You are welcome, flannero, to post on my board. I'd like your perspective there. We may not agree entirely, but it is not necessary. It would give a third party a more full, balanced view of Buddhism if we don't.

I'm thinking of not posting here anymore. I haven't found many people worth talking to.

bis bald,

Nick

 I was blocked temporarily until I put up a proper photo : (

Nick:  I found your Nick Otani’s Neo-Objectivism website and am very excited to check it out.  I also read your post on Buddhism and it might be more appropriate to continue this discussion there or on your website.  But for now, here is my reply.  You have most things right from an academic viewpoint, and I greatly respect your knowledge on all things philosophical, but… 

I’m afraid I have to disagree with some of your interpretations and viewpoint of Buddhism.  First of all, it is not necessary to believe in rebirth to follow the philosophy, and I tend to avoid the cultural and ritualistic trappings of traditional buddhism.  As a westerner, it makes no sense for me to practice rituals outside of my culture, and buddhism has changed with each new culture that it has been introduced to.   And yes, some of the rituals and beliefs that have emerged within different cultures are pretty weird.  As for karma,  there are other ways to interpret karma so that it makes sense to the Western mind, and to me, it is not a cosmic bank account as many new-agers like to view it.   

Secondly, the buddha said life is suffering (samsara) because of our tendency to solidify our desires, and our concepts of self vs. other.  He did not say that life is suffering period, he said we suffer because of our attachments to some things and aversions towards other things and then he went on to show the way to end suffering.  Many misinterpret his views as negative and depressing, but he was showing a way to make ourselves and others’ lives better (Eightfold path:  right action, right speech, right livelihood, right effort, right concentration, etc) on the way to achieving perfection (wisdom compassion).  So you are engaging with the world in a way that is less harmful and more compassionate. 

As you mentioned, the buddha did not advocate asceticism and withdrawal, he advocated the “middle-way” and he used skillful means to teach this.   His teachings were not “one-size-fits-all”.  Depending on who he was teaching, he might tell someone there is a self (to prevent nihilistic views) or say there is no self (to help the those that cling too strongly to the self). 

Nagarjuna was an Indian Buddhist teacher and philosopher from the First Century A.D.  His central philosophical writing was the Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way.  His main goal was to refute the view of extremism of the Sarvastidas (all exists) and of Nihilism.  He uses the doctrine of emptiness to show that on examination, all phenomena (mental and physical) are empty of inherent existence, but also, they are NOT non-existent.    

Lastly, it does not diminish the self or result in withdrawal from life.  By looking within, buddhism is very much about facing your fears and emotional reactions.  In realizing our inter-connectedness, it also increasees empathy and compassion for others.   When you can place yourselves in other peoples’ shoes and know they suffer just as you do, you are less likely to want to bomb innocent civilians in Iraq.

In my own experience, sitting an hour a day has resulted in my being more calm and less stressed by modern life.  It does not bring an end to pain and difficulties, it just allows you to deal with them with less suffering.  It keeps you from adding to the pain, adding your stories of self-pity, self-hatred or thoughts of revenge or whatever our minds do when we are in pain.  It does not bring an end to personality or emotions, it supposedly brings more wisdom in dealing with situations because you are able to experience anger or sadness and release them in less harmful ways.  

In your post on buddhism, you mentioned your own personal suffering and you said you wished you could escape the pain you feel.  Buddhism is definitely not about escaping pain.  It is about looking directly at the pain and seeing that it is a construct of our experiences, thoughts and perceptions.  You can’t do this with logic or reason, you just really feel deeply the pain itself and stay there with it.  You can’t just get it from a book or by thinking your way there, you have to use meditation and insight, so that you come to feel this truth in the marrow of your bones. 

Of course, in learning to view your world differently, it is easier to start with smaller annoyances than to try to tackle the big upsets first.  : ) 

Actually, psychologists and health professionals are integrating meditation in their practices to help patients to overcome obstacles and learn to engage in the world more successfully.  From a psychological standpoint, buddhism has always been concerned with feelings, emotions and cognition.  By altering ones’ distorted worldview, and bringing about tranquil perception in place of clouded perception, one is able to ease suffering. 

“Research has shown that repeated action, learning and memory actually changes the nervous system physically, altering synatpic strength and connections.  Such change may be brought about by cultivated changes in emotion and action, which in turn changes subsequent experiences.”  Watson, 2001 

flanneryo

I explained the difference between the nature of non-human entities and the the nature of humans. I don't have time at this moment to go back over it. I hope, if I haven't communicated this to rootie, perhaps someone else understands. Can someone else help rootie to understand what I said?

Regarding freedom, it sometimes seems that animals freely choose to go in one direction rather than another. However, they don't have a structured language with a creativity principle which allows them this freedom of choice. They respond to stimuli interacting with their genetic nature, as B.F. Skinner and other behaviorists describe. Humans, though, are able to create thoughts, meaningful sentences, never before in existence. This is more than stimulus-response type behavior. Freedom in humans is also evidenced by evolving technology which is not evident in non-human animals, which have predictable behavior patterns. The nature of humans is open-ended, not fixed.

If I have to defend free-will in humans, as opposed to other animals, this could be an involved discussion, but it can be done.

I have to go to work now, and I won't have access to this forum. It is screened out on the computers where I have to work, a high school which censures messageboards.

bis bald,

Nick

Nick,

We seem agreed that humans have a nature.  Your claim is that part of it is fixed and part of it isn't, so you don't think "human nature" applies.  (I'll keep checking to be sure I've understood you)

Wikipedia: "Human nature is the fundamental nature and substance of humans, as well as the range of human behavior that is believed to be invariant over long periods of time and across very different cultural contexts." 

Would you disagree with that definition?  I'm not sure about the "substance" part, but the rest seems to align with my definition and usage for the phrase.  Inventiveness is definitely "invariant over long periods... [and] cultural contexts".  (assuming you define 1,000 years as a "long period" -- discussions between you and flanneryo seem to suggest 1,000,000 or might be closer to the scope you are thinking?).

If I am correct in understanding that you seem to be saying that human nature can't be defined because humans keep changing... Would you also then say that you can't define "human" because humans are changing? 

Regarding "first cause", you wrote nick: "Non-human animals have fixed patterns of behavior which define them. Humans have a free-will, an ability to be a first cause." A squirrel wakes up in the morning and has free-will too, to decide to climb the tree on the right or on the left to seek breakfast, to decide how far to range to collect nuts for winter or seek a mate.  Perhaps I don't understand your use of "first cause," but a squirrel can chew a hole in a house, gather nuts, and "frolic" in the park.  Cats and dogs clearly show distinct personalities, and demonstrate their own forms of free will.  "here kitty kitty" "yo, human, what are you calling for, don't you see me just sitting here?" :)  

You wrote nick: "if we say, as Rand does, that man is a volitionally rational animal, then it is against his nature to be irrational"  If man is *volitional* he can choose to be irrational.  Many times, this isn't deliberately the choice of "I think I'll deny reality today" but instead failing to pay attention (focus on)  the rationality of the available options. 

