Is mind/body problem the idealism/materialism problem?

@Deckard,

Deckard;153499 wrote:

Is mind/body problem pretty much the same as the idealism/materialism problem? If not, what are the important differences between the two?

I don't see or have a problem with the mind or the body. While we are at it, I don't have a problem with idealism or materialism. The body can not live without materialism, so what is so wrong about materialism? If you can't sleep because you are worried about your things, that is not the "objects" fault, it is your own fault.

@Krumple,

Deckard;153499 wrote:

Is mind/body problem pretty much the same as the idealism/materialism problem? If not, what are the important differences between the two?

Wouldn't per se say it's the same, but there can be problems caused by idealism/materialism. If the ideal is having many kids, you may end up getting worn down mentally with all them kids, and your body will look like a blob.

Many women are driven into a hysterial craze, buying shoes, handbags and whatnot, by mass marketing idealism. They are often unhappy both because they often can't afford it, worse these shoes will often damage their feets, and if the fashion dictators preaches corsette as fashion it will damage them further.

Krumple;153511 wrote:

I don't see or have a problem with the mind or the body. While we are at it, I don't have a problem with idealism or materialism. The body can not live without materialism, so what is so wrong about materialism? If you can't sleep because you are worried about your things, that is not the "objects" fault, it is your own fault.

? ..uhmm thought that many eastern philosophies preached provety, same with medival christianity ..that matter is evil!

In the overzealous provety philosophy they would also starve themselfs and have an unhealthy diet, thus both mind and body would become negativly affected.

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;153519 wrote:

? ..uhmm thought that many eastern philosophies preached provety, same with medival christianity ..that matter is evil!

In the overzealous provety philosophy they would also starve themselfs and have an unhealthy diet, thus both mind and body would become negativly affected.

Yes it is true, they do teach to separate yourself from these things. I however; have a different take on material things. I don't see any problem with them what so ever. It is only the person who feels they have to have something and if they don't have it, they morn. If they get it and lose it, they morn. If they have it and someone takes it away, they fret and scheme vengeance. To me this has nothing to do with materialism, but everything to do with the person. If you understand these things, material things are useful and not something that needs to be abandoned.

@Krumple,

Krumple;153527 wrote:

Yes it is true, they do teach to separate yourself from these things. I however; have a different take on material things. I don't see any problem with them what so ever. It is only the person who feels they have to have something and if they don't have it, they morn. If they get it and lose it, they morn. If they have it and someone takes it away, they fret and scheme vengeance. To me this has nothing to do with materialism, but everything to do with the person. If you understand these things, material things are useful and not something that needs to be abandoned.

Maybe we life in 2 different realities.

@HexHammer,

Anyone else have an answer?

@Deckard,

Deckard;153499 wrote:

Is mind/body problem pretty much the same as the idealism/materialism problem? If not, what are the important differences between the two?

Hello Decker. Ideally there is a connection unfortunately this reality can't "touch" it and why we have difficulty associating them together. The body is a material of many materials and the mind is meta-materialistic as it relates to how it/us assimilate what the senses are presenting to it/us. We can have "too much and too little" in both mind and body.

When one has more, it deprives the other and the brain gets "disturbed". It's the intermediary. When there is disturbance in mind the brain becomes preoccupied and cannot see to the body and visa versa. Balance is the key.

How do we balance the two so they will not disturb one another? First there is a matter of priority. The Mind comes first. We must put it at ease,
To do that is allow it to focus in the moment on the moment at hand by just leaving it alone; let it do it's thing without interference. The brain can then concentrate what it has to do tending to the body.

What disturbs the mind? Offering attention to that we should not attend. That involves "force"' we have to force the mind to do that. If we didn't force it to do that, it naturally wouldn't itself. In other words it would go in one ear and out the other. What it needs, it would automatically attach itself to like a puzzle putting itself together. That varies with each and every individual on this planet. We say that all the time; "give it no mind". We are telling ourselves what the mind will do naturally.

Now imagine "static" between those ears when one forces itself to "hear" all that it shouldn't. Those represent "disturbing thoughts" that shouldn't be there and nothing can get through to pass out the other. They "hang around" and the brain tries to make some sense of it all, thereby focusing on these erroneous thoughts causing it to be inefficient in its tending to the body. It is the epitome of much ado about nothing pertinent to the one and why we are not communicating divinely with one another.

The mind and the body is the equivalent to the heavens and the earth and the balance in those two. If you think about it and what we do to achieve this balance that we are telling ourselves is what we do when one prays. They put there two hands together as one with fingers folded together.

Have you ever tried to pull apart those two hands when they are "clenched". Pert near impossible, huh! The right and the left are joined praying for unity. Ideally that would mean we were once able to use both hands equally. And we have just grown apart by all that mental disturbance. The two hemispheres of the brain have parted opposing each other rather than working more efficiently as one? Hmmm?

Now if you will notice if you are right handed your left hand is it's helper and visa versa. That is what we must do. Instead what we see is the right hand not knowing what the other is doing. That is disturbance and confusion personified.

