>If there is the one Reality, but nobody ever experiences it, isn't it just an
>imaginary concept, on a par with Heaven or Hell or Paradise, or some similar
>mythical arena ? Seems to me, for all practical purposes, we focus upon our
>own individual reality, with a small 'r', and seems to me that no two of
those
>are identical.
Eloquent and clear, as usual, Chris. This discussion has appropriately
incorporated an important philosophical criteria of argumentation - that
one must employ common basic precepts and definitions in order to carry out
a logical dialog (in other words, suspension of disbelief). This is a
relatively rare development among contemporary social theorists. In the
spirit of trying to get to the roots of the dispute, let me introduce an
entirely unpopular notion which, in many ways, underpins a great deal of
18th and 17th century philosophy and natural philosophy argumentation.
For the sake of argument, let me ask a few questions, rather than taking a
firm position -
Many of the post-Baconian natural philosophers of the 17th and 18th
centuries based their concept of the duality of human experience (i.e.
spirit/body, mind/body, thought/reality, interpretation/truth) on the need
to accept various religious dogmas about the perfection of one or another
deity and its creations rather than rational or even logical interpretation
of the world around them. The dualistic ideas actually go back many more
centuries than intellectual historians can account for, and arise in a
variety of cultures at various times, but the context of the present
argument seems more directly relevant to their reintroduction and
application in 'western' culture just a few centuries back (Chris is likely
to disagree with me on this, but let me suggest that I am interested in
discovering what ideological, nationalistic, and economic purposes these
ideas serve). What if Descartes, Kant, Hume, Hobbes, Locke, and others of
this ilk were simply wrong in constructing these dualisms and what if the
ideologies they are partly responsible for introducing into our educational
systems serve only to cloud and clutter the mind, and to distract people
from the nature of a singular reality which can indeed be manipulated by
the human mind/body?
What if human dualistic concepts such as mind/body, thought/reality, are
really nothing more than heuristics which demonstrate more about our lack
of understanding the 'real' than our ability to discuss the 'real' in a
meaningful way?
What if it IS actually possible to make philosophy useful by engaging it
with this reality in beneficial ways?
And finally, what if such engagement CAN be conducted with an acceptance of
the premise that there IS a Reality we are engaged with 'out there' and 'in
here'?
Any comments?
Matthew S. Tomaso, M. A., Coordinator,
Center for Archaeological Studies
Director, Feltville Archaeology Project
Montclair State University
104 Dickson Hall
Upper Montclair, NJ. 07043 USA.
Office: 973 - 655 - 7990
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/archaeology/cas.htm
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|