Kastrup's theory of Idealism
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:06 pm
PHILOSOPHERS ON KASTRUP
“Needless to say, idealism is at best a metaphysical model, as is physicalism, panpsychism, Hoffman’s conscious realism, indeed all such ‘isms’, and ultimately the map is not the territory, and one must bow to the opening lines of the Tao Te Ching. Nonetheless, it somehow seems important to conceive of an ontological/cosmological model upon which to base a cultural ethos. The question becomes, which one? “
____ snowleopard, on The Philosophy Forum, regarding Kastrup's defense of Idealism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... do-kastrup
This quote hits on the key problem with all attempts to revive the ancient Idealist worldview in a modern Realist world. It's true that we all know Mind directly and Matter indirectly, but perhaps because of that familiarity, we tend to take Mind for granted. Kastrup has produced a masterful argument for Idealism as a philosophical metaphysical model of the world. But his critics are mostly those whose profession requires pragmatic physical results, not dreamy spiritual feelings. So, according to my own BothAnd Principle (*1), I think we need to accept that there is an essential duality (yin/yang) to our relationship with Reality & Ideality. Those are two sides of the same coin that we perch precariously on the edge of.
Theoretical scientists have always flirted with Idealism, especially since Quantum Theory became respectable in the early 20th century. But, among the practical scientists, who make the technology that runs the modern world, Kastrup's notion of mental reality sounds like it's coming from the far-out fringes, and his metaphysical model seems to be associated with flaky New Age fantasies. Which is why my blog post (*2 ), reviewing The Idea Of The World, suggests a slight change in terminology : first, for precision of meaning, and second, to make the notion of a metaphysical foundation for the physical world more palatable to hard-nosed rationalists and pragmatists.
Kastrup refers to “Consciousness” as the Ontological Primitive. But the “C” word has been hi-jacked by those who delight, not in pragmatic facts, but in romantic mysteries, such as mind-over-matter magic. The spooky spiritual connotation of "Consciousness" is associated with myriad disparate religious beliefs & practices. I don't have any personal experience with the disembodied "consciousness" of ghosts & demons, yet I do see a need for an update to the materialistic “cultural ethos”. But the problem, as Snowleopard concluded, is “which one?” As a non-mystical pragmatic person, I think the concept of mind-stuff (datum) as the Ontological Primitive should be common sense in the Information Age. And it should be amenable to the scientific pursuit of physical (mechanical) understanding, as well as to the philosophical pursuit of metaphysical (mental) comprehension. I can accept that other people prefer mystical & magical interpretations of Idealism, but that's not how my information-based world-model works.
*1 http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
*2 http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page17.html
“Needless to say, idealism is at best a metaphysical model, as is physicalism, panpsychism, Hoffman’s conscious realism, indeed all such ‘isms’, and ultimately the map is not the territory, and one must bow to the opening lines of the Tao Te Ching. Nonetheless, it somehow seems important to conceive of an ontological/cosmological model upon which to base a cultural ethos. The question becomes, which one? “
____ snowleopard, on The Philosophy Forum, regarding Kastrup's defense of Idealism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... do-kastrup
This quote hits on the key problem with all attempts to revive the ancient Idealist worldview in a modern Realist world. It's true that we all know Mind directly and Matter indirectly, but perhaps because of that familiarity, we tend to take Mind for granted. Kastrup has produced a masterful argument for Idealism as a philosophical metaphysical model of the world. But his critics are mostly those whose profession requires pragmatic physical results, not dreamy spiritual feelings. So, according to my own BothAnd Principle (*1), I think we need to accept that there is an essential duality (yin/yang) to our relationship with Reality & Ideality. Those are two sides of the same coin that we perch precariously on the edge of.
Theoretical scientists have always flirted with Idealism, especially since Quantum Theory became respectable in the early 20th century. But, among the practical scientists, who make the technology that runs the modern world, Kastrup's notion of mental reality sounds like it's coming from the far-out fringes, and his metaphysical model seems to be associated with flaky New Age fantasies. Which is why my blog post (*2 ), reviewing The Idea Of The World, suggests a slight change in terminology : first, for precision of meaning, and second, to make the notion of a metaphysical foundation for the physical world more palatable to hard-nosed rationalists and pragmatists.
Kastrup refers to “Consciousness” as the Ontological Primitive. But the “C” word has been hi-jacked by those who delight, not in pragmatic facts, but in romantic mysteries, such as mind-over-matter magic. The spooky spiritual connotation of "Consciousness" is associated with myriad disparate religious beliefs & practices. I don't have any personal experience with the disembodied "consciousness" of ghosts & demons, yet I do see a need for an update to the materialistic “cultural ethos”. But the problem, as Snowleopard concluded, is “which one?” As a non-mystical pragmatic person, I think the concept of mind-stuff (datum) as the Ontological Primitive should be common sense in the Information Age. And it should be amenable to the scientific pursuit of physical (mechanical) understanding, as well as to the philosophical pursuit of metaphysical (mental) comprehension. I can accept that other people prefer mystical & magical interpretations of Idealism, but that's not how my information-based world-model works.
*1 http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
*2 http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page17.html