Idealism vs Materialism: A Debate Among Monistic Thought

Previously, I had examined briefly, distinct theories pertaining to the nature of reality. The two main schools examined pertained to whether we perceive reality directly as it is, or whether information is incorporated through the providing of sense data. These two schools of thought are known as direct and indirect realism, respectively. While distinct in how we perceive the world, both schools of thought agree that the external reality exists, and that it is independent of our cognitions and perceptions of it.

However, some philosophers have argued that reality is in some way dependent on the mind. Indeed, some have even argued that reality is mental by nature, and generated purely through the internal cognition of ones mental faculties. This school of thought is known as "idealism" and it has been a great source of thought and controversy throughout the history of philosophy. Idealism is a monistic school of thought, meaning that it regards reality as being of one substance. All things that appear different are merely alternate aspects of the same thing. For idealism, reality is mental or spiritual by nature. Idealism does not always suggest that reality itself does not exist externally, but it does suggests that we can only ever know reality as it manifests in our minds. This is distinct from indirect realism, in that this perception of reality is distinct and only knowable through the mind, and is not an identical copy of the world perceived. However, from an ontological perspective, idealism does tend to suggest that reality is merely a mental byproduct, and does not possess existence in its own right. This view of thought is most famously credited to George Berkeley, who suggested that objects only exist as long as they are being perceived.

In direct contrast, a distinct monistic school has rivaled idealism throughout the centuries. This school is known as materialism, and it suggests that reality, and all events occurring in it, are, or are the result of, material processes. This view is much more common sense today, and very likely more widely accepted by readers. This view is closely, if not identically aligned, with the current scientific view, which suggests that reality consists of matter, and is composed of atomic structures. This view dates back to 585 B.C, with Greek philosophers Lucretius and Democritus being credited as the first atomists. Unlike idealism, materialism is also a monistic school, as it claims that matter is the only substance of which reality is composed. Furthermore, what idealism calls "mind" is merely the result of physical interactions (such as firing neurons and connecting synapses).

Together, these two schools of thought constitute the main monistic ontological schools (though others exist). Each school has existed for over a millennia, and has had several philosophers arguing for the validity of each. In this post, I shall briefly cover the history of both, and provide certain examples of the perspectives of each. Then, I shall provide arguments on the strengths and weaknesses of each, and attempt to see which, if either, school of thought prevails.

                                    Idealism History

The origins of idealism stem back from the veda school of Hinduism. Metaphysically, this school proposes that reality is one all encompassing mind, belonging to a being referred to as Brahman (God). Reality as we understand it is one with Brahman, and all things are generated in the mind of Brahman. We are no exception to this rule, as Brahman exists within us as well. When we realize this, we achieve peace in our minds. Furthermore, selfish action and pursuits separates us from Brahmans interdependence, and contributes to suffering.

Turning from Asia, idealisms founding continent, idealism continued through the tradition of the ancient Greeks. Though many schools of thought existed at this time period, the seeds of idealism originated from the philosopher Anaxagoras, in 480 B.C, who also believed that reality consisted of several microscopic seeds, which formed the basis of matter. As a result, he was not an idealist in the true sense, as matter was part of his philosophy. However, he believed that these seeds created form and life through an all pervasive, ever present mind, without which, existence as we know it would cease.