Please give what I have offered a little thought before you respond. There's little static in you Decker so I know you will not have to think long, ha!:bigsmile:

William

@Deckard,

Deckard;153499 wrote:

Is mind/body problem pretty much the same as the idealism/materialism problem? If not, what are the important differences between the two?

The problem I can see with the mind and body would be the problem that the mind is virtually unlimited while the body is limited?

While the problem I see with idealism and materialism is that the ideal for a materialistic person would be to have many different objects of pleasure. therefor the idealism is unlimited while the actual materials would be limited.

So in this way I make the co-relation between idealism and mind, and body and materialism. I think I'm on the right track.

Edit: I mis-read the question! haha! Sorry!

I would say that they're different problems in themselves, while you can trace the materialism/Idealism problem TO the mind and body, it seems way too general to assume that they're exactly the same.

@Deckard,

Deckard;153499 wrote:

Is mind/body problem pretty much the same as the idealism/materialism problem? If not, what are the important differences between the two?

No. The idealism/materialism issue concerns whether idealism or materialism is true. Of course those are not exclusive alternatives. Mind/body concerns how, and whether, mind and body interact. Of course, if, as idealists maintain, there is nothing but mind, or, as materialist maintain, there is nothing but body, then the mind/body issue is moot.

Good question.

By the way, none of the previous posts were answers, right or wrong, to your question.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;153603 wrote:

No. The idealism/materialism issue concerns whether idealism or materialism is true. Of course those are not exclusive alternatives. Mind/body concerns how, and whether, mind and body interact. Of course, if, as idealists maintain, there is nothing but mind, or, as materialist maintain, there is nothing but body, then the mind/body issue is moot.

Good question.

It seems that no one would bother to propose materialism or idealism unless they were first confronted with the mind/body problem or some variation thereof.

@Deckard,

Deckard;153692 wrote:

It seems that no one would bother to propose materialism or idealism unless they were first confronted with the mind/body problem or some variation thereof.

I don't know about that. But how does that matter?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;153696 wrote:

I don't know about that. But how does that matter?

Just a matter of which question is more fundamental, which question came first.

@Deckard,

Deckard;153541 wrote:

Anyone else have an answer?

I think it's a great question. It's pretty damn close to the same problem, I think. And the self-other problem is also involved, IMO. And it's a proper subject for philosophy, this sort of clarification.

It seems to me that idealism and materialism are both logically questionable positions. Just as self-other also dissolves upon close examination. But I'll restrain myself, and stop there. Smile

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;153708 wrote:

I think it's a great question. It's pretty damn close to the same problem, I think. And the self-other problem is also involved, IMO. And it's a proper subject for philosophy, this sort of clarification.

It seems to me that idealism and materialism are both logically questionable positions. Just as self-other also dissolves upon close examination. But I'll restrain myself, and stop there.

Does the mind/body distinction also dissolve upon close examination?

@Deckard,

Deckard;153714 wrote:

Does the mind/body distinction also dissolve upon close examination?

In my opinion, "absolutely." I would say that both are concepts, organizations of sensation and/or other concepts. And that concepts exist systematically. (Hegel's Begriff)

@Deckard,

Deckard;153700 wrote:

Just a matter of which question is more fundamental, which question came first.

Historically do you mean? I have no idea. And why should one be more fundamental than the other?

---------- Post added 04-18-2010 at 07:10 PM ----------

Deckard;153714 wrote:

Does the mind/body distinction also dissolve upon close examination?

It depend on what level you mean it. It is still true that sadness is a mental phenomenon, and height a bodily phenomenon.

@Deckard,

And of course "concept" is just a concept. And I think this is the whole "no finite thing has genuine being" thing. The system of concepts knows that any particular expression of its self-consciousness is still just concept. So it would symbolize itself with a negative one, as a self-negated unity, unified compulsively by some inferred (but never experienced except as this same finite inference) form of forms. I hope I don't sound crazy. It all makes sense to me, and puts a smile on my face.

Of course Ken will say that happiness is a refutation, implying that he is unhappy? Ah, let's follow the grumps to graves....

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;153738 wrote:

And of course "concept" is just a concept. And I think this is the whole "no finite thing has genuine being" thing. The system of concepts knows that any particular expression of its self-consciousness is still just concept. So it would symbolize itself with a negative one, as a self-negated unity, unified compulsively by some inferred (but never experienced except as this same finite inference) form of forms. I hope I don't sound crazy. It all makes sense to me, and puts a smile on my face.

Of course Ken will say that happiness is a refutation, implying that he is unhappy? Ah, let's follow the grumps to graves....

As a matter of fact, "concept" is a term, and not a concept. Why would I say any such thing, since I have no idea what you are talking about? How has this anything to do with what I posted?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;153732 wrote:

Historically do you mean? I have no idea. And why should one be more fundamental than the other?

---------- Post added 04-18-2010 at 07:10 PM ----------

It depend on what level you mean it. It is still true that sadness is a mental phenomenon, and height a bodily phenomenon.

