Materialism, Idealism and realism: Which one is correct?

[Bahman]

This is a little long. I start with materialism:

Materialism simply states that everything is simply material and matter move by laws of nature. There however exists an anomaly in this world view so call mind. They argue that mind emerge from matter. This however leads to epiphnomalism which means there is no use for mind. That is true because any state of affair leads to another state of affair only by laws of nature. We however know by fact that mind contribute in changes hence materialism cannot be correct.

We then discuss idealism:

Idealism simply state that mind is only real and what we experience is mere idea. There is however a problem in this world view which states that is illusion so it could vanishes. This means that we need an intervention of God to create and sustain ideas. The act of creation is eternal whereas the act of sustaining is sequential. This is however is logically impossible because you cannot have eternal and sequential acts in the same reference view. Hence idealism is false.

The only alternative is realism which claims that both matter and mind are real. Matter moves based on laws of nature and intervention of mind. Mind simply allows the experience, decision and act.

 

[seagal]

I notice that you point out problems with both the material and ideal mind-sets but not with the realistic one.

It seems self-evident to me.

 

[RPRPsych]

I like ice-cream.

 

[Mary_Estelle]

All three are correct as long as each are done in moderation and insight.

 

[davidv]

All three are correct as long as each are done in moderation and insight.

Or, they are all incorrect, as none of them are a complete description of reality. They are only some of the several models of reality.

all models are wrong, but some are useful. … 2010 George E.P. Box

 

[Mary_Estelle]

Where will you find a “complete description of reality,” if it exist? Most of our concepts of materialism, idealism and realism are a state of mind and in how we perceive them. It is a kind of theology of the Id(self) and you can’t nail it down 100% and say “this is it.” Which is why I say all three of them are correct in moderation and insight. It also depends on your culture, traditions and spiritual foundation. For me, all three are encompassed in the OT’s Ten Commandments and in the teachings of Christ that He gave on LOVE. We are too frail to tear apart and decide which is more correct than the other. They are all correct. Prove otherwise. Peace.

 

[Tomdstone]

This is a little long. I start with materialism:

Materialism simply states that everything is simply material and matter move by laws of nature. There however exists an anomaly in this world view so call mind. They argue that mind emerge from matter. This however leads to epiphnomalism which means there is no use for mind. That is true because any state of affair leads to another state of affair only by laws of nature. We however know by fact that mind contribute in changes hence materialism cannot be correct.

It is a question as to whether or not consciousness can be adequately explained by materialist scientific methods. I don’t see the physical, chemical, biological, or computational theory that would explain it at this point in time. But it is under study.

 

[kdbueno]

Materialism: the temporality of nature

Idealism: a conceptual truth of heaven

Realism: a supreme knowledge of divine truth

 

[Bahman]

All three are correct as long as each are done in moderation and insight.

That is not correct. The reality can only be explain with a model which is anomaly free. As it was mention the first two models have anomalies.

 

[Bahman]

Or, they are all incorrect, as none of them are a complete description of reality. They are only some of the several models of reality.

You are an idealist are you? You believe that God created the Universe and sustain it.

 

[Bahman]

Where will you find a “complete description of reality,” if it exist?

We can find a description of reality by examining different models. The models which is anomaly free describes reality.

Most of our concepts of materialism, idealism and realism are a state of mind and in how we perceive them.

We don’t perceive a model. We construct models with the power of imagination.

It is a kind of theology of the Id(self) and you can’t nail it down 100% and say “this is it.” Which is why I say all three of them are correct in moderation and insight.

Moderation doesn’t resolve the intrinsic anomaly which exist in a model.

It also depends on your culture, traditions and spiritual foundation.

Culture and tradition have noting to do with reality.

For me, all three are encompassed in the OT’s Ten Commandments and in the teachings of Christ that He gave on LOVE. We are too frail to tear apart and decide which is more correct than the other. They are all correct. Prove otherwise. Peace.

Why the description of reality was not provided by Jesus?

 

[adamhovey1988]

Why can only one be correct? Why can’t it be all of them? Why can’t it be none of them? No offense, but you have a pretty narrow way of thinking with regards to philosophy.

 

[davidv]

You are an idealist are you?

Not according your definition in the OP.

You believe that God created the Universe and sustain it.

How does this belief meet the definition you provided in the OP?