Continuing in ancient Greece, idealist philosophy made its way into the thoughts of Plato, whom is usually credited as idealisms founder. This is do to the fact that Plato viewed ideas as being more real than concrete things. In Platonic philosophy, the world as we understand it is impermanent, and in a constant state of change. As a result, it is contingent, and we can never know for certain what it is. However, the impermanent nature of it is do precisely to its imperfection, and it being "not the real world". Instead, true reality was found in a distinct realm of abstract, ideal forms, in which the true things existed. The forms, quite literally "are what they are" in that they are there own thing, and are pure in their nature. There is nothing else that it is a part of there essence, and they only reflect the thing of which they are. They are also more real than objects we see in our world. For example, chairs are always being built and used, but they also rot away from the passage of time and misuse. Because of this, everyday chairs are contingent and impermanent, but the form of chair (which Plato would argue is "the" chair) is eternal and unchanging. It is the truest chair, and exists to represent all imperfect chairs in the realm of contingency. But these chairs with which we are familiar are simply imperfect reflections or "shadows" of the real and eternal form of chair. Such is the way of all things, be it trees, circles or humans. Everything is really just an imperfect copy of its perfect form. Furthermore, when we recognize a category, we are remembering its abstract form from its distinct realm. Indeed, Plato believed that our true nature was as spiritual beings who lived in the realm of ideal forms. However, every so often, we would reincarnate in the physical realm, and begin a new life. In this life, our recognition of everyday objects was not pure recollection in how we understand it, but was actually remembering our time in the realm of forms. Thus, recollection was simply recall.

Platonic philosophy has been debated extensively as to its nature. To date, agreement has not been made on whether he was truly an idealist or whether his philosophy was indeed reflective of realism. What is clear is that Plato did not deny the existence of matter. He just saw matter and physical objects as being imperfect and less real then there abstract formal counterparts. I personally argue that Plato was a realist, as he saw the forms being of true existence independent of our knowledge or awareness of them. Though ideas are more real than matter by his notion, ideas are simply recollections of abstract forms that exist outside of the mind. Thus, this reflects a realist philosophy, albeit a unique and unusual one.

Though it existed following Plato, idealism as a movement did not become significant until the 18th century, where philosopher George Berkeley wrote extensively on the subject. The founder of a school known as "subjective idealism", Berkeley is quoted with the famous saying essi est percepi (to exist is to be perceived). In his philosophy, Berkeley believed that the nature of existence was completely dependent on the presence of a perceiver. A thing did not have material or independent existence, and was only real as long as it was perceived in some way. When one visually saw an object, it then gained existence, but as soon as the object was no longer being perceived, it stopped existence. By extension, it is clear that Berkeley did not believe that matter possessed any real nature, or if it did, Berkeley suggested that it was unknowable. All we could ever know were ideas, and because of this, what we perceive must be ideas by there nature. In an attempt to explain how reality did not vanish, Berkeley provided an explanation using God. He claimed that God is the ultimate perceiver, never not perceiving anything. Therefore, all things stayed in existence through Gods perception, and everything, including us, exists in the mind of God.

Though other notable idealists exist, such as Immanuel Kant, I shall conclude our discussion of idealism with Berkeley, as his philosophy captures the true essence of what idealism suggests. Though not all, or even most idealists go as far as Berkeley in their ontological claims, idealism does typically suggests that ideas are more real than anything else, and we cannot know anything outside of our ideas.

With that in mind, let us move on to idealisms contrasting school of thought; materialism.

                                Materialism History

The seeds of materialistic cosmology first took root in India, and were subtly suggested by philosopher Ajita Kesakambali, who argued that the body was one with the earth, and that after death, we would return to the ground. It's been suggested that he did not believe in an afterlife, or an eternal soul.

The Milesians were the first society to have believed in a materialist cosmology. Unlike neighbouring regions, they rejected the doctrine of the universe being ruled by anthropomorphized deities. Instead, reality was simply a byproduct of the interaction between four substances: earth, wind, air and mist. Though they had a cosmological explanation, they could not account for change in matter.

The first to truly explore change was the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (535-475 B.C). In his philosophy, Heraclitus proposed that reality by nature was in a state of ever-present change. Flow and flux are the nature of all things, with everything in a state of constant becoming. This is in direct contrast to Empedocles, who proposed that reality was an eternal,  non-changing being. The eternal, ever-present change was the result of contrasting relations occurring within objects. Opposing forces were always attempting to dominate, and always threatened to contribute to the entropy of objects. As Heraclitus himself states, "war is the father of all". As a result, objects and phenomena come into existence, persist temporarily, and then eventually pass away. Though not explicitly stated, these interactions are presumed to be material by nature. Like the Milesians, Heraclitus rejected creationism, and saw the prospect of divine agents as nonsense. Presumably, this suggests that his philosophy was materialistic.

