metaphysical theories - i.e. - materialism and idealism - are attempts to account for the
unknown
to provide a foundation in knowledge - for our actions
what is fundamental is the unknown
these metaphysical theories are covers for the unknown
masks for the unknown
they provide platforms for action
they are in fact substitutes for knowledge -
for foundation
the need for foundation is what is really at issue here
I argue - it is a feature of consciousness - a characteristic of mind - to seek a basis
the point is - if there was foundation
the mind could not know - for it would of necessity be outside of mind - and for that
matter outside of the world
I do not think it makes any sense to speak of such
to go down this track is to mistake metaphysical need for reality
in reality there is no foundation to knowledge
if there was - the question would not arise
idealism begins with mind and argues that the world outside of mind can be shown to
in fact be mind
materialism that the outside reality can be shown to be in fact applicable to the inside
both are attempts to provide a singular account of the nature of reality
if successful both destroy the basis on which they are proposed
in the case of idealism - mind - the inside is extended to cover the outside - and as a
result the distinction is destroyed - there is no outside
if no outside - no inside
on what is idealism based?
and you can put the question - if mind cannot be distinguished from non-mind - does
it in fact have any definition?
what is it - where is it?
in the case of materialism - matter - the outside is extended to cover the inside - and
as a result the distinction is destroyed - there is no inside
if no inside - no outside
on what is materialism based?
again - if matter is all there is - how can it be defined - determined?
to say matter is everywhere - is not necessarily to make a substantial claim - without
metaphysical distinction (which a successful comprehensive theory defeats) it can be
argued there is no content to the materialist thesis
so there is a serious issue of definition if either idealism or materialism is taken to be a
complete account of the nature of reality
can I suggest that idealism is a useful theory of mind - what I would call a prime
position - a place to start - an initial response to the question - what is mind?
and materialism a useful theory of the world outside of mind - again we need to begin
with something in order to deal with what it is (the unknown) we are faced with
either put forward as a comprehensive metaphysics I suggest falls on its own sword
they are best seen natural characterizations - and useful tools
idealism has proven its worth e.g. as a platform for religious aesthetic and ethical
thinking
materialism as a successful impetus for scientific / empirical pursuits
both are best seen as constructs on the unknown
in practice - decisions are made about foundation - positions adopted - platforms used
this is the reality of practice
the theoretical attempt to furnish the world with one all embracing account is more in
the line of a parlor game - an exercise
which nevertheless may - and in fact does yield not just pleasure but new ideas - new
ways of looking at the world
nevertheless most of us operate in a universe of metaphysical junk -
a whole range of ideas systems and concepts
and use determined by need and circumstance
and nothing is guaranteed - you can and do always go back to the junkyard for new
bits and pieces to assemble or attach - or to start foraging again
the metaphysician functions primarily in this space - as an inventor of new ideas - new
ways of seeing - he makes the junk we all need - (and may even have a hand in
managing the yard)
the yard is logical space - the junk - the theories and concepts we need and / or use to
live in the unknown
