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.