O-ism doesn't say that men are never irrational.  It does say that men are not very likely to live well or long by irrational means.  Usually if they do live long it is by the violation of the rights of others. 

I would include volitional irrationality as part of "human nature".

rootie

Can you please explain to me why you need a photo and why you needed to use my surname?

Just wondering.

flanneryo

Just as with Objectivism, there are some things I like about Buddhism and some things I don't. I started a thread on this topic already on this forum here:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/2823

Samsari is the flux idea in Buddhism, and it is a hang-over from Hinduism, from which Buddhism is derived. Buddhism also hangs onto the reincarnation and karma ideas from Hinduism. I don't buy into that.

Existentialism and Buddhism share the flux idea somewhat, but Buddhism tries to diminish the self. This is the becoming one with the whole idea, but it is also like being just a cog an the machine, as with Hegel's philosophy. I've said this is a way of withdrawing from life, not facing it and overcoming obstacles. Existentialism differs from Buddhism in that it emphasizes the self, the subject, the for-itself. Reality may be absurd, but we exist and can make something out of our lives. We can make our lives matter.

I also explain this Existentialism in my post on Prufrock and Henley, Subject and Object, here:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/3050

We can, however, as the Existentialists do, think of the "self" as an unending project. We are not fixed and completely defined, like objects, like Prufrocks. We are constantly in a process of becoming, and we never get to the end. I can place myself above myself and observe myself, and I can place myself above those two selves and observe them. I can then place myself above those three selves and so on into infinity. I can never reach my last self. It's like looking into a mirror facing another mirror. If Prufrock would have seen himself in this way, rather than as an object already defined by others, perhaps he would have taken action to define himself for himself. He was, after all, himself another subject just as the subjects who objectified him.

The answer to the problems of being an object, a thing in itself, is Henley's assertion of his self, the individual who is the master of his fate, the captain of his soul. We can choose our own projects and create our reasons for living. We can give our lives meaning. We exist first and then work on our essences.

bis bald,

Nick

We require a photo of you, thanks.

I can’t do this for much longer, because I have work to do and my dog misses me. : )

 Looks like I may have to read your Alice series at some point, because yes, the snapshot analogy is exactly what I was getting at. 

Also Nick, you really hit the nail on the head, as far as getting to the point of the fallacy of Objectivism.  In my mind, the rest of Rand’s premises fall like dominos:   

“If they murder and destroy each other and themselves, we have to say it is their nature to do that.  However, if we say, as Rand does, that man is a volitionally rational animal, then it is against his nature to be irrational.” 

One thing I don’t agree with is you say humans have an ability to be a first cause.  If we are continous processes, embedded in a universe of causes and conditions, then how can we ever independently initiate a first cause?  For instance, technologies evolve gradually based on evolving human consciousness – it would have been highly improbable for primitive man to invent the airplane, because neither the conditions nor the consciousness was there. 

This is hard for me to reconcile with the free will problem.  How can we really know we are able to make real choices when our existence is a continuous stream of experiences and conditions?   According to buddhism, we act out of our desires and preferences, in order to avoid suffering. 

When I look closely at my mind, I find it to be not under my control at all, but rather this jumbled soup of undefinable movement out of which here and there, some coherent thought appears.  Once that thought appears, it can become a feeling, a judgement and then maybe a story builds.  If I am aware enough, I can just watch the thought, in which case, it disappears.  Of course, this thought is going to be based on something from my past experience, its not something that is totally beyond my experience.  Yes, sometimes I might be able to come up with some insight that is new for me, but again this is just integration of disparate informations put together in a new way.

Perhaps you can help me out here.

flanneryo

Nick:  Yes, actually I am testing things out from a buddhist perspective, mainly because, as a practioner, I am curious as to how buddhist philosophy compares with western philosophy.  Your posts have helped me a great deal in bringing more clarity to my thoughts on this.  To me, living within a buddhist framework is like a life-time experiment, trying to really closely observe my mind to see for myself if the buddha was right.  On the other hand, my rational side wants to know how valid buddhism is as a philosophy.

I have no argument with your definition of nature and think I see what you mean by there seeming to be something fixed about human nature.  But still, from another perspective, maybe saying something has a special nature is just bracketing things that are in constant flux. Now granted, we have to do that in order to get along in this relative, shared reality.  Our brains categorize, differentiate and analyze as our means of survival.  The universe expresses its energy in countless and amazing ways - we have no idea why there are so many different expressions and appearances.  Humans name these appearances, that's all.  Just because we name them and define them as different from ourselves, does not bestow a special essense of thingness to them.

Also, there is evolution to consider - when did human nature begin?  Where is that boundary?

We have to be careful here - I'm in no way saying that things do not exist.  There is some ultimate reality out of which everything is manifesting, but we are not able to experience it directly.  The premise behind buddhism and buddhist morality, is that the closer we get to this perspective of viewing reality as a continuous, transient stream, the more we see ourselves as connected, not different from others, all in the same boat of trying to avoid suffering and thus, the more compassion we will have for ourselves and others.

As far as some of the name-calling and such that you've been subjected to in other threads, I think their reactions (which are far from rational) are self-protective mechanisms that allow them to avoid any real engagement.  It is probably futile to try to engage with them because they are where they are and there is nothing anyone can do about.  I have a whole other theory about that that would be way off topic, so I won't go there today. 

flanneryo

Yes, Flanneryo, you may be able to grasp something with which the Objectivists here have difficulty understanding. They think A is A applies to reality, not just communication and thinking, as Aristotle meant for it. His purpose was to preserve the meaning of variables during discourse, so that A doesn't become something else before the end of the argument or point. That's the bracketing you are talking about. It is a snapshot of an ever-changing reality.

Some Objectivists will say, "Hey, doesn't something have to have an identity before it changes?" My response has been that the constant changing, the in process, is the bigger term, and the identity is the snap-shot which we use for conceptual communication and thinking.

I think this is toward the end of part eight of my Alice series:

“You seem to have this in common with the Existentialist that things are in process,” said Dr. P, “but don’t things have to have identity before they become?”

“What you are ignoring is that“ process” and “becoming” are the larger terms,” said the Mad Hatter, “‘A’ is a snapshot, a conceptual presentation of a still-picture of an entity, making something in process appear passive. It is not the case that specific natures, which are static, come first and then change. They are changing, and we give them unchanging natures for ease of communication and thinking.”

bis bald

Nick

As for your definition of "fixed" as "completely defined". I think all animals (at least most) bearing a central nervous system have aspects of incompleteness in their nature by that definition. yes/no?

