Mutual relationship between Idealism and Materialism.
Following is a quote from a companion I'm reading about Schopenhauer's, The World as Will and Representation, that is quite interesting:
So, how does anyone interpret this Mobius strip constructed and explained by Schopenhauer of the mutual relationship between mind and matter or idealism and materialism? The general opinion nowadays is that mind has originated from matter, from simple compositions, through greater complexity, arose mind from matter. But, taking, for example, quantum mechanics and the observer effect, you have this relationship existing in nature. Take the wave-particle duality as another example.
Robert L. Wicks: [...] although my mind is in my head, my head is in my mind, and although my head is in my mind, my mind is in my head. This is a "strange loop" structure that has instances in a number of disciplines ranging from music to the visual arts, to computer science. Schopenhauer revels in presence in the field of metaphysics, in connection with the relationship of mutual containment that obtains between materialism and idealism.
So, how does anyone interpret this Mobius strip constructed and explained by Schopenhauer of the mutual relationship between mind and matter or idealism and materialism? The general opinion nowadays is that mind has originated from matter, from simple compositions, through greater complexity, arose mind from matter. But, taking, for example, quantum mechanics and the observer effect, you have this relationship existing in nature. Take the wave-particle duality as another example.
Comments (46)
I think it depends on what you mean by "mind". Clearly we can say that your brain is in your head, but not that your head is in your brain.Via your senses you can experience your head; in fact that is the only way you know about it, or anything else. Does that mean its existence is dependent upon your experience of it?
No, that would be nonsensical. To say that your mind is in your head and your head is in your mind seems like a legitimate linguistic expression. Is it?
Quoting Janus
Yes, it is. Again, the subject/object divide crops up and is in a constant state of perpetuity when we have an observer observing their own behavior.
Yes, but, for the sake of discussion we are talking about sentience or consciousness.
Quoting tim wood
He does go on to say the following:
What do you think?
But other observers exist independent of your experience of them. Where do they exist relative to your mind? If they are seperate minds then that implies some kind of medium where minds exist which would be the shared world. What seperates minds from each other?
Here a pic from the Wick's book to give you more content:
Quoting tim wood
Yes, preliminarily that's the idea. But, Schopenhauer isn't a subscriber to transcendental idealism. He stipulates that the Will is manifest in all living entities, including nature.
Yes, I think solipsism deserves a mention here. Each mind exists in its own subjective-objective nature. But, the world as we know it is composed of individuals. Therefore, we are aware that other minds exist; but, are limited in scope to only own subjective-objective existence. Have a look at the context Schopenhauer is talking about this in the previous reply to Tim Wood.
I corrected it now.
It seems to me that minds are objects themselves. You are your mind that exists relative to me. You are nothing more than another object that I can interact with both physically and mentally. We can trade punches and ideas.
Under Schopenhauer's understanding, mind as primary subjects, that can perceive themselves as only subjects. This is where the loop between subjectivity and objectivity arises. I'm still reading along here and can say that the chief element that Schopenhauer mentions is the unclearness of the will of the Will. In some sense, it is a noumena or thing in itself. I'll come back later as I progress through the book.
So, this would apply to everything, then. You seem to be saying that the existence of anything and everything depends upon our experience of it. Is that right? If it is right, then you are some kind of idealist or anti-realist.
The interesting fact that arises from this is that you can go many ways with this line of thought. It could imply monism or panpsychism or transcendental idealism or some other stuff.
Quoting Janus
Well, yea. We don't really know what are qualia, and they seemingly exist given the beetle in a box thought experiment. Language constraints our understanding of reality here because referentially, we seem to always need to denote something when talking about "stuff". But, what does me posting "here" denote? The server in which this forum is made apparent, the conglomerate of individuals posting on this forum?
Quoting Janus
I think, @Harry Hindu indicated that indirect realism might be more appropriate here. What do you think? :)
We could just as well say that the mind is an object that observes other objects. We can dispense with the terms, "subjective" and "subject" all together. In this sense, it would be a feedback loop (not a mobius strip), like a camera observing its monitor creating a visual feedback loop.
