Idealism vs. Materialism - Who Wins?

Hey, all you non materalists...

If you don't want your stuff; I'll take it. If I can help in anyway to foster your idealism, u2u me where I can pick up
your materialistic goods. I hope someone has a set of tires to fit a Toyota pick up, a guitar and some beer.

reply to post by olaru12


just because someone is a nonmaterialist that doesn't mean that they are able to give all of their stuff away. even this physical body is aa material that intends to stay maintained (surviving)

The idea is to see am idea as an importance OVER material things such as the concept of love, joy, peace, care, or whatever it may be...

reply to post by arpgme


When people harm or kill material things for their ideals or when ideals become more important than real material things is when idealism becomes evil.

Hitler had an ideal state in his head, and he would slaughter millions of material Jews to attain it.

Care, joy, compassion, are nothing without the things in which to care for, be compassionate to or to take joy in.

Originally posted by arpgme


The idea is to see am idea as an importance OVER material things such as the concept of love, joy, peace, care, or whatever it may be...

Right...

but it's been my experience that it's easier to be idealistic if your material need are met first. Love, joy, peace, and care are hard to conceptualize if you are cold and hungry.

got any old cd's you don't want?

reply to post by arpgme


Some things happen that just changes you no matter what. I saw a guys heart blown out of his chest when he touched a high voltage power line. Some things that can happen in ones life can be very powerful. You can not help but change. I won't go into a lot of other life changing things i have experienced but trust me. Your perceptions can change in an instant. Your whole way of thinking can be turned upside down. Be in the delivery room when your first child is born. That will change you in an instant forever. It can just as easily go the other way.

Originally posted by arpgme
Memories do not exist, every time you think of the past you are actually recreating it sort if like visualizing.

scientists did a test of taking a picture and photoshoppingit in a subtle way and they got the person. To actually ave memories as if it were exactly that way. I can't find the article on tis ut it was on LiveScience.

Who you are is the same thing that I am in reality.Stillness calmness from which impulses of thoughts, emotions, and intentions arise...

My memories are fleeting thoughts that as the years go by they move forward too. It is also hard to say which ones are truly uncorrupted memories. Our brains constantly change the past for us sometimes in little ways sometimes in big ways. I have been totally surprised when I have those moments where I can compare my memories with physical facts and what I thought was totally right wasn't.


To be quite honest...humans live in the present... as the old saying goes "time heals all" it does a lot of other things too.

reply to post by Xtrozero


It's really all about how you choose to look at it. And generally, that changes how you act and behave and live and love and all that stuff. How you choose to look at things defines how you live your life.

You know how people say, "It's all in your head," like you should just disregard it? That's not exactly true. It is all in your head - and really, I think that makes all the difference. I's the stuff in your head that influences your path in life, so whatever is important to you also influences that.

Even if memories are fleeting, they still leave a mark on you. You still remember how you felt, even if you don't exactly remember why. And just like dreams that fade as you wake up, you can still remember the emotions that you experienced. Your heart pounds, or the sweat pours...or you're still smiling even as you forget why.

And those feelings make all the difference. Money burns, memories fade, but feelings don't go away. And that, my friends, is something that all the money in the world can't buy. Yesterday, I was walking down the street with my friends. My buddy DJ says, "You know, we're more broke than a two-wheeled car, but we still have our friends. We can still laugh and love. You guys have my back, and I have yours. In a way, we're richer than the guy in that Ferrari."

That's why sitting with your beloved in the pouring rain without a dime in your pocket can still make you feel lighter than air.

There is no need to do a versus with these two. They are the same thing, I say no ideals and no materialism. The only there should be is life. And thats what you are breathing and seeing all around you. We don't see ideals when we look at the trees and the sky. We see life take its course being what it is naturally meant to do.

Live

reply to post by SparkOfSparks6

We don't see ideals when we look at the trees and the sky.

When I see trees and the sky, I see:

Roots - never forget where you come from

Branches - keep reaching for the sky

Leaves falling - things come and go, but patience is rewarding

Sunny skies - look on the bright side of life

Rainy skies - instead of waiting for the storm to pass, learn to dance in the rain

Snowy skies - every one of us is unique and beautiful in our own way.

Lightning skies - don't tick the gods off.

You don't see ideals in nature and physical reality? You're not looking hard enough. Or maybe you're just boring. Either way, don't assume that your lack of vision is our lack of comprehension.

Two issues come to mind in relation to Materialism. The first is the Measurment Problem, the second is the hard problem of consciousness .

The big deal of the Measurement problem is the observer. If the measurment problem cannot be identified outside the observer? then the issue is in respect to the observer. What to me in strange is that materialism clings to the conclusion that the common sense's are the only way to collect data. And although they have never tested indigenous cultures, they assure all concerned this is not an issue.