Despite this ambiguity, the first confirmed founders of materialist philosophy after the Milesians were found in ancient Greece. Confirmation of Greek materialism exists in the school of atomism, founded by Democritus (460-370 B.C). In this school, it was thought that matter was made of several microscopic and indivisible particles, called atoms. The atoms in-and-of themselves were not visible to the naked eye, and possessed no secondary qualities, such as color, taste or texture.

Though Democritus was not entirely correct (atoms have been found to be divisible), Democritus' school of thought appears to align fairly accurately with the scientific conceptualization. Matter has been found to be made of atoms, and scientists have attested to their lack of secondary qualities. It is interesting to note that the atomist school of thought was quite unpopular for its time, with ancient religion or other philosophical schools predominating.

                                              Analysis   

Idealism is no longer a predominant school of thought, and appears to be lacking in logical credibility. This school of thought proposes many more questions than it does answers. If reality is mental, then how does one live in a non-existence world. Without an external reality, how could a spacetime continuum exist for free movement and perception? If spirituality is the all pervasive material of which reality consists, what is it that makes up spiritual substance? Is it energy? Is it minds found in objects? These are only a few questions that idealism creates.

Despite this, idealism does present with certain thought provoking claims. Science does suggest that our relation to understanding the world is contingent upon cognitive schemas and mental faculties. Experimentation further shows that much of the perception we experience on a momentary basis is not granted access to conscious experience, even if it happens right in front of our eyes. An experiment in cognitive psychology has demonstrated that when participants are asked to observe a basketball being thrown between players, they did not notice an individual in a gorilla suit walking in front of them. This does suggest that reality, as we understand it, does not extent outside the processes of the mind. In addition, although reality likely exists outside the mind, all our understanding of it exists within the mind, as the mind is the only aspect for processing information. In that way, reality is dependant on the mental realm.

In contrast, materialism does conform to the scientific understanding of reality. Matter, and the validity of its existence, has been established repeatedly in fields such as chemistry and physics. Furthermore, atoms have been demonstrated to be the fundamental building blocks of matter by these fields. As such, repeated evidence for matter has been demonstrated, with numerous theories and experiments proving its validity.

Despite this, materialism does not account for a free will account of human psychology. If our mind is simply the result of material interactions, then a free will account is likely not possible. Nevertheless, humans can decide whether to listen to messages given from the mind, suggesting there is choice in action taken.

Next, materialism does not fully account for energy. Modern day physics regards matter and energy as interchangeable. As such, they are two sides of the same thing. This suggests that a third entity may exist, which accounts for both matter and energy. Also, energetic charge is found within atoms, and does not in-and-of-itself appear to possess a material existence, as energy is not physical or composed of atoms as is matter.

Finally, when one thinks of "psyche" or "spirit", the substance of which is used to explain it is energy. As previously mentioned, matter and energy are interchangeable, yet energy does is not material by nature, which provides some limitations in the school of materialism. Hermeticist philosophy provides an account, suggesting also that matter and energy are interchangeable. They further suggest that energy is the substance of spirit, but this does not subtract from its interchangeability of matter. Instead, it is viewed that matter is condensed energy, while energy is diffuse matter. This suggests that what we call matter and mind, or abstract and concrete, are actually two sides of the same substance.

This school of thought is referred to as "dual-aspect monism" and in my view, presents a much better account for the nature of reality. In fact, I argue that dual-aspect monism reflects the truth (or is the closest to reflecting truth) about the ontological nature of substance. However, seeing as this post merely explains idealism and materialism, I shall cover dual-aspect monism in the next post.

In conclusion, idealism presents with several unanswered questions. Though materialism does not account for all answers, evidence for matter is overwhelming. Despite both their deficiencies, each school need not be outright dismissed, but can be answered through viewing both sides as two aspects of the same substance, of which dual-aspect monism explains. As such, it is the more credible view, and is, in my view, largely accurate in explaining the nature of substance. The reasons for this, as well as this schools arguments, shall be covered in the next post.