If something only exists when you experience it, then you exhaust what that thing is. This is direct realism, not idealism or anti-realism. In this sense, idealism and anti-realism refute themselves.
Oops! No, his head isn't in his mind.
Schopenhauer didn’t construct a Möbius strip, didn’t equate his philosophy to one, didn’t consider it an explanation with respect to the subject/object dichotomy. All Wick did was make Schopenhauer’s version of Kantian Transcendental Idealism unrecognizable.
For a much better synopsis of “mind in my head; head in my mind” characterization, closer I think to the author’s intent, see the introduction to the Cambridge Library’s translation here, particularly pg 20-22: http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/71846/frontmatter/9780521871846_frontmatter.pdf
Being one of “anyone”, there ya go.......
I don't think indirect realism is equivalent to idealism, because idealism, in one way or another, claims that everything is fundamentally mind, whereas indirect realism does not necessarily make any claim about the ultimate constitution of things, but does assert that there is a mind-independent reality, that is reflected in our mind-dependent perceptions.
Thanks for the paper. I think Wick's account is still valid, just misconstrued. His point seems to be that the subject-object distinction is inescapable, and from memory, the only way out of it is through the intellect or aesthetic appreciation of music or art. I'm still fairly early on in the book, so I still have gaps to fill in here and there.
I agree; but, think that it is not irreconcilable to assert that indirect realism is at odds with idealism.
Yeah, its not that his head is in his mind. Its the idea of his head that is in his mind.
The only time his head is in his mind is when he looks in the mirror. But then that isnt really his head either. Its a visual sensory impression of a reflection of his head that is in his mind.
I can live with that. I don’t know from which translation (if any) Wick is working, but I’m betting it’s much newer than my 1909 Haldane/Kemp literary antique. Still, both the Masters in question, re: K and S, insist on the ineffectiveness of second party interpretations of novel epistemological enterprise, carrying the implication that if one needs to refer to an interpretation, either he is too lazy or otherwise ill-equipped to comprehend the original. This rears its subliminal head when Wicks himself references Hofstadter for the Möbius strip thing. Which to me, is merely a basic philosophical infraction squared.
FYI, and as the Great And Wonderful Janis Joplin said......of no particular social import.....
Schopenhauer, Preface WWR, 1844: “...And, in general, how is it possible that philosophy, degraded to the position of a means of making one's bread, can fail to degenerate into sophistry? Just because this is infallibly the case, and the rule, “I sing the song of him whose bread I eat,” has always held good, the making of money by philosophy was regarded by the ancients as the characteristic of the sophists. But we have still to add this, that since throughout this world nothing is to be expected, can be demanded, or is to be had for gold but mediocrity, we must be contented with it here also....”
Kant, Preface CPR 1787: “.......it would be more consistent with a wise regard for the interests of science, as well as for those of society, to favour a criticism of this kind (....) than to support the ridiculous despotism of the schools, which raise a loud cry of danger to the public over the destruction of cobwebs of which the public has never taken any notice, and the loss of which, therefore, it can never feel....”
Odd, though, that both of these guys acknowledged his respective philosophy was most likely beyond the general understanding of the crowd to which was explicitly directed, yet decried the method for teaching it to them.
Ever onward, eh?
Doing their part to cement the self-important asshole template. :wink:
You mean idealism is not necessarily at odds with indirect realism? Maybe Kant's Transcendental idealism could be reconciled with IR, I suppose. There certainly are 'realist' interpreters among the Kant scholars.
Awesome post Mww. I don't know what to say. When does one ever reach an understanding of any particular philosopher seems to be the question here? Wick's book isn't that bad, I agree that I am too lazy to read the entirety of WWAR vol. I&II&III. I suppose interpretations of works will always have this issue that you outlined; but, still think that it's a helpful tool to utilize anyway to hear the words of philosophers in different voices.
Yes, I think indirect realism doesn't necessarily have to be at odds with transcendental idealism. How, I'm not quite sure.
First.....thanks for the compliment; ‘preciate it. As for when, ehhhhh, damned if I know. Whenever it feels right, I guess. The further back in time one goes in his choice of philosophers to understand, the less information he has to work with and the more the language used in the writing differs from the language used in the understanding. But first and foremost, the major difficulty arises directly from the degree of paradigm shift incorporated in the writing, because even if one thinks he understands what is being said, he must then relinquish his own predispositions in order to agree to any truth that may be found in it. Otherwise......what’s the point, right??