Hawkins claiming that there was no time before the universe began is irrelevant as there is no real test he can preform to establish this.. The second, describes in essence why today methods of treatment related to materialist formats. In relation to psychology and psychiatry are simply no longer applied to clinical care environments altogether.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


You have understood the meaning but not the ideal. The ideal is man-made and your ideal to approach my insensitivity to view these man made ideals is also man made. A meaning is more than an expression of words or ideals, the meaning is there just existing. The moment you speak of it , the moment it becomes a man made ideal.

There is always an unknown, always.

Originally posted by Kashai
Two issues come to mind in relation to Materialism. The first is the Measurment Problem, the second is the hard problem of consciousness .

The big deal of the Measurement problem is the observer. If the measurment problem cannot be identified outside the observer? then the issue is in respect to the observer. What to me in strange is that materialism clings to the conclusion that the common sense's are the only way to collect data. And although they have never tested indigenous cultures, they assure all concerned this is not an issue.

Hawkins claiming that there was no time before the universe began is irrelevant as there is no real test he can preform to establish this.. The second, describes in essence why today methods of treatment related to materialist formats. In relation to psychology and psychiatry are simply no longer applied to clinical care environments altogether.

Any thoughts?

edit on 5-11-2012 by Kashai because: added content

The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra treats these questions by way of a historical description of how quantum mechanics progressed from the beginning to the eventual "split" that occurred between materialists and those who did not ignore the measurement problem. Have you read it Kashai? The subtitle is "An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism" It's that and more, the measurement problem is elucidated in such a way as to make it impossible to ignore, which, to me, seems short sighted and leads to a dead end. It's been a while, these are my impressions of the memory of what it is about.

To me they are two sides of the same coin.

Materialism tells me that my life may be utterly meaningless other than meaning I choose to imbue it with. That the universe may have been created by the collision of two membranes, and that what we see around us is simply "our" membrane infinitely twisted and warped into quantum "foam" which constitutes the fundamental basis of matter, space, and time in our universe. That, neurologically and generatively, I may even lack what we traditionally classify as free will. That free will could be entirely illusory. That our very sense of self and identity and "personhood" could stem from emergent behavior, interactions and timing delays between the different hierarchical "subsets" of the mind, which in turn are associated with the different organs/regions of the brain, coupled with nervous and electromagnetic stimuli (information.) That love, friendship, compassion, success, achievement, etc. may be utterly without inherent meaning beyond our subjective interpretations of them, coupled with our instincts and other emergent properties of our psychology and neurology. Just chemicals in the brain. Just waves in the membrane. A potentially infinite expanse of dimensional interplay, full of membranes, bulks, and continually colliding and moving elements.

Idealism tells me that things which lack empirical proof can be accepted and experienced as though literally "real." That my subjective interpretation of the material world and my emotions and experiences with regard thereto, is just as valid as any empirical interpretation thereof. That the bonds of friendship, compassion, love, empathy, and kindness matter or, at the absolute minimum, are an inescapable part of my nature and therefore meaningful by default, and inexorably, whether it makes empirical sense or not. That there are possible realities and beings I can have no direct, scientific proof of, but which may be experienced as "real" nevertheless. That direct experience and knowledge (sometimes termed gnosis) can supersede collective empirical repositories of experience and knowledge. That my existence does matter, and that there is something wondrous beyond the boundaries of this existence.

After struggling with this question for many years, trying to avoid and disallow cognitive dissonance to dictate my beliefs and thoughts, to the point of deep disillusionment, depression, and nihilism, I came to the personal conclusion for myself that 1) Regardless of objective "meaning," compassion and love are a part of my nature, whether I can make them objectively meaningful in a materialist interpretation or not, and 2) If the materialist conclusion is potentially nihilistic, and at the same time depends on a degree of subjectivity even at its most scientific, then there is no danger is entertaining the possibility of the idealistic and even the spiritual.

In short, if nothing inherently matters beyond what meanings we choose to attribute to life despite no compelling materialist reason to do so by my standards, then there is no downside - for me personally - in defining what meaning I do or do not attribute to life for myself, subjectively.

Peace.

reply to post by neoholographic


Idealism wins because fear wins. The materialistic ego will subject their mind to different experiences, in most cases it is a vision or a thought, and this will cause a reaction. We experimenting reactions. Yet idealism will also win because we are able to look at the fear of transcending our conscious mind to our subconscious perception of reality, I think this is where you have mentalism. I fear my thoughts because I know that magic will be making a connection that is unknown to the ego and I don't want to think the wrong thing.

reply to post by Pilot

I am familiar with the words of Capra but, I feel he did not go far enough. A rather simple truth is that conservative scientist are trying to fit reality, as if it were a glove, to the common sense's.

Given there is a a part of reality we cannot perceive, it makes perfect sense that our common sense's are not developed enough, to perceive reality as it is.

Materialist ethic seems to ignore this issue altogether, one that is not difficult to understand...

Any thoughts?