No. Non-human animals have fixed patterns of behavior which define them. Humans have a free-will, an ability to be a first cause. They are not simply responding to stimuli as it interacts with their genetic unfolding. There is a difference between humans and non-humans as evidenced by evolving human technology and the creativity principle in their language.

Are you saying that there is no such thing as "human nature" or are you saying that human nature doesn't include "creating inventions and doing things with those inventions"?

I did not say there is no “human nature”. I explained how some aspects of human nature are fixed such that a human in ancient times is no more or less human than humans today, but I also explained how human nature is open-ended, not completely fixed, such that humans have freedom to participate in creating their natures, defining themselves.

In my definition of "fixed nature" I actually am applying "A is A" or human nature is what humans do. A human isn't a container for water like an evian bottle is. A human isn't an earthworm (though some do tunnel in the earth). A human isn't a lion, though we share a great many characteristics.

This is generally how we determine what an entity’s nature is. We observe it. Lions do what they do. Trees do what trees do. However, is whatever humans do their nature? If it is, we can never say humans go against their nature. Whatever they do is their nature. If they murder and destroy each other and themselves, we have to say it is their nature to do that. They can never fight their nature because then it would be part of their nature to fight their nature, and this doesn’t make sense. It makes “human nature” a meaningless term. However, if we say, as Rand does, that man is a volitionally rational animal, then it is against his nature to be irrational. If we say, as existentialists do, that man is free by nature, then man is responsible for his own nature. He is what he does. If he takes stands and fights for what he thinks is right, then he is a hero. If he only thinks he is a hero but runs and hides to avoid confrontations, then he is a coward, regardless of what he thinks he is. One is what one does, and one has the freedom, and responsibility, to be that way. This is not the case with lions or trees or things with fixed natures, with no control over their own natures.

I alluded to this in my essay on A Theory of Value, a Neo-Objectivist’s Ethics:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/3000

Most living things, from what we can observe, do not need to wonder about their existence. Most organisms, in pursuing their own survival, automatically do that for which they are equipped. Changing conditions may help change equipment, but most living things do not behave unnecessarily in ways which are threatening and destructive to their lives. A tree, as I said before, does not turn its leaves away from the sun.
Morality is something which may be unique to creatures who are confused and free. It is not necessary to tell a tree that it ought to pursue life, but does "ought" become meaningful when applied to human beings?

Bis bald,

Nick

Rootie:  Just because you can sit on something we happen to call a chair, does not mean that object has anything about it that is essentially "chairness".  Chair is just a symbol we use so we can communicate with each other.  It is a mental concept.  Just as Nick said, where do you find "train-ness", in the engine, the caboose or the cars?    

Yes, stuff exists, but this stuff appears due to a continuous stream of causes and conditions.  We put brackets at various space and time intervals and name the stuff and can interact with the stuff, but all things are just temporary, transient, ever-changing appearances.

flanneryo

Flanneryo,

I'll have to side with Nick on this one.  *gasp*

A chair is a chair, and a tree is a tree.  They each will do what is in their nature.  Chairs sit, unmoving, unchanging.  Trees grow, reproduce, process chemicals and sunlight. 

The chair is fixed -- it doesn't spontaneously turn into a table, though left outside it may eventually rot into dust.  The tree is fixed -- it doesn't spontaneoulsy turn into a chair, though it may grow a sturdy branch at a convenient elevation.

To say there is no "chairness" is to walk into your living room and have nothing upon which to sit...?

rootie

Nick,

Are you saying that there is no such thing as "human nature" or are you saying that human nature doesn't include "creating inventions and doing things with those inventions"?

I would explicitly include inventiveness as part of human nature. 

I would also explicitly include pouncing on prey as part of human nature.  Granted, pouncing on a gazelle is much different than pouncing on reservations at La Trattoria, or pouncing on the last Wii console during a holiday shopping rush... 

I suspect that my definition of "fixed nature" might include everything you are excluding from (or claiming as contradictory to?)  that same definition?  

In my definition of "fixed nature" I actually am applying "A is A" or human nature is what humans do.  A human isn't a container for water like an evian bottle is.  A human isn't an earthworm (though some do tunnel in the earth).  A human isn't a lion, though we share a great many characteristics. 

As for your definition of "fixed" as "completely defined".  I think all animals (at least most) bearing a central nervous system have aspects of incompleteness in their nature by that definition.  yes/no?

rootie

Flanneryo: Now you sound like several other philosophers. Buddha, Whitehead, and existentialists are into the “everything is in process” view, to some extent or other. Hegel is into the “universe is a giant consciousness” type of thinking. And, I’m sure you don’t want to be pigeon holed or put into a box. Certainly, you are not an Objectivist. So, I hope you’ll be saved from some of the derision I’ve been subjected to on this Objectivist board.

Rootie and Flanneryo: By fixed nature, I mean that it is completely defined, not open ended. Yes, trees go though a lot of changes, from an acorn or seed to a sapling to a giant oak and then it gets cut down and made into paper or a house or whatever. It is matter approaching form. However, trees do what trees do. They have a nature. They follow certain patterns from which they cannot deviate. They don’t have free-will. They are bound by their natures. Non-human animals are also this way. They respond as they are wired to respond to external stimuli. Yes, sometimes they can be trained to defy their natures, to resist their impulse to pounce on food until their master snaps his or her fingers. Their natures allow for this. Their natures, however, do not change as is evident with humans. Beavers build their damns and birds build their nests as they always have. They have not invented new technology which allows them to go through an industrial revolution and build skyscrapers and computers and such. Humans do seem to have this ability to adjust their environment to themselves, as well as adjusting to their environment. Humans do not simply do what they have always done. Their natures are still in a process of becoming, to some extent.

Now, I say “to some extent” because there are fixed aspects to human nature. I do not believe humans of ancient times or humans who live in different locations around the world are more or less human. There is an essence of humanness which does not change from time to time and location to location. There are conditions of their existence which remain the same. They all need human rights to flourish. Violating the rights of a human in China is every bit as significant, as morally wrong, as violating the rights of a human in Spokane. This is why I object to dropping bombs on crowded mosques in Iran. They are still humans even if they live in Iran.

However, there is some room for development, for participating in creating our natures, for defining ourselves. We do not have completely pre-existing natures about which we can do nothing. We may not be able to jump from here to the moon, but that is not a limitation to us if it is not one of our goals. The projects we choose set up the challenges and limitations we have to overcome. We are not passive victims of our environment. We have some control. This is why we are held responsible for our actions. We are not completely bound by our natures. We are free, within generalizable parameters, to become the kind of person we want to be.