Realism: Direct or Indirect?

In our quest to discover the nature of reality, it is imperative to determine whether reality exists, in the sense that it is external and independent of our perceptions of it. While this is the common sense view, some would argue that this is not the case. These philosophers instead claim that reality is actually mind dependent, and is contingent upon our understanding of it. This school of thought is known as idealism, and shall be covered in a future post.

Instead, this post will cover the school of thought known as realism, which argues that an external reality exists and is mind independent. However, two distinct schools of thought have produced a schism within this branch of philosophy, these being direct and indirect realism. While both argue that reality is mind-independent, they differ in how we perceive reality. The differences shall be outlined below.

                                                        Direct Realism

Direct realism (also known as "naïve" realism) argues that reality, as we perceive it, is the true reality. In other words, when we perceive reality, we perceive it directly for how it actually is. When one looks at a wall, the properties of the wall exist in the external world, and they are directly proportionate to the actual world, because they are the same properties of the actual world. This theory is also known as naïve realism, because it is the common sense view that most individuals possess. When perceiving the world, one instinctively assumes that they are perceiving the world directly.

While this may be the case, problems emerge with this theory. On a daily basis, we receive sensory stimuli that are not proportionate to the actual perceived object. These are what are known as illusions. A notable example is of placing a stick inside of a pool of water. When the stick enters the water, it appears bent to the perceiver; however, when removed from the water, the stick appears straight. If direct realism is correct, then it would be assumed that the stick is actually being bent in the water, though this is not really the case.

                                                    Indirect Realism

In contrast, indirect realism (also known as "representational" realism) argues that we do not perceive reality directly. Instead, objects in the external world exhibit specific properties that are converted through our sense organs through an intermediary known as "sense data." This sense date is a configuration of our minds that allows us to create a "virtual reality" or "copy" of the external world. It is this copy that we perceive, not the true external world around us.

It is this position that modern scientists take in our understanding of perception. Indeed, science has demonstrated that perception takes place through properties (such as light and audio waves) that are detected by our sense organs and configured into electrical impulses, which allows our brains to perceive the detected stimuli. Nevertheless, problems also emerge with this theory. If this theory is indeed true, then the reality which we perceive is merely a veil for the true reality that exists external to us. Therefore, we are locked inside of our own minds, and cannot understand reality as it exists externally. As such, we have no way of knowing if our external reality is truly proportionate to the external world. Indeed, there is scientific evidence to indicate that it is not. For example, color is emitted by light wavelengths which reach the eyes and are converted into electrical signals through the optic nerves. The occipital lobe (the visual processing center of the brain) then uses these signals to perceive the sense data, and converts the wavelengths into the perception of color. This means that color, as we perceive it, does not exist. Instead, what we perceive is the illusionary byproduct of our brain attempting to perceive our external reality, further lending support to indirect realism.

                                                          Analysis

                                                    (John Locke; 15th century empiricist)

From the scientific standpoint, it appears that indirect realism does indeed present as a more credible theory to the nature of reality. Our perception of reality is contingent upon external factors, such as light and sound waves, that are converted by our sense organs into electrical impulses, which serve as a form of sense data to allow the organism to perceive the world. Nevertheless, the external objects themselves exist, unless idealism is correct. Though the objects themselves exist, certain properties do not exist in the external world as we understand them. This is important to understanding indirect realism. To provide an example, let us briefly examine the philosophy of John Locke.

John Locke was a fifteenth century philosopher who is widely known for his empiricist position. Empiricism is a school of thought that argues that knowledge can only be gathered through sense experience. It is in direct contrast to its rivaling school known as rationalism, which argues that knowledge is acquired through logical reasoning. In his philosophy, Locke argued that the human mind at birth is tabula rasa (a blank slate), and our knowledge is imprinted on our mind later through sense perception and life experience. Locke compares this process to a painter creating a picture on a white canvas. Furthermore, the perceptions of the external world are said to be based on two properties, known as primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are the aspects of an object that exist in the external world. They are independent of our perceptions, and purely belong to the object in question. Examples include height, width, depth, weight and mass. In contrast, secondary qualities are aspects that are contingent upon experiences in our mind. They do not exist in the objects themselves, but rather as ideas in the mind that lead to their perception. Examples include taste, texture, color, scent, and sound.

