Long term effects of Idealism

[ClausMetzner]

Maybe you have discussed this topic before (in this case please point me to the corresponding thread of the old forum), but what do you think would be some of the expected long term effects of an Idealist worldview ? How might the world change within the next 100 years, if a majority of the human population would 'convert' to a modern (science-informed) version of Idealism ?

PS: My first impression of the new forum is quite good !

[ScottRoberts]

I doubt that a majority would convert to idealism per se, but I think it possible that religious/spiritual attitudes could change in a way that would have major longterm effects. For example, what if most people come to accept such post-mortem scenarios that are described in Michael Newton's Journey of Souls and similar works. The notions that one's physical life is to some degree planned in advance, that we are just extensions into physicality of a "greater self", and so forth. What would it would be like if all our thoughts and actions were done with the presupposition that "we are all bozos on this bus" (h/t The Firesign Theater)? Of course, traditional religions have been saying this (e.g., Original Sin, Maya) for millennia, but what if most everybody took a modernized version of this seriously? I think the longterm effects would be profound.

[findingblanks]

I think the only thing that will really make a difference is the 'engine' behind whatever metaphysic a person explicitly references as what they 'believe in.' That said, various expressions of Idealism will undoubtedly be absorbed by people who's 'engine' is more aligned with their explicit structure. I think it is easy to conflate cause and effect when it comes to the role that a metaphysical system plays in a person living a creative and deeply heart-felt life. But that's okay because, fortunately, huge and significant things take place on Earth by incredibly good humans who make widely disparate metaphysical claims. That gives me great hope.

[Martin_]

I think the field of Psychology would look very different.

Their models would be very different.
And the type of neuroses that the clinical pshychologists deal with on a daily basis would change.
A lot of new issues would surface:
(Think "trip-psychosis" and extrapolate from there)
And a lot of old issues would disappear.

[findingblanks]

Good points. And I imagine that in a future in which psychology presupposed idealism, we'd see the same kinds of differences in coding and categorizing and the same kinds (not in terms of content, obviously) of passionate disagreements as to what constitutes pathology and causes.

[Robert Arvay]

C. S. Lewis once made an analogy between a person's worldview and a map.
Your worldview is your map, by which you make life decisions.
The more accurate your map, the fewer wrong turns you will make in your
journey through life.

He was a Christian philosopher, and as such, IMO recognized that
Christianity is one of the Idealist world views.

Needless to say, Christians themselves often violate their creeds, ignoring their map.
If, however, we begin with the aboriginal tribal rule, that one may never conduct
warfare against anyone who worships the same god as "we" do, then by expanding
that proscription, we will all benefit.

Of course I could be wrong.
.

[findingblanks]

My experience, so far, tells me that most good people aren't very good at understanding their moral intuitions. This is probably as it should be if you think about it. My atheisist friends who live selfless and compassionate lives all have different ways of speaking why they act as they do and what grounds their values. My Christian friends have their model of explanation and all in between. However, when you are looking at one of these people while they are in the midst of experiencing compassion, you can see in their faces that something is going on that utterly transcends the inner pictures and words and models they will later say are grounding it. This gives me great hope in that the deeply good and moral impulses don't seem to rely on our temporary inner frameworks as much as on higher levels of cognition/feeling. And, yes, I also can see why the 'leaders' of any given framework genuinely feel that the world NEEDS their framework if it is to get out of this mess we've been getting ourselves into for many thousands of years.

[AshvinP]

C. S. Lewis once made an analogy between a person's worldview and a map.
Your worldview is your map, by which you make life decisions.
The more accurate your map, the fewer wrong turns you will make in your
journey through life.

He was a Christian philosopher, and as such, IMO recognized that
Christianity is one of the Idealist world views.

Needless to say, Christians themselves often violate their creeds, ignoring their map.
If, however, we begin with the aboriginal tribal rule, that one may never conduct
warfare against anyone who worships the same god as "we" do, then by expanding
that proscription, we will all benefit.

Of course I could be wrong.
.

It appears to me the Christian 'rule' is that we may never conduct warfare against anyone based on their beliefs, or anything else short of an imminent and serious threat to our own survival. No doubt that rule has been violated by countless people in the name of Christianity, but we do not judge ethical principles by how often they are violated. I agree that Christianity only makes sense from an idealist perspective, and idealism makes construction of the map equivalent to exploration of the territory.

[SanteriSatama]

It appears to me the Christian 'rule' is that we may never conduct warfare against anyone based on their beliefs, or anything else short of an imminent and serious threat to our own survival. No doubt that rule has been violated by countless people in the name of Christianity, but we do not judge ethical principles by how often they are violated. I agree that Christianity only makes sense from an idealist perspective, and idealism makes construction of the map equivalent to exploration of the territory.

"You know a tree by it's fruits...". Of course Christianity is not a uniform phenomenon, there's big difference between early church vs state religion of Rome, and various sects thereafter.

[AshvinP]

It appears to me the Christian 'rule' is that we may never conduct warfare against anyone based on their beliefs, or anything else short of an imminent and serious threat to our own survival. No doubt that rule has been violated by countless people in the name of Christianity, but we do not judge ethical principles by how often they are violated. I agree that Christianity only makes sense from an idealist perspective, and idealism makes construction of the map equivalent to exploration of the territory.

"You know a tree by it's fruits...". Of course Christianity is not a uniform phenomenon, there's big difference between early church vs state religion of Rome, and various sects thereafter.

And neither is Roman Catholicism a uniform phenomenon. We could sit here adding and subtracting all the fruits, or just recognize the ethical principle can be distinguished from the people who claim to believe it.