The question should not be : "who cares that it is all mind?"The_Soft_Parade wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:26 pm I'm not sure if there is a question here or if I'm going to articulate this in a way to clearly get my point across, but I will try.
"What good is Idealism for society? Who cares that it is all mind."
"I don't need God or Idealism to be a moral and good person."
"Truth is relative. It's all made up. a social construct."
"Once wealth is redistributed equally, all people have the same opportunities, this or that political party in power, then life will be good. Ontology does not matter."
"There is no truth and it doesn't matter because collectively we can build a just society. We don't need any of that nonsense. Look at me! I'm an atheist and I am a good morally person that donates to charities etc.."
"Life has no meaning."
I don't feel like I am exaggerating either. 99% of the people I speak to or see online are only concerned with redistribution of power and resources. There is no talk about philosophy, ontology or metaphysics. And when challenged, they just say I don't need any of that in order to be morally good and society does not need that either. Talks about ontology or metaphysics are usually pinned as cultural appropriation, spiritual bypassing, or savior complex.
I know we can talk about materialism being devoid of meaning, but people don't seem to care. Especially young people. They don't care about life having meaning, they just care about people being treated equally, resources being divided equally, taxing the rich, etc..
Not saying these are bad things (on the contrary!), but it seems futile to have meaningful conversations about change in ontology.
This seems to be the majority of people. How are we to have meaningful conversations?!
It should be: "what happens when life is lived under the assumption that separation is only nominal, and we ARE that one mind?"
The former is just a philosophical stance that is potentially quite abstract and disconnected.
As Bernardo often says, :"The mind is the bouncer of the heart", so for some people those speculations may open them to the latter, more significant question. Note this question is rhetorical and experiential. It is not a stance, but the end of all stances.
The people who focus on equality, and slicing up the material realm into even parts are just like all of us: They want happiness, peace, and actualisation.
All they ultimately want is to dive into the second question, and when they are ready some of them may need to ask the first question. Others will get there by a completely different route.