Bis bald,

Nick

Rootie:  I'm pretty unclear about what you mean by a fixed nature.  Being curious and stubborn varies from one human to the next and we could apply these characteristics to animals too.  The abiltiy to reason is also a continuum and may be nonexistent from one instant to the next and from one human to the next.  Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean by nature.

Nick:  I agree with most things you said in your "Ideas across" post.  By mind, I mean consciousness (not an everlasting soul).  I also think that you can not separate consciousness from the body and because the body is within absolute reality, you also can't separate consciousness from the universe.  Consciousness to me, is what allows the universe to look at itself.  The universe is energy and matter dancing back and forth from one state to another and we are temporary appearances within that.  The buddha said that too.

Actually, tables and chairs are not fixed at all, only in our minds do we make things solid.  We fix things in time and space by labeling them, but the concepts as something solid and fixed is an illusion.  Before we called the table a table, it was what we called lumber.  Before that, it was a tree, before that a sapling and before that a seed.  At what clearly defined point did the seed become a sapling?  And then there are all the causes and conditions that the tree is part of before it can become a tree - the sun, the clouds which become rain.  Furthermore, the table is decomposing as we speak (and so are we, for that matter).  Everything is impermant and transient, nothing stays fixed except we try to make things fixed in our minds.  Just as you mentioned, you can't find "train-ness" in the engine, cars or caboose.  There is no is-ness of things.

Yes, if there is running, there is a runner.  These are continuous causes and conditions that can't be separated from each other.  And yes, when there is raining, there are causes and conditions for rain, we just don't happen to fix these causes and conditions into a "rainer".

I did read your "Kant v Rand" post.  I don't agree with Kant's morality of action out of duty or maybe I'm unclear about what he means by "duty".  I used to read a lot of Rand in my younger years, but at some point, people hopefully grow beyond black and white thinking and learn to be open to all the shades of gray.  The morality I follow is to do as little harm to myself or others and the world we live in.  I also think Rand and a lot of other folks are fooling themselves if they think they are able to use pure reason all the time. 

flanneryo

Nick,

I've got a lot less grounding and knowledge in existentialism than I do in o-ism.  I'll try to avoid commenting on E and stick to O aspects of your last paragraph.

"A is A"  "I am human" "my nature is human nature".  I will never be a chair, a squirrel, a glass of water or equality.  ("equality" intentionally chosen as real, yet intangible).   That includes the entire gamut of "human nature":

• I am curious
• I am stubborn
• I have the ability to to think, to reason, to learn, and to grow in the ways that are applicable to humans
• If I exercise, my ability to do that exercise will grow. 
• If I eat too much, my waistline will grow. 
• etc

 My "nature" is fixed.  My various abilities and physical characteristics are not fixed.  They are bounded by "human nature", but not fixed.  No matter how strong I get, I will never be able to lift a real locomotive without employing mechanical advantage.  No matter how much I study, I won't be able to beat "Deep Blue" at chess. 

Would you say that o-ism contradicts any of that? 

Would e-ism contradict any of that?  If so, in what way?

rootie

ps.  This seems to be a departure from the original thread topic -- should we start a separate posting for this? 

We both posted at about the same time, and your post got in after mine. My post talks about the mind-body problem and how consciousness is discussed in philosophy and Objectivism. Then, I give my views of it as an aspect of the body.

The last paragraph tries to make a fine point about the subject-object dichotomy and how Existentialism differs from Objectivism. It also goes on into other subjects such as freedom and becoming, which naturally flow from the subject-object discussion.

bis bald,

Nick

Hi Nick,

(for people who want to skip the replay, skip to =====discussion=====)

Note: bolding is only for clarity and ease of skimming, to delineate quotes and notes.  It is not intended either for emphasis, nor shouting.

The original question came from a side comment you made elsewhere nick: "If there is an external reality, this also implies an internal reality, but Objectivism holds that there is only one reality". 

In my request for a citation/quote, you provided nick: "

On the ARI site, in the summary about Objectivism, there is the following passage:

Metaphysics
"Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are—and that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it." Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural—and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_essentials

Also, in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, on page 228, there is an entrée about introspection:

Extrospection is a process of cognition directed outward—a process of apprehending some existent(s) of the external world. "

You also provided this quote nick: "from ITOE page 29, “Directly or indirectly, every phenomenon of consciousness is derived from one’s awareness of the external world.”'"

In trying to understand all this, I noted the use of "external reality" in one place and "external world" in the other.

That caused me to wonder rootie: "I'm left to wonder for this evening's personal ponderance whether *I* would equate "external world" with "external reality".  and hence my posted question whether those phrases mean the same thing, and whether "external" requires an "internal".

Nick then provided a bevy (bevvy?) of quotes from the history of philosophy (thanks!) and most specifically 3 Harry Binswanger quotes.  There was a followup post nick: "Objectivism is supposed to be a philosophy which holds that there is only one reality which is independent of consciousness. This means it is not subject to our wishes and whims. It is not like this just because we want it to be. However, there is consciousness to discover it. That seems like two realities, an external reality apprehended by an internal one, a consciousness. This consciousness, also, is not reducible to the external reality, according to Harry Binswanger. Do you see an inconsistency here?"

=====discussion=====

This leads me to my actual topic.  nick: "an external reality apprehended by an internal one, a consciousness. This consciousness, also, is not reducible to the external reality, according to Harry Binswanger. "

I don't think anyone here objects to "external reality"?  For this discussion, I will equate "external reality and external world" though I think there are some distinctions of merit in some contexts.

I'm split on which aspect of the above quote to explore first:

1. Internal reality (substituting "one" == "reality" as implied by "internal one" being preceded with "external reality")
2. "Conciousness not reducible to the external reality".

Starting with #1. 

"reality" is a highly overloaded term, so off to find a definition that applies to my interpretation...according to wikipedia: "Reality in everyday usage means "everything that exists." The term "Reality," in its most liberal sense, includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable, accessible or understandable by science, philosophy, theology or any other system of analysis."  I am actually going to augment that definition to specifically equate "reality" with "existence".

Does "existence" exist within my mental faculties?  I think not.  (hey, no snickering, I didn't say 'I don't think')  Thoughts, ideas, concepts, emotions all exist within my mental context, but nothing tangible is there.  I don't see it, touch it, nor experience it beyond the realm of thought (or dreams).  On the other hand, there is this other existence, of which the corporeal me (which includes the "mental me", and my faculty of conciousness) seems to be a part, that is tangible, that includes sensual and perceptual contents, and seemingly includes other concious entities similar to myself, possessing knowledge of not just the tangibles, but also shared concepts of intangible nature as well.  (love/hate)

Ultimately, I am left to conclude that my mind and any thoughts within it are a very small part of the single all-inclusive "existence" that is reality.  No, there is no "internal reality".

re: #2: Nick: "This conciousness, also, is not reducible to the external reality".

