Will idealism ever become part of the mainstream?

[Astra052]

Recently I've been wondering if idealism or even other post-materialist views of science will reach the mainstream and become widly accepted. What do we think the prospects are for that? I'm really hoping as time goes on and we learn more about things like quantum mechanics or continuing the psychedelic renaissance that we will up-end the current materialist paradigm. I'm hoping this can happen not just through rigorous philosophical debate but also science that will be suggestive towards our view.

[dkpstarkey]

The mainstream cannot handle the truth, being too invested in their way. But more people will awaken, we hope. I remember thinking 50 years ago that if cannabis were legal, the world would change because the plant would change people. That may actually be true, but I can't really say until it happens.

[SanteriSatama]

Western materialism is an oddity among world cultures, most of which are some sort of idealisms. What kind of idealism is mainstream Chinese culture, for example?

It's far from unthinkable, that as Western culture is losing global dominance, its self doubt will lead also to deep questioning and rethinking of it's metaphysical presuppositions.

[Simon Adams]

I think that’s a possibility. However I also think places like China, and certainly India which I know better, are themselves becoming more materialist as a result of western culture. In some ways I think the west is maybe starting to become less materialist, whilst India is becoming more materialist (even though overall, the west is a lot further down the road).

[AshvinP]

I think that’s a possibility. However I also think places like China, and certainly India which I know better, are themselves becoming more materialist as a result of western culture. In some ways I think the west is maybe starting to become less materialist, whilst India is becoming more materialist (even though overall, the west is a lot further down the road).

That sounds about right. India has usually been about 15-25 years lag behind Western culture, but obviously that gap is closing with modern technology. I don't expect China to embrace idealism or religious outlook anytime soon. But materialism as a dominant metaphysical and scientific paradigm is on the way out for sure... the only question for me is what it takes with it on the way out and what replaces it.

[Simon Adams]

That sounds about right. India has usually been about 15-25 years lag behind Western culture, but obviously that gap is closing with modern technology. I don't expect China to embrace idealism or religious outlook anytime soon. But materialism as a dominant metaphysical and scientific paradigm is on the way out for sure... the only question for me is what it takes with it on the way out and what replaces it.

It’s really difficult to know how wide any effect like that would be, I think a significant part of modern populations are in bubbles and don’t have much exposure or interest in the big questions around epistemology or ontology. But there definitely seems to be a shift in areas that were dominated by hard materialism.

China is an interesting one, the government is still very much dictating what people are allowed to think and say, although I’m not sure how long that communist/marxist approach despite the great firewall and the market economy. It’s also a big place with some fairly deep spiritual roots remaining in parts, but I think you’re right that there won’t be any big changes beyond tai chi/energy medicine etc.

I think the question of what would replace materialism is my biggest worry. Much of the ‘acceptable spiritual’ within otherwise materialist culture is essentially gnostic, the Hollywood/Descartes spirituality which denigrates the body and sees the spirit as something separate and pure, rather than body and spirit being a united whole. It’s a very attractive version of spirituality to the materialist mindset, maybe because they don’t have the inherited cultural wisdom to see the ultimately harmful effects of dividing the whole person. It’s tricky to counter because no one likes to criticise someone’s beliefs, especially when someone is trying to “connect with their spiritual side”, but it does open the door to what I would argue is unhealthy spirituality. There is a genuine risk that we go ‘out of the frying pan and into the fire’...

[Astra052]

I think that’s a possibility. However I also think places like China, and certainly India which I know better, are themselves becoming more materialist as a result of western culture. In some ways I think the west is maybe starting to become less materialist, whilst India is becoming more materialist (even though overall, the west is a lot further down the road).

That sounds about right. India has usually been about 15-25 years lag behind Western culture, but obviously that gap is closing with modern technology. I don't expect China to embrace idealism or religious outlook anytime soon. But materialism as a dominant metaphysical and scientific paradigm is on the way out for sure... the only question for me is what it takes with it on the way out and what replaces it.

Not that I think you're wrong but what makes you confident that materialism is on its way out? Is there anything concrete you could point to?

[AshvinP]

I think that’s a possibility. However I also think places like China, and certainly India which I know better, are themselves becoming more materialist as a result of western culture. In some ways I think the west is maybe starting to become less materialist, whilst India is becoming more materialist (even though overall, the west is a lot further down the road).

That sounds about right. India has usually been about 15-25 years lag behind Western culture, but obviously that gap is closing with modern technology. I don't expect China to embrace idealism or religious outlook anytime soon. But materialism as a dominant metaphysical and scientific paradigm is on the way out for sure... the only question for me is what it takes with it on the way out and what replaces it.

Not that I think you're wrong but what makes you confident that materialism is on its way out? Is there anything concrete you could point to?

