Here's a very civil debate on materialism versus idealism

[Joshpantera]

 

This illustrates what's going on right now between these two different approaches towards "Naturalism." 

 

They way I see it is that Naturalism is naturally transforming itself to account for previously unexplained aspects of reality by Naturalism. That's what Kastrup is doing. 

 

The Materialist kindly admits that Kastrup is not a "Whacky Idealist." 

 

That's because it's Objective Idealism, what is called, "Analytic Idealism." This is not the Idealism of 1 or 2 hundred years ago launched by theists. It's beyond theistic and supernatural speculation. 

[pantheory]

Howdy Josh

 

Yes, They are both very good. My point would be that besides their knowledge, both are philosophers. Some philosophers believe their perspectives are a truth, others, like me, believe in perspectivism. The philosophy of perspectivism says that there is no ultimate reality or truth out there, it is only how you organize the information which you are using to describe reality.

 

My favorite story about this relates to a horse (but it could be anything living or non-living). Two men are talking. One is a biologist and the other a physicist. The physicist describes the horse via its physical makeup, atomic and molecular stricture, its neurons and how its brain functions. The biologist says yes, but how about its internal organs and how the work together to produce the living creature? How about its mental faculties and how they control the animal. At this point their wives come back from tea and hear a little of the conversation. One wife says, you know  a hours is a beautiful animal. Stand on a hill a watch a horse gallop by, such a beautiful animal. The other wife says:  yeah, but if you get behind the horse a lift up its tail when it is taking a shit, and realize that there are many different kinds of horses, as well as different individuals. Now that's the reality of the horse

 

Of course there is no way of organizing the information of a horse and saying the results are the truth of reality concerning the horse. There are an infinite number of ways of doing this, and none involve truths as a collective. Of course with all the same information one would say the results are a pig instead of a horse, practically no one would agree with you, and nearly all would say that you are wrong. The bottom line here IMO is that the word "reality" is not really understood since it can have a number of different definitions and meanings like many words do. Unless both parties can agree on an exactly the same definition, word for word, then discussions of reality are simply subjective philosophy and no valid conclusion can ever be reached IIMHO. Both should realize that there is no such thing as an exact definition of reality, since there are many true definitions of it in the English language, and no ultimately "true" single definition IMO.

 

Here's a few of the countless idea related definitions about reality and realism.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/realism