I'm struggling with the word choice in this statement and the comparison to Binswanger: "man does have a mind and a body, but neither can be reduced to the other... Consciousness exists and matter exists. Each is what it is and neither is a form of the other"

I agree in the content of each of the statements individually.  I disagree that these statements have the same meaning.  The first, "conciousness cannot be reduced to reality", and the second "mind cannot be reduced to matter".

Nick -- have I accurately represented your viewpoint or question here in #2?

rootie

People often use “mind” to mean “soul” or “spirit”. The mind-body problem is the same as the soul-body dichotomy. Hegel uses the word “Geist” a lot when describing his idealism, and we can see how our word “ghost” comes from that. However, he is really referring to mental things. It’s not as mystical when we think of it that way. “Consciousness” is also one of those words that could substitute for “mind,” “soul,” or “spirit.” And, we might even use the word “self”, to mean all these things.

Rand wanted to distance herself from all the supernaturalism of religious people. She wanted to get away from Descartes, who really started the mind-body, or soul-body dichotomy, after the middle ages. After Descartes, we thought of the mind, the thinking thing, as the ghost in the machine. “Thinking thing” is also the same as “self,” “consciousness,” “mind,” “soul,” or “spirit.”

Rand does not want us to think a consciousness can survive without a body. A disembodied mind is a ghost, but a body without a mind, or consciousness, is a corpse. So, if the mind is intangible but still has properties of tangible things, like location, in the body, it is still a problem physicists can’t solve. How does something separate from the body and intangible stay located in the body and interact with it? How does something intangible make something tangible move? Why can’t we concentrate on things outside the body and make them move, like we make our arms move? And, since physical things do not cease to exist. Matter only changes form. Does the consciousness also continue in some other form?

Hume made us think a little more about what this “self” was. Are we the “thinking things” which have a body, or are we our body? Does this “self” even exist? It is like looking for the train among the engine, the caboose, and all the boxcars. We have our feelings and thoughts, but where are “we” among them. Buddha speculated on this also. Perhaps the “I” is just an illusion.

I have always maintained that if there is running, then there is a runner. If there is walking, there is a walker. So, if there is thinking, there must be a thinker. I don’t know if this works. If there is raining, is there a rainer?

Daniel C. Dennett has some essays about this in a book called “The Mind’s I”, and he speculate, elsewhere, that our “I” is like a head of state representing our body. It moves around a bit. Sometimes it is our optic center. Other times, it might be our nerve center. It is no one thing.

I have always thought mind is an aspect of physical matter but not identical to it. Think of it as a capability, or collection of capabilities, of the body. Like life, itself, they don’t go on existing when the body dies. It is like lighting up a room is a capability of a light bulb, but that capability ceases to exist when the light bulb burns out. The capabilities of TVs and radios and computers also cease to exist when the circuits melt down. They don’t function on their own without the physical device. When humans die, the body breaks down and there is nothing to hold our thoughts on course. It is like a river that loses its banks.

There is also a fine point about consciousness which Objectivists rush over. Consciousness observes the external world but is also part of that world, they say. They say it is part of Objective reality, like everything else, and can be observed upon introspection. No, not completely. We can’t completely turn our eyes back in on themselves to observe that which observes. It is like a yardstick measures other things but cannot measure itself. The Existentialists deal with this better than the Objectivists do. They have a subject-object dichotomy. We are the subjects. Other things outside of us are the objects, the in themselves. They are complete and fixed. They have natures. They are things like tables and chairs. However, we are not like that. We are the subjects. Our natures are not complete and fixed. And, we resent it when people try to treat us as objects, as means to an end. Because we are not complete, we have freedom to participate in the creation of our own natures. The Objectivists agree with the Existentialists that we should treat people as ends, not as means, but they don’t like the idea that humans are still in the process of becoming, that they don’t have fixed natures. It is not A is A. It is A is becoming something. It is an open-ended nature. Still, this open-ended nature is more conducive to freedom than the fixed nature and causation, which is another Objectivist inconsistency.

Bis bald,

Nick

Nick,

I didn't say that mind and body are not separate.  What I said is that there aren't two realities or (equivalent with different word selection) two existences. 

There are very clearly two existents.  Conciousness is a separate item from the brain that "carries" it and from the single reality which that conciousness perceives.

It was separately highlighted to me that you and I may use a single word or short phrase to mean many different things.  "morally responsible" could mean "well behaved" or also to mean "accountable", for example.

When I have more time tonite, I'll go back to the start of the thread and re-read both my original question and your initial postings, and if you are willing, we'll try in more mannerly fashion to reach a common understanding of both the point under question and the individual unique viewpoints on that question. 

rootie

I was hoping you would read my post on Kant and Rand, here:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/2994

It explains that Kant believes there is an ultimate reality, but we can never reach it:

Kant did not really believe we could get to the real truth of something in the real world. He made a distinction between "noumena", the "thing-in-itself", and "phenomena," its appearances.

Later, it presents Rand’s contrasting view:

Ayn Rand thinks that Aristotle's law of identity can be applied to reality and offer us real knowledge of the real world. Existence exists, she says, and it implies a corollary of causation. There is an objective reality, she maintains, which is reachable by man's mind if he chooses to use reason.

I present my views both in my Alice series and in a single post on Perception, Logic, and Language:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/2991

bis bald,

Nick

These views are probably closer to Kants than Rands.  I did slog through the "Problems w Axiomatic Concepts & ITOE"  thread with some effort, where you did briefly summarize various views of western philos.  I am not real familiar with western philos so much, it's been a long time since that philosopy 101 class : ).  If there is more material, I may or may not have time to read it.

 As for ever being able to experience ultimate reality, I don't have an answer for that.  I do think it's interesting that certain folks think we can get there by our using our physical form we happen to be in and pure logic alone.  So far, the quantum realm does not follow conventional logic and the deeper we go, the more confusing and paradoxical it seems to get.  Furthermore, the observer can not be unentangled from the observed, as has been shown in experiments that the observer affects the outcome of the observed experiments and there's nothing we can do about it!  For all we know, there could be other "forms" out there that are experiencing ultimate reality.  And there are supposed eastern sages that have experienced it, but I can not say from my own experience if that is real or merely some brain siezure.  I can say that there are ways to change the way you percieve the world, forging new neural pathways, so to speak.