If indirect realism isn't at odds with idealism then there would have to be something other than minds or ideas that separates minds. This would be the medium through which minds communicate - matter.
Do you think philosophy progresses in a dialectical manner? I don't know what to say about philosophers who "really" get the message or anything like that. I suppose everyone can get the message.
Dialectical, as in the Socratic dialogues, insofar as reasoned arguments tend towards a truth? Yes, as long as philosophy is discussed among rational folks. Philosophy isn’t dialectical at all, if a single rational folk is just trying to figure stuff out for himself.
Matter, essentially, but, what else can be said?
I'm not quite sure. It seems to me that philosophy is a dialectic act. One opposes a different opinion through dialogue.
True. That is dialectic conversation. Reasoned argument between opposing positions, or as you say, philosophy progresses in a dialectical manner. Nonetheless, a guy can.....and I’m of the mind that everybody does......have his own personal philosophy he only discusses with himself, or from which he views the world in general, in which case it is not a dialectic conversation. You don’t have to do philosophy in public.
Idealism of any form inexorably leads to solipsism (either that or idealism refutes itself by becoming some form of realism). And if solipsism, then the world is exhausted by your experience of it, therefore solipsism (and idealism) is a form of direct realism. I already went over this but it was ignored or missed.
Coming to think philosophically at all can be understood to be a dialectical process. Hegel's notion of dialectic is roughly that every idea presupposes its possible negation, and that they are united in a sublation which in turn presupposes its own negation, and so on.
Agreed, this kind of dialectic would be an internal process of understanding. But still, not a conversation, more like a private theater.
Why not a conversation with oneself; an "internal dialogue"?
In the event of a conflict, which member of the dialogue would be the decision maker?
I suppose, though, an internal dialogue is no worse for intelligibility that the classic dichotomy of “I” the thinking subject vs the “I” that is the object to which thoughts belong.
Humans. The only known animals that intentionally confuse themselves.
I would put it in terms of 'which voice is listened to?', and I'd say that it would hopefully be the most rational one.
Which begs a MAJOR question......how is most rational decided?
Really, when the lights go out, when the outside noise has gone away.....are there really two (more than one) of you up there, between your ears?
You know, I can easily bring up a representation of any person I choose, have a discussion with him, even picture him is the attire and accoutrements of his day. But I have never ever had the occassion of us communicating simultaneously.
I haven't said there are "more than two of me", though. When I pit ideas against each other in my own thoughts that takes the form of a conversation between different voices. The voices are not mine specifically (they are the voices of the culture), although the thoughts are.
OK, if that’s how it seems to you.
I know it seems like quibbling, but you started by saying “internal dialogue” which to me means at least two conversants, otherwise it would be an internal monologue. I don’t have an issue with a thinking subject pitting itself against a variety of ideas, but it really doesn’t suit me to permit ideas to take the form of cultural voices. There are ideas which are bereft of any cultural bias, after all.
Perhaps, but all ideas have a cultural origin. To have ideas you need languages and languages are culturally evolved.
For sure what I call an internal dialogue--- "talking to yourself"--- could instead be called an internal monologue. But since you are talking to yourself and listening to yourself, and then responding to yourself, it seems better to me to think of it as being a dialogue.
Similarly with self-awareness, there is the self you are aware of and the self who is aware. i think all thought has an inherently binary and 'subject-object' nature. It doesn't follow from that that reality is dualistic; more likely it just appears that way to the binary mind.
I can dig it!! Although, if one holds with the representational system of human cognition, he is met with a logical dilemma, insofar as the subject that thinks (half your binary nature) is at the same time the object to which the thoughts belong (the other half).
Agreed, reality isn’t dualistic, in and of itself. It just appears that way from the perfectly obvious reason that there are no basketballs in my head but I’d know a basketball if I saw one.
A few quotes from Charles Sanders Peirce seem relevant here.
Those are some very interesting quotes; thanks.
Yes, interesting. Thanks.