While Locke was not incorrect in his analysis of an objects properties, his analysis is incomplete. Based on scientific understanding of perception, I propose that secondary qualities do in fact exist externally. However, they do not exist in the way we perceive them. For example, the redness of an apple is a secondary quality of that apple. The redness exists only in the mind in the sense of how it is perceived. However, it is not a purely mental faculty, as the prospects that lead to the creation of a red perception already exist within the apple. The wavelengths of light within the apple are present in the external world. However, that does not make the apple itself red. It simply exhibits a property that when perceived by an observer is perceived by the observer as red. The object itself exhibits properties that produce red, but the red itself exists only in the mind. If correct, then realism still holds credibility over idealism. However, the evidence presented points in favor to the soundness of indirect realism. Thus, this piece will conclude that perception takes on an indirect realist nature. What is problematic to this conclusion is in our uncertainty of the properties of the external world. We cannot guarantee that our perceptions are not merely ideas conceptualized by the mind. Therefore, explanations are needed as to how indirect realism holds to be a superior position to idealism, which again, proposes that reality is mind dependent, and contingent upon our mental properties. The position of idealism, and its comparison to realism, shall be covered in the next upcoming post.

Reality Defined: A Broad Perspective

                                       "Reality leaves much to the imagination."- John Lennon

Reality encompasses the totality of all existence, be it known or unknown. It describes the ever-existing presence of what is within the sum of an all encompassing system. Despite this definition, problems continue to arise in understanding reality. For instance, what is realities nature? Is reality necessary by its own virtue, or does the realm of possibility still exist within reality? Do abstract ideas exist, or are they non-existent byproducts of the mind? Finally, do alternate realities exist? Many of these questions will be tackled in upcoming future posts. For now however, this post shall give a brief overview of distinguishing different schools of thought pertaining to the nature of reality.

Upon investigating schools of thought pertaining to realities nature, two main distinguishing schools of thought emerge: realism and anti-realism, each of which contains many distinct schools and theories on the nature of reality.

                                                       The Nature of Reality

                                 
                                        "All those bodies which compose the frame of the world
                                        have not any substance without a mind."- George Berkeley

Let us begin with realism. Realism holds the view that aspects of reality exist, independent of our perceptions and our conceptualizations. In other words, the existence of a thing is not predicated on whether one perceives the thing or contemplates the things nature. For example, a tree exists of its own accord, and the nature of that tree's existence is not contingent upon whether one perceives the tree or contemplates the concept of tree. The tree simply exists, is its own being, and is independent of the existence of the observer. Two existing, albeit broad sub schools of realism exist, these being direct (or "naïve) realism, and indirect (or "representational") realism. The former argues that the world as perceived by us is reflective of realities true nature. When we look out at a lake, we see the lake in terms of its true nature. The lakes state of being is synonymous with the perception of the observer. However, the latter argues that the reality by which we perceive is an indirect, inaccurate, representative or "copied" representation of reality. For example, the lake by which we perceive is inaccurate to the true existing lake. The ontological nature of the lake is distinct from our perception of the lake, which is indirect, misrepresented, or inaccurate.

In contrast, anti-realism suggests that there is no external reality. Instead, reality, as we understand it, is simply a byproduct of the mind. By this view, existence, and our understanding of it, is mental by nature. Things do not possess an independent existence; instead, they only exist as byproducts, or "qualities" of the mind. The main school of thought is known as idealism (a contrast to materialism, which suggests that reality is purely physical) and has largely fallen out of popularity in the last century. However, this school of thought does still exist, and is still present as a metaphysical explanation of reality.