If you mean like data or statistics, not really. I believe there are broad evolutionary forces at work which are steering the collective subconscious away from the materialist perspective, and we can see that reflected in all domains of human culture, i.e. art, literature, philosophy, STEM, politics, etc., throughout the 20th century and into the 21st. We can see scientists in certain fields like theoretical physics, AI research, and psychology seriously questioning whether materialist assumptions can do any more work within their fields than it already did, and modern technology is only going to continue making it easier for people to imagine idealist perspectives even if they are not made explicit for some time. Which doesn't necessarily mean it will be imagination in a positive direction, but certainly away from materialism.

[Astra052]

That sounds about right. India has usually been about 15-25 years lag behind Western culture, but obviously that gap is closing with modern technology. I don't expect China to embrace idealism or religious outlook anytime soon. But materialism as a dominant metaphysical and scientific paradigm is on the way out for sure... the only question for me is what it takes with it on the way out and what replaces it.

Not that I think you're wrong but what makes you confident that materialism is on its way out? Is there anything concrete you could point to?

If you mean like data or statistics, not really. I believe there are broad evolutionary forces at work which are steering the collective subconscious away from the materialist perspective, and we can see that reflected in all domains of human culture, i.e. art, literature, philosophy, STEM, politics, etc., throughout the 20th century and into the 21st. We can see scientists in certain fields like theoretical physics, AI research, and psychology seriously questioning whether materialist assumptions can do any more work within their fields than it already did, and modern technology is only going to continue making it easier for people to imagine idealist perspectives even if they are not made explicit for some time. Which doesn't necessarily mean it will be imagination in a positive direction, but certainly away from materialism.

I respect your views here but something that honestly worries me is the intermixing of spirituality with scientific proof for idealism. I'm all for spirituality but I feel like if we're going to provde idealism it has to be on its own scientific merits. It does kind of concern me that very few atheists seem to be swayed by idealism. I know you could say they are inherently biased but to me if you have to invoke things that aren't proven to back up a metaphysical viewpoint it lacks the evidential power to really succeed. It honestly seems like a lot of idealists are spiritual people interested in science who are trying to find something to validate their views. That's okay, I'm kind of in the same boat but at the same time I think the two should be seperated as much as possible. If we can't find convincing experimental data to back our view I find that very depressing. A change in the "collective unconscious" is a perfectly tenable viewpoint if you assume things like Jungian philosophy is true but I'm trying to go off as few assumptions as possible. I'm very hopeful that materialism will no longer be the standard viewpoint but it seems like a lot of people fighting against it are doing it more out of a commitment to a spiritual viewpoint than really being convinced by data. Hopefully I'm wrong.

[Simon Adams]

I respect your views here but something that honestly worries me is the intermixing of spirituality with scientific proof for idealism. I'm all for spirituality but I feel like if we're going to provde idealism it has to be on its own scientific merits. It does kind of concern me that very few atheists seem to be swayed by idealism. I know you could say they are inherently biased but to me if you have to invoke things that aren't proven to back up a metaphysical viewpoint it lacks the evidential power to really succeed. It honestly seems like a lot of idealists are spiritual people interested in science who are trying to find something to validate their views. That's okay, I'm kind of in the same boat but at the same time I think the two should be seperated as much as possible. If we can't find convincing experimental data to back our view I find that very depressing. A change in the "collective unconscious" is a perfectly tenable viewpoint if you assume things like Jungian philosophy is true but I'm trying to go off as few assumptions as possible. I'm very hopeful that materialism will no longer be the standard viewpoint but it seems like a lot of people fighting against it are doing it more out of a commitment to a spiritual viewpoint than really being convinced by data. Hopefully I'm wrong.

I have similar concerns about the mixing of different ways of knowing things, different epistemological frameworks. It’s a tricky one because as individuals we should have an integrated way of seeing ourselves and the world, but these really are different in terms of the way in which you establish how things are right or wrong. In spiritual things you can’t do experiments and try to falsify, instead you have the likes of discernment.

I don’t think anyone argues that these are three fundamentally different ways of knowing things;

Science
Philosophy/Humanities/Politics/Economics
Spiritual/Theology

I’m not denying art/music as important, but they are more expressing than knowing.

Mixing the first two runs the risk of ending with the same problem so many people get when they treat science as philosophy (scientism). Each of these ways of knowing should support and inform the others, but as soon as you mix them it becomes difficult to know what criteria to use to guide you to the right answer. This is a challenge I’ve been having here with so many different perspectives that cross these.

For me one thing I like about Bernardo’s way of framing idealism (apart from his clarity), is that he places it clearly in the philosophy camp, and uses multiple areas of science to inform the philosophy. He admittedly does venture into the spiritual/religious arena, and seems to have a fuzzier border between the philosophy and the spiritual/religious, but most of the time treats that as speculation.

I personally think that the idea you can have idealism-science or idealism-spirituality are both a category error.