If there was no mind/body problem then there would be no theories of materialism nor theories of idealism. No one would reach the conclusion or posit the theory without first struggling with the mind/body problem.
However
It is possible to conceive of a world in which there are no theories of materialism nor idealism. And it is possible to conceive that in this world people still consider the mind/body problem and philosophize about it (although without ever going in the direction of full on materialism or full on idealism)

I consider this to mean that the mind/body problem is more fundamental" than theories of materialism and theories of idealism. Perhaps "fundamental" is not the best word (I think it works just fine)

This is not a historical question. I am not engaging in an historical approach to philosophy at the moment.

---------- Post added 04-18-2010 at 07:52 PM ----------

Reconstructo;153738 wrote:

And of course "concept" is just a concept. And I think this is the whole "no finite thing has genuine being" thing. The system of concepts knows that any particular expression of its self-consciousness is still just concept. So it would symbolize itself with a negative one, as a self-negated unity, unified compulsively by some inferred (but never experienced except as this same finite inference) form of forms. I hope I don't sound crazy. It all makes sense to me, and puts a smile on my face.

I don't understand this. Can you break it down more. Concept is just a concept...that presumes idealism? Perhaps a concept is (e.g.) just some epiphenomenal thingamagig that arises from a bunch of neurons firing in a particular pattern.

@Deckard,

Deckard;153780 wrote:

I don't understand this. Can you break it down more. Concept is just a concept...that presumes idealism? Perhaps a concept is (e.g.) just some epiphenomenal thingamagig that arises from a bunch of neurons firing in a particular pattern.

I know it sounds strange. I think a negative ontology is necessary. A negative ontology also negates idealism. For idealism can only exist in terms of a duality. I want to assimilate "mind" "matter" "body" into some category that cannot be safely named, as any names for this category are "members of the set." But of course we have to use the language of the tribe to communicate ideas, right?

All beings are only made beings, that is to say unities, by meansof concepts (or "thoughts" or "names," etc.). And I include both "material" objects (chairs) and "mental" objects (thoughts) in my use of the word "being." I know it isn't practical, but I think it's logical to think of all beings as members of the same set. We can't speak of "matter" that is not experienced conceptually, as to speak of it means to name it, make a being out of it.(And "matter" is indeed an abstraction, even if it intends to refer to sensation..and "sensation" is an abstraction.) And similar confusions result when we try to think about the mind, or the pure subject. Witt talks about the self as the limit of the world in the TLP and equates pure idealism with pure realism, and this is exactly what Hegel means, in my opinion, by equating the rational with the real. I agree that there is something other than concept, but we cannot speak it. Just as we cannot think the truly infinite, but only of algorithms for the approximate calculations of an infinite series. So in my avatar, I symbolize this source of sensation/emotion (the mysterious raw material that concept shapes) with an infinity symbol. And I symbolize the inferred cause or faculty of conceptualization with a minus sign. But the important thing is this. Both of the corners of the triangle are never experienced directly but only inferred from the position on top, the position of logos. Negative ontology must be developed within time as a progress of self-consciousness, as an abstraction from abstractions. So in my mind, self-conscious logos is just "us" as we realize that we are made of words and something else. ("sensation" "the Real")

Quote:

5.621 The world and life are one.
5.63 I am my world. (The microcosm.)
5.631 There is no such thing as the subject that thinks or entertains ideas. If I wrote a book called The World as l found it, I should have to include a report on my body, and should have to say which parts were subordinate to my will, and which were not, etc., this being a method of isolating the subject, or rather of showing that in an important sense there is no subject; for it alone could not be mentioned in that book.-
5.632 The subject does not belong to the world: rather, it is a limit of the world.
5.633 Where in the world is a metaphysical subject to be found? You will say that this is exactly like the case of the eye and the visual field. But really you do not see the eye. And nothing in the visual field allows you to infer that it is seen by an eye.
5.6331 For the form of the visual field is surely not like this
5.634 This is connected with the fact that no part of our experience is at the same time a priori. Whatever we see could be other than it is. Whatever we can describe at all could be other than it is. There is no a priori order of things.
5.64 Here it can be seen that solipsism, when its implications are followed out strictly, coincides with pure realism. The self of solipsism shrinks to a point without extension, and there remains the reality co-ordinated with it.
5.641 Thus there really is a sense in which philosophy can talk about the self in a non-psychological way. What brings the self into philosophy is the fact that 'the world is my world'. The philosophical self is not the human being, not the human body, or the human soul, with which psychology deals, but rather the metaphysical subject, the limit of the world-not a part of it.

We can't help but think of the whole as a whole, in my opinion. Conception is unification. And as we abstract from abstractions, we end up with Heidegger's Being or Parmenides' One, etc. But Heidegger wrote Being under erasure. The name of Being is just another being. Thus the necessity of a negative ontology. A system of concepts that cannot be finished naming itself, as any name is not the name of names, and any form is not the form of forms. And "form of forms" cannot be the form of forms.

I hope I don't sound like a jerk.

Philosophy Forum

Is mind/body problem the idealism/materialism problem?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know