                                                              Being

                           
                                   "The only thing that is permanent is change."- Heraclitus

Within this all encompassing reality, several different manifestations result. One of which, obviously, is us. We exist, and therefore, we must relate ourselves to this all encompassing reality. This is the purpose of virtually every religious, philosophical and scientific school in existence. All of these schools attempt to answer, what does reality consist of? What is its nature? This is distinct from the previous section, as being attempts to explain the existence of a thing itself. This post covers the "being" of reality, in terms of how it manifests.

In an attempt to explain being, several philosophers have created distinct and opposing metaphysical claims about reality. Parmenides proposed that reality was essentially an all encompassing being, in that it was eternal, never changing, and constantly retaining its form and substance. In direct contrast, Heraclitus proposed that reality was not an eternal state of being, but constantly in a state of becoming. He likened it to a flowing river, in which everything is in constant flux, and nothing stays the same, even for a moment. Eternal change is all there is, and we, along with everything else, exist in a constant state of flow.

Heraclitus's view of reality has been widely influential. One notable philosopher who shared this view of becoming was the Buddha, who proposed that reality was fundamentally impermanent, in that it is always changing. Ignorance of this change leads people to cling to things, which is the root cause of suffering.

                                           Abstract Objects and Properties

                                                     (The Greek philosopher Plato, who argued
                                                      that reality consisted of ideal forms).

When attempting to understand reality, we often view it under the lens of the concrete. We think of physical objects and properties, and often neglect to ponder the existence of the abstract. While some philosophers argue that the abstract is merely a product of human psychology, and not real in the objective sense, others view the abstract as a real aspect of reality, and being just as present in reality as the concrete.

To provide an example, let us look at some of the most famous contrasting viewpoints in philosophy, these being Platonic realism and Aristotelean realism. Plato viewed the abstract as not only existing, but as being the central aspect of reality. Indeed, Plato argued that the reality by which we perceive is not the true nature of reality at all. Instead, reality lied in a realm which Plato dubbed "the realm of ideal forms." The forms in question, are abstract metaphysical entities which were pure in their essence and nature. A form, quite literally, is what it is, and is nothing else, and is perfect. For example, the form of beauty was quite literally beauty itself, and was nothing else but beauty. All other properties that we understand exist in this world as well. Such examples include the form of triangles, chairs, men, color, and the form of the good.

Unlike the world of forms, our world is merely a "shadow realm" to the world of the forms, where the properties of this world are the properties of the forms manifesting imperfectly. For example, the form of beauty may be present in a woman of this world, but no matter how beautiful such a woman is, she will still manifest some aspects of ugliness. Because of this, she may be beautiful, but she is not perfectly beautiful, nor is she beauty in-and-of-itself. As such, she is imperfect, and not the most real manifestation of beauty. This is the case for all properties, as none of them can match the ideal forms. As a result, the forms themselves are the most real objects, while our concrete reality is less real.

Unlike Plato, Aristotle differed substantially in his metaphysics, arguing instead that the concrete is what is most real. Aristotle did argue that forms exist, but they were not abstract, ideal entities. Instead, the true forms were found as an aspect of an object. For example, if one wishes to build a chair, one must have the tools necessary to make the chair, and the matter to do so (Aristotle referred to this as the material cause). However, upon completing the chair, the matter which was used takes on the form of chair (the formal cause). As a result, the real chair is not the abstract form, but the physical chair within which one sits. One cannot sit in the form of chair, nor can they sit in the matter used to create the chair. It is only through combination of a material and formal cause, does one produce the chair. Thus, the chair is more real than the abstract form of chair. This as well, applies to all things. The ideal is not the most real, the concrete individual object is the most real.

                                                    Alternate Realities

                              "Opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree"                                  
                                                          -Hermes Trismegitus
                                                       
In understanding reality, philosophy has a strict doctrine, which they refer to as the law of non-contradiction. This forces a philosopher to not come to a conclusion that is contradictory. For example, something cannot be true and false simultaneously. The problem with this doctrine is that  it's possible, if not probable, that contradiction is a central aspect of reality. This has been demonstrated through theoretical physics.