Rootie - If someone says they are not monists, then they must be dualists.  If they are dualists, then there would be the immaterial conciousness and the material world existing separately.  I'm guessing by your posts, by reality, you only mean the tangible.  But if there are two irreducible things, then isn't consciousness real too, even if you can't feel it?  And the love analogy doesn't work either - love is simply a concept, a label we give to an experience we feel in the body along with lots of other mental stuff piled on top.   So, does that make consciousness just a concept?

From the perspective I am discussing, as I've already stated, body-mind are not separate.  Our sense of self is actually an illusion that developed over time from infancy.  As babies, we were nothing but sensations - and emotions are just another form of sensation in the body.  If you pay attention, you can feel an emotion in a certain part of your body.  Later, the baby adds judgements and preferences to those sensations - "like this", "don't like that", "this hurts", "this feels good" - although probably not as clear concepts yet, the sensations are just felt as pain or pleasure.  The baby at some point realizes that the whole world doesn't hurt when he does and his mommy and daddy can't be controlled by him - and the sense of separation is "felt" and eventually becomes concrete as a concept.  As the baby grows and learns to talk, now he can really define himself.  He defines himself by his preferences, and later by his beliefs - all building off of sensations, perceptions and analyses over many experiences, all based on concepts that are built with more and more complexity.  These definitions and concepts of ourselves are not based on ultimate reality at all, they are based on each individual's interpretations of their experiences of ultimate reality.  Our minds are constantly manufacturing all kinds of thoughts and judgements all day long, and many of these are habitual patterns that seem to be set in stone over the years.  Our sense of self, that "feeling" of separateness, is not a permanent, solid thing at all.  It is layers and layers of concepts.

I don't know how some of this will fly with Objectivism, but I do now that Rand would not like the unavoidable relative reality that we experience every day.

I'm also not sure that I want to get way to deep into this stuff, since it seems it can be quite time consuming, nor do I have brain power of some of you - I will just try and just see what happens : )

flanneryo

I think you are wrong, rootie. Harry Binswanger says that Objectivists are dualists, if one has to put them in the historical classification.

Dualists like Descartes, do not say both mind and body are tangible. It is not necessary for consciousness to be tangible to be a seperate entity. In fact, they do maintain that mind is not matter.

I'm not the one reading anything I want into a quote. I'm sure I could say black, and you will disagree with me and say white. We don't like each other, and I think we will never be able to communicate with each other. Perhaps it's best if we just avoid each other from now on.

Nick

What you are saying here, Flanneryo, sounds a lot like Kant. He says there is an ultimate reality which we can never reach. We deal with appearances only. I do have a post on Kant and Rand on this forum. It will tell you what Rand thinks about this kind of view and where I stand. I hope you find it and read it. I'd like to see what you think.

bis bald,

Nick

flanneryo,

Thanks -- I agree with almost everything, and I like the way you've approached it.

The only question I have is in regards to the ability to know the real world.  My approach has been that "if we try hard enough" we (humanity) probably can come to know it.  All of a sudden I'm drawn back to that old philosopher's monkeypuzzle of "brain in a vat" and finally made the simple connection that I as an individual lack the brain capacity to maintain conceptually the entire contents of the universe and all its physical rules.  The physical rules, though I have "unused capacity" 

rootie

Nick,

You can read anything you want into a quote can't you?  Here's what you quoted:

"We have our own distinct view here. But if you had to put it in the historical classification, yeah, we're not monists. We believe that both consciousness and matter exist and neither is reducible to the other."  That doesn't say anything about two realities. 

It does say that conciousness isn't matter.  The brain is some number of kilos of structured chemical compounds, mostly water.  You won't find chemical form of conciousness in there anywhere.  "Conciousness", being a faculty or ability to percieve reality, is intangible.  You can't touch it -- just like you can't touch love or hate. 

Being intangible, you won't find any chemicals or any other matter within  conciousness either.  Conciousness and matter both exist, and neither is reducible to the other.

Nothing about two worlds or two realities. 

rootie

I guess I will attempt to put in another perspective and see what happens in objective world.  I say that there is a true reality, but there is no way for us, in our physical bodies to  fully know what that reality is.  And further, there is no separation between this reality (external world) and consciousness (internal world).  If two people are looking at the same object, a glass on a table, for instance, each one will see the glass from their own separate veiwpoints and use their minds to percieve and interpret what they see.  They will both probably agree to call it a "glass" because of a "shared reality" which is born out of our mutually agreed upon code of language which helps us communicate successfully with each other.  But that shared reality is nothing but agreed upon symbols in our minds and can not be equated to absolute reality.  No one knows absolute reality, because none of us has exactly the same perspective. We are limited by what our senses feed us and, then add to that, how our brains interpret and add to those senses (I like that glass, I don't like the glass, I wish I could have a glass of water).

The analogy of external and internal being two different ends of a rope is very interesting.  From the perspective I am coming from, there is actually no right or left end of the rope, no external/internal in the way that we interface with our environment.  There is no separation between internal and external, but rather a beginningless continuum of conditions and causes.  When you hear a sound, can you define within the experience, where the sound is occurring?  Can you pinpoint the exact boundary between internal and external?  When you really focus your mind, it can be "felt" as appearing both "exterally" and "internally", the body senses both, the body-mind in a given second, may "feel" like its outside or inside as it follows the vibrations. 

 Our minds are what produces this sense of inside and outside.  It is an illusion that was born out of our need to survive.  Yes, there is an external world, but we can't know its true nature in the way that we exist.  No one can know true reality because we're only able to filter it through the physical form that we call our bodies.  And where is the boundary between our bodies and our consciousness?  It's somewhere down at the quantum level, which collapses into paradoxes and probabilities.  It becomes nothing but transitions between matter and energy, vibrations that are transient and impermanent.

May all beings be peaceful

May all beings be joyful

May all beings be happy and free of suffering

flanneryo

Hi VSD,

I definitely appreciate you taking the time to respond and consider this worthwhile discussion. 

Not long ago, I accidentally brushed an exposed wire.  My unthinking reaction was to pull away very rapidly, and my heart was racing.  There was no power to the wire, but my reaction was definitely as if there had been.  I can't say that I experienced any sensation from it other than being quite startled at the experience.  (both startled by the wire, and even more so by my reaction to it)

There is quite a lot that can be done within the human mind to control the body, starting with simply controlling breathing and relaxing muscles.  That alone suggests there is more possibility.

 rootie

When I run short on physical partners, I'll give it a try.

bis bald,

Nick

try making love with your brain - beats physical only sex
VSD
~ The Brain is our Biggest Sex Organ ~

Yes, VSD, I agree with you that we can control pain to some degree with how we think about it. I agree that pleasure and pain is a mechanism which lets us know when something is wrong and needs to be fixed. I agree with all of your technical explanation of how pain and our brains interact and how we can try to tolerate or endure pain with our wills.