 

[Bahman]

It is a question as to whether or not consciousness can be adequately explained by materialist scientific methods. I don’t see the physical, chemical, biological, or computational theory that would explain it at this point in time. But it is under study.

The main problem in the materialistic point of view is that they think that mind emerges from matter. This belief arises from the fact that science was successful in describing several emerging phenomenas. The reality is that scientific description of any emergent phenomena is an approximation of reality. In the core any behavior of matter can be describe by laws of nature and there is no emerging phenomena. Hence emerging phenomena is a false conception in materialism. This means that consciousness cannot possibly be describe by materialism as well. Moreover, as it was mentioned materialism point of view leads to epiphenomenalism since any motion can be described by law of nature hence consciousness is useless.

 

[Bahman]

Why can only one be correct?

Because I argue that Materialism and Idealism are wrong. The only alternative is Realism. Do you have any counter argument against mine?

Why can’t it be all of them?

Because we only have one reality hence only one model can be true.

Why can’t it be none of them?

Do you any alternative?

No offense, but you have a pretty narrow way of thinking with regards to philosophy.

I don’t think so. You don’t provide any argument against my argument and tell me that my thinking is very narrow.

 

[Bahman]

Not according your definition in the OP.

How does this belief meet the definition you provided in the OP?

You believe that creation is sustained by God. That is what we experience so called idea in Idealism. You also have a soul/mind which is immortal. Am I missing anything?

 

[davidv]

You believe that creation is sustained by God. That is what we experience so called idea in Idealism. You also have a soul/mind which is immortal. Am I missing anything?

You are missing a great deal. You appear to be making a lot of unstated assumptions. And the only person who knows these assumptions is you. So, I am completely at a loss to understand how you arrive at the conclusions that you present.

So, to be clear, I am not an idealist by your definition and my belief has no bearing on this classification. Why? Because belief, or lack thereof, is not expressed, nor inferred, in your definition.

 

[o_mlly]

This is a little long. I start with materialism:

Materialism simply states that everything is simply material and matter move by laws of nature. There however exists an anomaly in this world view so call mind. They argue that mind emerge from matter. This however leads to epiphnomalism which means there is no use for mind. That is true because any state of affair leads to another state of affair only by laws of nature. We however know by fact that mind contribute in changes hence materialism cannot be correct.

We then discuss idealism:

Idealism simply state that mind is only real and what we experience is mere idea. There is however a problem in this world view which states that is illusion so it could vanishes. This means that we need an intervention of God to create and sustain ideas. The act of creation is eternal whereas the act of sustaining is sequential. This is however is logically impossible because you cannot have eternal and sequential acts in the same reference view. Hence idealism is false.

The only alternative is realism which claims that both matter and mind are real. Matter moves based on laws of nature and intervention of mind. Mind simply allows the experience, decision and act.

Reality is singular and independent of the thinking mind.

A subjective idea that conforms to reality is true independent of whether that idea emanates from idealism or materialism.

An idea that does not conform to reality is false independent of whether that subjective idea emanates from idealism or materialism.

 

[Tomdstone]

The main problem in the materialistic point of view is that they think that mind emerges from matter. This belief arises from the fact that science was successful in describing several emerging phenomenas. The reality is that scientific description of any emergent phenomena is an approximation of reality. In the core any behavior of matter can be describe by laws of nature and there is no emerging phenomena. Hence emerging phenomena is a false conception in materialism. This means that consciousness cannot possibly be describe by materialism as well. Moreover, as it was mentioned materialism point of view leads to epiphenomenalism since any motion can be described by law of nature hence consciousness is useless.

I don’t see why the emergent theory of mind must necessarily be considered epiphenomenal. Nor is it impossible. In his 1991 book, Consciousness Explained, Daniel Dennett says that consciousness arises from interaction of physical and cognitive processes in the brain.

 

[Bahman]

You are missing a great deal. You appear to be making a lot of unstated assumptions. And the only person who knows these assumptions is you. So, I am completely at a loss to understand how you arrive at the conclusions that you present.

So, to be clear, I am not an idealist by your definition and my belief has no bearing on this classification. Why? Because belief, or lack thereof, is not expressed, nor inferred, in your definition.

I am not missing anything. Do you believe in God? Yes. What is the definition of God in your religion? The one who create and sustain universe. The parallel to this in idealism is God is the creator who sustain ideas. What we are? Human, who is the result of unification soul and body. The parallel to this is that soul is mind.