Idealism may not be what you think[?]

Idealism may not be what you think

Editors

It increasingly strikes us that the reason why many scientists and scholars reject idealism—the notion that reality is essentially mental—is based on simple misunderstandings of what idealism states or implies. In this brief editorial, we would like to discuss and correct some of these misunderstandings.

Idealists also do not reject the self-evident fact that nature behaves according to certain patterns and regularities that we’ve come to call the ‘laws of nature,’ which are what they are regardless of whether we like them or not. Rejecting this obvious fact wouldn’t be profound, but just silly. Indeed, idealists are, by and large, naturalists: they do not postulate a puppeteer moving the pieces of the physical world according to some deliberate plan; instead, for them nature unfolds spontaneously, doing what it does because it is what it is. To frame this in psychological language, the so-called ‘laws of nature’ are, for the idealist, akin to the mental archetypes—the ‘instincts’—of a mind-at-large. ‘Laws of nature’ and ‘natural archetypes’ are just two ways of saying the same thing, in that ‘archetypes’ refer to the inherent templates of expression of a mind.

In summary, thoughtful idealists are—by and large—naturalists, reductionists, strictly scientific in their approach to accounting for what is going on. They adhere to the principle of Occam’s Razor more consistently than physicalists. As such, idealism is not solipsism or New Age spirituality. It is important that critics of idealism understand this, so their criticisms can form part of a productive debate, as opposed to being straightforwardly dismissible straw-men. Easier as it may be to simply assume that all those educated idealists are just incredibly stupid people, unable to discern even the most obvious contradictions of their position, doing so is naive and maybe even facetious. Understanding the rather carefully articulated idealist perspective can help one open new horizons for their understanding of nature, without sacrificing reason or evidence; much on the contrary.

Indeed, idealists are, by and large, naturalists: they do not postulate a puppeteer moving the pieces of the physical world according to some deliberate plan; instead, for them nature unfolds spontaneously,

I would say that I’m an idealist but I do believe in a God. (a God = some form of ultimate being)

My God is probably uniquely defined by me, apparently my idealism is too.

I would say that I’m an idealist but I do believe in a God. (a God = some form of ultimate being)

My God is probably uniquely defined by me, apparently my idealism is too.

Yeah one cannot help wonder who these atheist Idealists are...Sam Harris? Kastrup? A few other academic types?

Why I added the question mark to the thread title, as I definitely question the essay.

Yeah one cannot help wonder who these atheist Idealists are...Sam Harris? Kastrup? A few other academic types?

Why I added the question mark to the thread title, as I definitely question the essay.

I’m nowhere near as clued up on such people as you are Sci. I am a bit disappointed in Bernardo’s position, well, being a theist that probably isn’t too surprising. I’d still give him a big hug as a person, but I can’t say the same about Harris. That’s maybe one reason I’ll be back here on earth again! 

Defining things is something I’ve thought about a fair bit though. I am bemused when I read things like Idealism being defined down to the finest detail, I feel that each of us can have our own slight twist on things, which takes us out of that particular definition, but could still be classed as an Idealist, or a theist etc to various degrees. 

I think it is probably a bit of academic snobbery.

I’m nowhere near as clued up on such people as you are Sci. I am a bit disappointed in Bernardo’s position, well, being a theist that probably isn’t too surprising. I’d still give him a big hug as a person, but I can’t say the same about Harris. That’s maybe one reason I’ll be back here on earth again! 

Defining things is something I’ve thought about a fair bit though. I am bemused when I read things like Idealism being defined down to the finest detail, I feel that each of us can have our own slight twist on things, which takes us out of that particular definition, but could still be classed as an Idealist, or a theist etc to various degrees. 

I think it is probably a bit of academic snobbery.

There does seem to be a sort of bias in interpretation, for example I've seen mystic visions of Christians and Muslims of their God interpreted as visions of an impersonal Awareness...something those mystics, if they lived in our time, would surely dispute.

Mysticism seems to suggest a personal divine and an impersonal "awareness"...not sure what to make of it...