Three Schools

  • Thread starter wuliheron
  • Start date
1,927
0
By who you hate, by this are you truly know.
Frank Herbert


There are three main schools of thought I can count here that are frequently at odds with one another:

1)Realism

2)Idealism

3)Mysticism

Anyone care to take a stab at describing the rudamentary schools of thought here? How would you describe yourself? How would you contrast all three schools and their differences of opinion?
 
1,596
0
Originally posted by wuliheron
By who you hate, by this are you truly know.
Frank Herbert


There are three main schools of thought I can count here that are frequently at odds with one another:

1)Realism

2)Idealism

3)Mysticism

Anyone care to take a stab at describing the rudamentary schools of thought here? How would you describe yourself? How would you contrast all three schools and their differences of opinion?
Do you categorize materialism under the label 'realism'?

My categorization would look a bit different.

1) Materialism (matter is primary, mind secondary)

2) Idealism (mind is primary, matter secondary)

2a) Objective Idealism (the Absolute Idea, etc).

2b) Subjective Idealism (only one's own mind has existence, solipsism)
 
3,754
2
Originally posted by wuliheron
By who you hate, by this are you truly know.
Frank Herbert


There are three main schools of thought I can count here that are frequently at odds with one another:

1)Realism

2)Idealism

3)Mysticism

Anyone care to take a stab at describing the rudamentary schools of thought here? How would you describe yourself? How would you contrast all three schools and their differences of opinion?
What do you mean by "Realism"? People, in either of the other two schools of thought, consider their conception to be "real", do they not?
 
1,927
0
Yes, of course, materialism goes under the realist catagory. Realists believe their are real objects or things with real properties. Whether or not we look at the moon, it is there and has an independent existence of its own.
 
1,596
0
Originally posted by wuliheron
Yes, of course, materialism goes under the realist catagory. Realists believe their are real objects or things with real properties. Whether or not we look at the moon, it is there and has an independent existence of its own.
The philosophical school is known under the name materialism, not realism. Anyone can invent there own labels, but I would just propose use the conventional labels.
 
1,927
0
Realism is a more broad term. It includes for example the modern idea that there is no such thing as a material object, that everything could be made of energy instead.
 
1,596
0
Originally posted by wuliheron
Realism is a more broad term. It includes for example the modern idea that there is no such thing as a material object, that everything could be made of energy instead.
Which only explains that you have a wrong concept of the philosophical term 'matter', which is not the same as the physical term 'matter'. Matter in the philosophical sense implies motion, and does not just denote something that has mass. It includes therefore anything material, which is bot mass-having matter (particles and so), energy, fields, or whatever. Philosophical materialism leaves that up to science, to make more definite statements about the forms of matter.
 
I am a materialist. I have ideals and try to follow them, but I don't think that makes me an idealist, according to its definition in this thread.
 
1,927
0
Originally posted by heusdens
Which only explains that you have a wrong concept of the philosophical term 'matter', which is not the same as the physical term 'matter'. Matter in the philosophical sense implies motion, and does not just denote something that has mass. It includes therefore anything material, which is bot mass-having matter (particles and so), energy, fields, or whatever. Philosophical materialism leaves that up to science, to make more definite statements about the forms of matter.
What is the sound of one hand clapping? What is motion without some "thing" to move? What is matter without substance? What is form without shape?

Being ignorant of ultimate physical or metaphysical basis of existence does not mean one cannot take a realistic perspective that is neither materialistic nor idealistic.
 
1,596
0
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
I am a materialist. I have ideals and try to follow them, but I don't think that makes me an idealist, according to its definition in this thread.
Right! I'm a materialist too, and have ideals too.
To be a materialist does not imply that one is looking for material benefit or so. We should distinguish the meaning of the philosophical terms materialism and idealism from their ordinary meanings in ordinary language.
 
1,596
0
Originally posted by wuliheron
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
It's a bit dimmer then clapping with two hands. Never tried to clap with one hand??? It is doable, and it does make a sound!

What is motion without some "thing" to move? What is matter without substance? What is form without shape?
Right! Motion and matter can not be seperated.

Being ignorant of ultimate physical or metaphysical basis of existence does not mean one cannot take a realistic perspective that is neither materialistic nor idealistic.
Is in your viewpoint realism a seperate school of philosophy? Name some exponents of this philosophical school.
 
1,927
0
Realism was founded by Aristotle and Plato. Aristotle believed universals (properties or relationships) exist in everything around us, in space and time. Plato's realism diverged in that he believed in a supernatural heavenly realm of perfect universals after which all earthly ones were imperfect copies. With the advent of Idealism Plato's ideas have largely been divorced from the school of what we now call realism.
 
2,224
0
Originally posted by wuliheron
Realism was founded by Aristotle and Plato. Aristotle believed universals (properties or relationships) exist in everything around us, in space and time. Plato's realism diverged in that he believed in a supernatural heavenly realm of perfect universals after which all earthly ones were imperfect copies. With the advent of Idealism Plato's ideas have largely been divorced from the school of what we now call realism.
Of course if the Divine were real, then it "must" be held as part of realism. Does that mean Plato was also a "spiritualist?"
 
1,927
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Of course if the Divine were real, then it "must" be held as part of realism. Does that mean Plato was also a "spiritualist?"
Exactly, Plato believed God was infinitely real while our ordinary everyday lives are finite but real.

