But what justification is there that what is thought of is actually in existence outside of thought? One can think of things that do not exist outside of thought.
What justification is there that reality isn't thought by it's very nature?
How do you justify the premise that reality is objectively-existent?
also, apologies to everyone at lemmy.sdf.org if i am flooding local for you. i've been busy adding a bunch links
they also have an email address: membership at sdf dot org, but yeah, the internal BBS is where it is at.
We are a public access UNIX system, so it's not as much of a void as it might seem :D
Well, please do share what you find!
You are on the right track w/ idealism vs materialism in psychology, at least.
The question there arose from the brain: how do you rectify the mind/soul with the brain/body? Dualism apparently fails (the idea that there is a separate mind from the brain) which leaves only some form of monism. A sort of hybrid materialism-idealism seems to make the most sense, where consciousness is a property of the universe, like time or space, and different entities have differing consciousnesses. In that sort of a philosophy, when talking about the brain of a person you are equally talking about the experience that person is having, just in different terms.
I suspect that in sociology that would be some sort of unified anarcho-marxism, if such a thing exists. The atomic theory of society seems to be the thing where they are working on unifying language. If society is fully atomized, asking whether a new society arises due to free choice or resource demands is like asking whether rivers rise due to rain or sewer overflow, if that makes sense?
this was one of my favorite childhood games, thanks for posting this!
apparently, depending on the language used, it will drive the easily angered on the right to insanity
You are very welcome!
I'm glad to be able to be of appreciation, as I know how that is - looks like you are in the right place to discuss political science though!
In the interest of conversation, maybe you can explain or point me to an explanation of why Anarchism vs. Marxism is considered "idealism vs materialism" in sociology?
In Psychology, we had an "idealism vs materialism" debate, but it is mostly resolved with a sort of "idealistic materialism" or "materialistic idealism" where, essentially, "idealism <=> materialism", as I understand it.
I'm curious about what the current state of the art is, in that debate!
Either way, I'll definitely spend some time in [email protected] checking things out.
Have you read about the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights yet?
Based on my understanding, that treaty will require us to have universal healthcare and social security.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights
I think "Outsider Left" may have subsumed "Faith and Family Left" in the new version of the typology.
A good rule of thumb is to measure twice, cut once, so perhaps give it a try twice: once where you answer philosophically and once where you answer practically?
I'm due for taking it again, myself, but I generally consider myself a radical moderate (I'm all for system-wide changes) and I think Pew described me as "faith and family left" when I last took the test.
view more: next ›
So.. there are things that are either within the category of thought or not? Is thought mutually exclusive to material? Is thought composed of material or the other way around? Or are they both the same?
That is the standard definition of idealism, is it not? That existence is immaterial?