Dear Colleagues,

At the beginning of the discussion I mentioned that we are sailing in 
philosophical waters. We talked about several interesting questions, 
and in a very natural way touched some basic issues in philosophy. We 
spent time on debates that are centuries old, almost as old as the 
alphabet and the written word. At times the discussion on the list 
was waged on political grounds. At times, we stood firmly for our 
positions. Even a bit more than a sophisticated flexibility would 
have allowed us.

I mention this because I feel we are going nowhere. I see two 
definite camps that correspond to the two major sides on the historic 
divide between materialists and idealists. This is nothing new under 
the sun. We are going nowhere because many e-mails repeat the same 
argument, without flexibility or rethinking of the position. In some 
cases, we go into response to words and phrases rather to the general 
premises or the general spirit of the thesis. I personally have got 
exhausted. I bet that many other colleagues feel this way.

Last April I had a friendly argument with a excellent sociologist 
about idealist philosophy. I was surprised by the complexity of the 
argument he presented. He was not an idealist, but evidently, he was 
well versed and could get in the "shoes" of both parties. He just 
wanted to show me that there is good rationale in claiming that the 
world is an idea. However, he imbedded the concept of the world as an 
idea in historical context and referred to a number of philosophers 
and philosophical systems.

Idealists make a very sophisticated argument. Even the most extreme 
of them entertain very interesting approaches and complex 
conceptualizations. They are very convincing. Philosophy students 
become schizophrenic when they study history of philosophy and the 
professors dedicate a whole lecture for each philosopher or 
philosophic system. Each lecture is so convincing that after the 
third lecture students realize they switched sides three times and 
after the next lecture, they probably would adopt and follow the 
system of the next philosopher, until in lecture #5 they will change 
sides again. This is because of the complexity and sophistication of 
the argument, the reference to a multitude of caveats and 
considerations, and a multi layered philosophical system that each 
one of these great philosophers has created. By the end of the 
lecture students already have "converted."

Idealists are more contextual, their thinking is very exoteric, and 
share more in common with the logic of humanities. Materialists are 
straightforward, explicit, and easier to grasp. Of course, all this 
is relative to one another and in no way I do not attribute such 
qualities to the parties on the discussion list. I am only sharing 
remarks among students after lectures, in the corridors and in the commons.

The thesis that the world exists only through our senses and thoughts 
contributes to focusing our intellectual pursuits on the way we 
perceive, conceptualize, and construe reality. After we enter into 
this mode of reasoning, the basic postulate is not that important any 
more. Its role is fulfilled at that stage. New postulates are 
developed and they guide to the next level of concretization. This is 
a process of operationalization in which after several steps, the 
basic premises are completely dissolved in the myriad of new issues 
and problems that need to be solved. Work at disciplinary level can 
be done perfectly well without ever knowing are we materialists or 
idealists. Until we have to reflect and to explicate about our 
fundamental principles and assumptions. This happens mostly to 
scholars who work at the methodological (I mean methodology of 
theory, not of field research) and theoretical levels of their disciplines.

With a hindsight, the discussion offered a number of opportunities to 
explore the complexities of interrelation between matter and idea, 
and between the fundamental question of philosophy and the ensuing 
influences on epistemological systems. I wish more flexibility and 
interplay between positions. The most interesting ideas emerge not in 
the process of strictly following the line, but in the exploration of 
marginal territories, the areas that change borders as they develop. 
I personally prefer these areas. And, I would  not hesitate to change 
positions if I see something new with a potential.

Thank you for attention,

Lubomir