There is a small discrepency between what you say and Objectivism, which says reality is what it is, not what we wish it to be. This is also true in a sense, but NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism allows for some freedom to create reality within objective parameters.

Also, I see nothing wrong with trying to imagine good experiences when I can't have them. I do that all the time. When I have a good experience, I try to figure out how to duplicate that experience when I'm not having it. However, as Hume says, imagination never hits our senses with as much liveliness as the real experience. So, masturbation is never quite as satisfying as the real act of making love. And, as a rational egoist, I'd always want to experience the real thing rather than just thinking I experienced it. I'd rather work hard and win the race in reality rather than just get high or have my pleasure centers stimulated to make me think I won the race. However, this doesn't mean I don't get high once in awhile or watch television and live vicariously through a character, like Alice in my Alice in Objectivist Land series. Some people can't do that.

bis bald,

Nick

A conciousness to discover what may exist in reality isn't "two realities". What you call "internal" is a world of thought (nothing exists), while what you call the "external" is a world of existence, which by definition includes the aforementioned conciousness. To compare them is to compare the easter bunny to George W Bush.

There is no inconsistency here.

According to Harry Binswanger, a very prominant Objectivist whom I quoted, consciousness and the external world are not the same. The external world does not include consciousness, which discovers it. Do you disagree with Harry Binswanger?

bis bald,

Nick

Hello rootie,
sorry for distracting from the point you were trying to make - hope it does help in other ways
Nick: you're too hung up on whims and whishes (your own?)
denying a reaction many of us have experienced at least once in their lives (touching an assumed hot plate and jerking back with a feeling of pain that was not there) does not make it go away - and I can (and do) imagine quite a few positive uses this two-way street of sensual feedback can work - to give you just one example of many:
if I cut my finger my body reacts with a firework of pain sent to my brain to let me know I damaged sth that needs fixing - pain is only a warning signal - it does not heal that cut - if I'm presently not capable of fixing that damage I can use an inverse sensory feedback from my brain to my finger to stop that pain-signal - as I cannot correct it, it's 'superfluous' and may even be distracting from sth else important going on like finding the means to fix the damage
I can even go so far as to voluntarily decide if the damage is worth fixing now or if the damage is minor and can be fixed later as sth else takes precedence - not by 'blocking' the sensation, but by consciously sending an inverse signal to stop it or even replace it - a soothing, relaxing sensory input might do more towards easing damage than constant pain and stress
and to take this 'two-way-communication' of our nervous system one step further: what's so wrong about wishing to touch/see/smell/taste sth that does not exist in reality or is simply outside your realm of physical availability, to experience all the sensations physically that your brain can create ... as long as you can still distinguish between reality and 'illusion'?
VSD

~ Use what you Got ~

Nick,

A conciousness to discover what may exist in reality isn't "two realities".  What you call "internal" is a world of thought (nothing exists), while what you call the "external" is a world of existence, which by definition includes the aforementioned conciousness.  To compare them is to compare the easter bunny to George W Bush. 

There is no inconsistency here.

rootie

I think we need some focus here. Objectivism is supposed to be a philosophy which holds that there is only one reality which is independent of consciousness. This means it is not subject to our wishes and whims. It is not like this just because we want it to be. However, there is consciousness to discover it. That seems like two realities, an external reality apprehended by an internal one, a consciousness. This consciousness, also, is not reducible to the external reality, according to Harry Binswanger. Do you see an inconsistency here?

bis bald,

Nick

Hi Nick,

"Does that sound like Objectivism, that reality is indepedent of our wishes and whims and discovered, not created, by our consciousness?" Yes, it does. 

"Is consciousness the internal which looks out at the external world or reality? Can it be that way if we want it to be?"  I thought OPAR had a section where it talked about the inner voice, but I can't find it.  The best I can do is the simple definition "conciousness ... is a faculty of awareness" -- which doesn't address the point adequately.  Certainly O-ism eschews the mind-body dichotomy suggested by the "internal"/"external" comparison.  I haven't resolved this for myself adequately enough to address it -- partly why I started this discussion topic.

I suspect the objectivist experts would point out several things:

1.  Thinking a thing doesn't make it so.  A person who believes themselves to be the King of England is very rarely, actually in that position.  No amount of belief or wishing on their part will change their status in reality. 

2.  Evasion takes many forms and degrees. (more about this later)

3.  Science doesn't yet understand everything about the human mind.  The things we do understand are occasionally quite surprising.  (I've learned a bit from the tv show "Mind Control with Darren Brown" and especially from related discussions)

Let's take for example, the body self-image of a person with anorexia, and do an objectivist analysis.

The photons leaving the anorexic will be the same regardless of who is viewing them.   (basic identity/causality)

The eye apparatus and optics associated will not alter the self-image, but will instead transmit it and provide an "accurate" representation insomuch as physiologically possible.  (basic identity/causality)

What is left is that the brain's perception is incorrectly converted into a conceptualized representation of body image.  "fat" instead of "thin" or even "dangerously thin".  I couldn't go any further than that with my current knowledge to say what is wrong or why.  It may be possible that their value system is to blame, that what they seek isn't what they should be seeking, and once that is automatized, it is very hard to see as a problem, or to change. 

 I can suggest that one topic I have seen be a hangup among skeptics of objectivism is the entire concept of evasion.  Denying reality, lying to yourself about reality, etc. 

The skeptic will say "but nobody would intentionally drink poison" yet that is exactly what objectivism would equate the bad behavior.  It doesn't have to be severe -- most objectivists I've talked to admit this behavior in themselves; not thinking and acting coherently for the long term. "I'll have an extra slice of pie" "I'll exercise tomorrow" "I don't really need to go to bed yet, besides I'm too busy writing about objectivism"  "just one more drink" The principle is all the same -- ignoring long term consequences of short term actions. 

I can't say for certain that anorexia is in the same category as evasion, but I suspect that is where most objectivists would put it.  (welcome other opinions / viewpoints) When the conceptualization and value systems are incorrectly based, all sorts of bad behaviors come about, from mildly altruistic behaviors to more directly self-destructive ones. 

I've heard of people who taste certain colors.  i.e. of visual fields stimulating other unrelated senses.  That leaves open the possibility of physiological cause for some conditions, though I doubt it applies in this specific instance.

So you will probably conclude that I am ignoring a contradiction, when what I will say is that there is much more for science to learn here, and I am not enough of an expert in the necessary fields to even devise an experiment to discern the answer.

rootie

Quite the idea, that our perceptions aren't necessarily connected to reality if we don't want them to be.