It occured to me that I left out the forth school of thought, Pragmatism. So, to update the list we have:

1)Realism

2)Pragmatism

3)Idealism

4)Mysticism

These are listed according to how strong their fundamental assertions are. Realism asserts that the objects and relationships of our ordinary lives are real and have an existence independent from ourselves. The moon is still there whether we look or not. Pragmatism says maybe it doesn't matter if they are real or not, we still have to deal with them. Idealism says they are all constructs of consciousness, and in some sense the moon isn't there when we don't look. Mysticism says its all real, unreal, and neither.
 
2,224
0
Originally posted by wuliheron
Mysticism says its all real, unreal, and neither.
Does that mean it's all relative to the observer then? Or, that there are different ways of looking at things, depending on the situation?

Of course this would also apply to Plato now -- at this time -- wouldn't it?
 

FZ+

1,550
2
Subjective realism?
Real objects exist, but we can only observe via virtual concepts.
 
1,596
0
Since you declared that realism is a seperate school from materialism, it shows up you forgot to mention materialism, and especially the most modern school of materialism: dialectical-materialism.
 
1,927
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Does that mean it's all relative to the observer then? Or, that there are different ways of looking at things, depending on the situation?

Of course this would also apply to Plato now -- at this time -- wouldn't it?
Mysiticism can be interpreted any way you want. That's where the name comes from: its a mystery. Plato's philosophy was not terribly mysterious but extremely well defined.

Originally posted by heusdens
Since you declared that realism is a seperate school from materialism, it shows up you forgot to mention materialism, and especially the most modern school of materialism: dialectical-materialism.
Both subjective and dialectical materialism fall under the catagory of Realism. Each proposes there are real objects in the world with non-arbitrary properties and relationahips. The moon is definitely there when you look away.
 
1,476
0
Well, I guess then that I a pragmatisic, semi-platonic, idealistic, realist with mystical leanings.
Pragmatist because I believe that science and knowlege must be based on experimentation and experience.
Semi-platonic because I am a realist at heart. While I don't agree with Paalto's forms I do agree that we must look at the whole object to know it while Aristotle wanted to disect everything to know its inner workings.
Idealistic because I do believe in ideals
A realist be cause I believe that reality exists whether we are looking at it or not and couldn't care less about us looking or not.
Finally a mystic because I believe that all is one and we are all part of the one and that the universe was created and it in and of itself is a mystery, paradox.
There are probably more but since I could only choose from the given list I have to stop here.
 

BoulderHead

Sounds ok to me, Royce.

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789
 
1,927
0
I hadn't really thought of it till you brought it up guys, but yeah, I lean towards different schools of thought according to the situation. My own personal beliefs lean towards the mystical, but the philosophy I've developed here is a distinctly pragmatic one. Within that pragmatic context, at times I adopt a realist perspective and at other times an idealistic one.

Idealism is better suited to cognitive sciences while realism is better suited to physical sciences imo. Pragmatism brings these two into an overarching scientific and practical personal context for me. Mysticism is what goes beyond all such abstractions and brings them together with attitude. :0)
 
1,596
0
Originally posted by wuliheron
Both subjective and dialectical materialism fall under the catagory of Realism. Each proposes there are real objects in the world with non-arbitrary properties and relationahips. The moon is definitely there when you look away.
Pardon? What do I hold of 'subjective materialism'? The world around me realy exist, independend of my mind, but not to someone else's mind, or so?

I do not know of a philosophical school named 'subjective materialism'.
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Greetings !
Originally posted by wuliheron
1)Realism

2)Idealism

3)Mysticism

Anyone care to take a stab at describing the
rudamentary schools of thought here? How
would you describe yourself? How would you
contrast all three schools and their
differences of opinion?
1. If you mean by being real = accepting
the observed (not through my eyes but ALL the
input of my conscousness) and not accepting
absolutes, then that's me.

2. BS.

3. BS.

4. Whatever - very likely (but not absolutly) BS. :wink:

Live long and prosper.
 
1,596
0
As argued in this thread I do not see a reason to leave materialism out of the list of primary philosophical schools. specially 'realism' has different roots as materialism, and materialism can not be hold to be a subdivision of materialism, I would suspect that realism is a subdivision of materialism instead.
The distinction mentioned between 'realism' and 'materialism' is not a real distinction. Materialism does not claim that everything is made up from mass having stuff. Energy, or fields fall under the same philosophical category of matter. So what does realism claim that materialism doesn't or vice versa?
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Greetings !
Originally posted by heusdens
Materialism does not claim that everything is
made up from mass having stuff. Energy, or
fields fall under the same philosophical
category of matter. So what does realism
claim that materialism doesn't or vice versa?
It's very simple really. Materialism claims
that everything can be explained, realism
claims nothing(as I see it, but then again that
is only the result of the word "realism" for me,
if it has some other defined philosophical
meaning then perhaps I should chatacterize my
point of view differently, anyway it's as
I discribed it in my message above this one).

Live long and prosper.
 

Related Threads for: Three Schools

  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Posted
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • Posted
2 3
Replies
65
Views
5K
  • Posted
Replies
21
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Posted
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
7
Views
6K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top