Theoretical physicists have concluded that the fundamental building blocks of matter consist of microscopic particles known as atoms. The individual features of an atom are contingent upon what element is being studied, but each contains the same types of subatomic particles. In the center of an atom exists the nucleus, which contains protons (positively charged particles) and neutrons (particles with no charge). Surrounding the nucleus is a shell consisting of electrons (negatively charged particles) which rotate around the nucleus. When thinking of rotation, common sense suggests that the electrons must either rotate clockwise or counterclockwise. However, physicists have determined that electrons actually rotate clockwise and counterclockwise simultaneously. This, in-and-of-itself, is a contradiction. Nevertheless, it occurs.

Because contradiction occurs at this level of existence, there is little reason to dispute that it may occur on other levels of reality. Indeed, physics suggests that this is the case. A physics blog provides an example of how this can occur. Lets say that a scientist were to set up an experiment in which an electron detector were attached to a gun, which was aiming at a cat. The detector is designed to activate the gun if it detects the electron traveling clockwise. If the gun does go off, the cat is shot, dead. However, if the electron travels counterclockwise, the detector will not go off, leaving the gun unchanged and the cat still alive. As we have established, electrons travel in both directions simultaneously. As a result, the detector both goes off, and does not. Furthermore, the gun both fires and doesn't fire, and the cat is both alive and dead. All of these outcomes are paradoxical, yet the mathematics of quantum mechanics demonstrate them to be the case. Of course, we never paradoxical outcomes occurring. The reason for this is because of our own nature. When we observe this event happening, our presence influences the flow of events. Through observation, the outcome is forced to collapse into a single event (e.g., dead or not dead cat) despite the fact that both outcomes are occurring. This theory explains the probability that multiple universes exist.

Thousands of years ago, philosopher Hermes Trismegistus produced a series of texts that led to the development of hermeticism. Within this philosophy, seven fundamental truths are expressed in an attempt to explain the fundamental nature of reality. The fourth of these principles (the law of polarity) makes a claim that overlaps with this theory proposed by quantum mechanics. With this law, Hermes proposes that all things that are opposite are merely different ends of a spectrum; that is, they are the same thing. Love/hate, life/death, masculine/feminine, light/dark; all these are essentially of the same essence, the only difference lying in there degree. Through the law of quantum mechanics, the principle of polarity can be extended to outcomes themselves. This suggests that reality is not merely existence of this universe, but is indeed a vast (possibly infinite) multiverse were all possible outcomes are happening simultaneously. Like the other theories presented, I shall cover this in more detail in a future post.

                                                         Conclusion

The conclusion of these piece lies not in the definition for reality, but in the finishing of its introduction. Reality is to vast and to complicated a subject to be covered in a single piece. Do not let that deter you, my reader. The philosophical schools describing reality and the human relationship with reality shall be further elaborated on in many future posts to come. Let this first post merely serve as an introduction for this complex and fascinating subject. Many things might be said and discussed, and this post merely describes the tip of the iceberg for this subject.

I hope my readers enjoyed this first post, and I look forward to what is yet to come.

 

Reality and Existence: An Introduction

What is reality? Why is reality here? IS reality here? Why are we here? What is our purpose? How do we live life properly? How have we come to understand reality? What are we? How is our mind structured? How do we orient ourselves, and connect ourselves, with reality?

These are only a few of the questions that human beings have pondered over the millennia of our existence. Several distinct schools of thought have risen in an attempt to answer these questions. From the primitive religions of ancient humans, to the currently established scientific discipline, reality has been a trifling matter that has yet to be fully understood.

The purpose of this blog is to attempt to answer these questions. This blog seeks to understand the fundamental nature of existence, and the human beings place in that existence, along with the human beings connection with reality. This blog will incorporate from many different fields, predominantly philosophy and psychology. However, many other academic disciplines will be included, such as biology, history, mythology, cosmology, chemistry and physics.

Posts shall be updated weekly if all goes according to schedule. I do take requests. If there is any particular topic of interest to you that you wish to see covered, please leave me a comment down below.

In addition, I shall include an occasional piece of fiction. I aspire to write horror as a hobby, and such narratives will be included intermittently.

Enjoy the blog!