptory instrument which is outside of ourself.
- Our knowledge about the material existence forms (f.e. light, sound, etc) has indicated that these material existence forms are always only secondary features of that primary substance which exists objectively.
- Which means that we do not have a real perception of what this primary substance that exists objectively in fact is.
Not knowing what this primary substance that exists objectively is, does not disallow us to give it a name. At the same time however, giving it a name does not include that we know it any better as before, but it is at least convenient to know what we talking about.
Helas, at this point we must admit that people do not come into general agreement how to name this primary substance that exists objectively.
Depending on the school of thought, there are (at least) two different names that have been given to this primary substance/primary entity, which are:
Matter (from the school of Materialism)
God (from the school of Idealism, although also the terms: fundamental principle or Absolute Idea are used throughout philosophic literature)
We state here again, that a name is just a name, and does not - in itself - reveil us any more about the nature of that primary substance or entity.
Nevertheless, within the schools of thought that proposed these names, the term used of course refelcts on a particular point of view that accompanies that defined term.
What can often lead to confusion and misconceptions is that noth schools of thought use the term matter, but they do not refer to the same entity or thing.
Within materialism matter is the primary objectively existing substance or entity, that exists independend of anything else. We can never know about matter directly but can only perceive of specific existence forms of matter. As for instance: light, electrons, atoms, molecules, living organisms, stars, galaxies..
Within idealism however the term matter is not the primary substance, but a secondary existence form. The primary substance or entity within idealism is God (or a fundamental principle or an Absolute Idea)
matter in idealism therefore denotes something that is dependend on this primary substance or entity (God or a fundamental principle or an Absolute Idea)
Note also that the philosophical term matter is something different then the physical term matter. In physics matter are specific physical existence forms, which have the property of (rest)mass. Atoms, protons, electrons, denote matter, whereas light denotes something else.
The term matter in materialism denotes a philosophical category of all that which exists independend, apart from and outside of consciousness.
In summary
---------------
Both viewpoints (that of idealism and materialism) define some primary substance or entity that exists objectively and which is the cause for all forms of existence, and is independend of anything else.
The difference between idealism and materialism, is that idealism defines the primary substance or entity to exists in a consciouss form primarily and in material form only secondary, while materialism defines the primary substance or entity to exist in material form primarily, and in consciouss form only secondary.
So, the distinction between these two opposing philosophical viewpoints focuses on the issue of what is there in primary instance: matter or consciousness?
Some related issues
==============
The philosphical question as what is the primary substance or entity of the world, is known as the basic question in philosophy.
In the course of this thread, we do not just want to state and mention and explore the various ways in which those two viewpoint (both in theoretical and in practical ways) oppose each other, but the primary interest of this thread is to explore a viewpoint in which these opposing viewpoints can be united within a broader framework.
The basement of that approach is that no matter how far and in what way opposing viewpoint on reality exist (within the human mind), we must conceive of the fact that an objective reality does in fact exist, and since the world exist singular (there is only one world, and it exists objectively), there would be - in theory - also only one way of perceiving reality.
So, the question then is: does such a viewpoint exist, in which these opposing viewpoints of reality, can be merged and united together into a singular point of view? And if not, why not?
Some agreements
-----------------------
Between the mentioned opposing viewpoint (materialism and idealism) at least the following agreements exist:
1. There is objective existence, and objective reality
2. That what exists objectively is primary, in the sense that it's existence does not depend on anything else
3. Everything that exists, exists in the form of 'existence forms' (wether that are electrons, light, living organism, or human consciousness) which are caused by this primary entity or substance
4. Since this primary suibstance or entity was not caused itself, it has therefore eternal existence. It is uncreatable and indestructable.
[TO BE CONTINUED]