Does that sound like Objectivism, that reality is indepedent of our wishes and whims and discovered, not created, by our consciousness? Is consciousness the internal which looks out at the external world or reality? Can it be that way if we want it to be?

bis bald,

Nick

Hi VSD,

You have a very interesting answer to my question, and not of the form I was expecting I might get.  Quite the idea, that our perceptions aren't necessarily connected to reality if we don't want them to be. 

thanks for the viewpoint!

rootie

Perhaps the most in-depth discussion of philosophy of mind by a prominent Objectivist philosopher is found in Harry Binswanger's 1998 three-tape course The Metaphysics of Consciousness (Binswanger 1998). In it, he says:

Conscious experience is correlated with and does require a brain process, but there are still two irreducibly different things: the state of awareness and the brain process. Yes, man does have a mind and a body, but neither can be reduced to the other... Consciousness exists and matter exists. Each is what it is and neither is a form of the other.

In a question-answer period afterwards, he says:

Dualism is a dangerous term because of its being used for a strawman. But if you mean: Do we believe there are really two existents? Yes! The mind exists and the brain exists—and neither is the other.

Later he says:

So, yes, I'm a dualist. Or as Leonard [Peikoff] says in OPAR, because the term dualism is not one we have to fight to save and it's so associated with Descartes, the proper word for it is: Objectivism, not dualism.

We have our own distinct view here. But if you had to put it in the historical classification, yeah, we're not monists. We believe that both consciousness and matter exist and neither is reducible to the other.

Binswanger, Harry. 1998. The Metaphysics of Consciousness. Gaylordsville, CT: Second

bis bald,

Nick

My first instinct is to directly deny the need for an internal to go with external, then I am left to ponder "external relative to what?" Solely on introspection, there is a difference in nature beween a thought or idea (something "inside") and a rock or a chair (something outside). Also, inside my imagination, there is no heat nor light, outside, these attributes are significant. Again, the boundary is the senses.

I feel I've missed something here. thoughts?

Watch this. She'll no doubt say I'm completely off topic again.

In 1640, Rene Descarte sat at his desk and meditated on what, if anything, he could be certain. He could doubt his perception and much of his reasoning, but he could not doubt that he was doubting. To even wonder about his existence, he thought to himself, he had to exist. "I think, therefore I am." he said.

Descarte admitted that the rest of his conclusions were not as solid as the apparently logical proof for his existence. He said that if he could be certain of his existence, then there must be a God. This God, he decided, would not fool him about the existence of bodies. He existed as a thinking thing, a mind or soul, and he apparently had a material thing called a body.

He had a problem with the relationship between the soul and the body. The body is solid, tangible. It takes up space and has a location. Does the soul have these same characteristics? If not, how does the soul interact with the body? If the soul is not a physical thing, then how does it cause the body to move?

Benedict Spinoza, 1632-1677, tried to solve the soul-body problem by saying they are both the same. Like Thales, he thought God is in everything. Mind and matter are attributes of the same substance. When one is affected, the other is also.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, 1644-1716, tried to solve the soul-body problem in another way. He said innumerable atom-like beings, called Monads, are active in substances and give the appearance of interaction. The Monads of the mind and the Monads of the body, each acting according to their prescribed nature, function in unison to give the outward appearance of interaction.

John Locke, 1632-1704, contended that the human mind is, at birth, a blank tablet which, through the perception of sensations, develops ideas. This contrasted with Descarte who thought some knowledge was inate.

Locke did not know, however, if there was anything more to substance than those qualities which are experienced. What is a red ball, for example, other than its shape, color, weight, and texture? He claimed anything more is unknowable.

George Berkeley, 1685-1753, went even further than Locke. He said any qualities which cannot be experienced, do not exist. Mental images, he said, are all we have, and independent matter, therefore does not exist. This would evolve into a position known as Solipism, the belief of an individual that he or she alone exists while everything else is in his or her imagination, but Berkeley decided we are all part of the mental experience of God.

David Hume, 1711-1776, went even further than Berkeley. He attacked all knowledge by saying we are directly aware of perceptions only. We cannot perceive God, mind, laws of science, or laws of causation. Therefore, all these things cannot be proven to exist.

So much for the soul-body problem.

Immanuel Kant, 1724-1804, seems to have saved science and religion from Hume's attack and brought together two divergent views about the source of knowledge. Rationalism is, very generally, the view that a primary source of knowledge is reasoning, like when Descarte searched his mind for knowledge unattached to experience. Empiricism focuses on knowledge from experience, on sensations and perceptions. Kant said both are needed. They work together. Experience is like the raw material which becomes finished when processed through the machinery of reason. A rational understanding of our sensations is knowledge.

What Kant did seems comparable to what Plato did when he reconciled the theories of Heraclitus and Parmenides. Kant's transcendental realities, in fact, resemble the ideal forms of Plato's construction.

This new idealism influenced another German philosopher, Friedrich Hegel, 1770-1831, to come up with a process for arriving at truth. It combines "thesis" with "antithesis" to form "synthesis."

Hegel inspired Karl Marx in the construction of his Dialectical Materialism, but he aslo provoked several people, like Friedrich Nietzsche and Soren Kierkegaard, to rebel against his systematic approach. Heideggar and Sartre soon followed.

Although there are many differences among the philosophers who rebelled against Hegel, they share certain things in common which has classified them, in textbooks, as Existentialists. All Existentialists share the view that reality is not as rational as Hegel and Kant and Leibniz believe. There are no absolutes, they say, but this is okay because it means we can be free and responsible.

The systematic philosophies are, say the Existentialists, like the beautiful homes one observes in magazines. They are nice to look at, but nobody can actually live in them. It seems the foundations of some intricate structures crumble when people need them most. When we meet someone in the street, all the fancy furnishings of systematic philosophies are of little value. We must deal with life.

It is left to Nick Otani to attempt the impossible and combine elements of existentialism with a systematic philosophy called objectivism.

... but if you take the senses as the boundary it's acutally quite easy to distinguish between internal and external 'reality' ... sensory input is processed in the brain (and to some extent in other nervous systems - e.g. reflexes) - if you 'imagine' a sensation in your brain your body reacts to this sensory input as if it were coming from the external 'world' - thinking you touched a redhot stove makes your hand twitch away and the immediate initial sensation is that of heat and pain in your fingers, even if only for a fleeting instance until your fingers correct that sensory input from the brain ... our nervous system is not a oneway street from our senses to the brain - it goes both ways - and if you 'train' your senses to accept sensory input from the brain instead of the outside 'world' you can indeed create an internal 'reality' that is quite independant of an external 'world' or 'reality'
VSD
just my 2 cents - not sure if it answered your question