Narratives shape how people perceive and think about material reality, but in the end they don't change material reality itself. In the end, the latter always bites everyone on the ass.
I think it's time to accept a challenge from one of my subscribers and write a discourse on philosophical idealism vs. philosophical materialism. We are dominated by idealists who believe the world works in the way that they want it to, but it doesn't, so they try to force it into submission. This approach never has worked forever and it never will.
>>"but in the end they don't change material reality itself"
What exactly do you mean by that (i.e. what material reality are you talking of that doesn't change?)
Narratives change what people believe and think. What people think changes how people act and behave. How people act and the actions they take change reality (for themselves and others).
That’s a very good question and I cannot sufficiently answer it in a note. It will take a post of its own. If you do me the courtesy of looking for it, I hope to get it out this weekend, or maybe Monday.
What would it mean for "idealists" - I assume some humans - to go along with "how the world works"? And does it mean that current "non-idealists" do it already?
Actually, who knows how the world works in order to right the humanity?
More good questions. I’ll be writing a post on the two major schools of philosophical thought, upon which all of our ideologies and religions are ultimately based. IMHO, of course.
Neither metaphysical view has been conclusively proven however. One would hope your article would include that the mystery of why reality even exists, or what is consciousness, still remains a mystery, philosophically and scientifically. It is true philosophical materialism is the dominate narrative of our milieu at the moment, but reductive materialism still only remains a mythological narrative - like all other mythological narratives of past human epochs.
Narratives shape how people perceive and think about material reality, but in the end they don't change material reality itself. In the end, the latter always bites everyone on the ass.
I think it's time to accept a challenge from one of my subscribers and write a discourse on philosophical idealism vs. philosophical materialism. We are dominated by idealists who believe the world works in the way that they want it to, but it doesn't, so they try to force it into submission. This approach never has worked forever and it never will.
>>"but in the end they don't change material reality itself"
What exactly do you mean by that (i.e. what material reality are you talking of that doesn't change?)
Narratives change what people believe and think. What people think changes how people act and behave. How people act and the actions they take change reality (for themselves and others).
That’s a very good question and I cannot sufficiently answer it in a note. It will take a post of its own. If you do me the courtesy of looking for it, I hope to get it out this weekend, or maybe Monday.
What would it mean for "idealists" - I assume some humans - to go along with "how the world works"? And does it mean that current "non-idealists" do it already?
Actually, who knows how the world works in order to right the humanity?
More good questions. I’ll be writing a post on the two major schools of philosophical thought, upon which all of our ideologies and religions are ultimately based. IMHO, of course.
Neither metaphysical view has been conclusively proven however. One would hope your article would include that the mystery of why reality even exists, or what is consciousness, still remains a mystery, philosophically and scientifically. It is true philosophical materialism is the dominate narrative of our milieu at the moment, but reductive materialism still only remains a mythological narrative - like all other mythological narratives of past human epochs.