How Bernardo's Theory Deals with Logical Challenges to Idealism
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 5:20 pm
Can anyone point me to a discussion or paper that explains how Bernardo's theory deals with the two main historical challenges to idealism? Bernardo's criticism of materialism is certainly spot on, and nowadays with quantum physics perhaps irrefutable. But it seems like idealism has a longstanding problem of connecting the Ideal, One, Form, or Will--whatever you want to call it--to everyday reality and vice versa. Wasn't that Aristotle's primary criticism of Plato's forms?
And then, idealism never really explains where the Ideal, or what Bernardo following Schopenhauer might label the Will, comes from. Is such an idealist Primitive not also suggesting an even deeper, perhaps ineffable reality? If so, is this Idea or One Mind really all that can be said to exist? The answer of course need not be an independent "god" as in popular Christianity, but could be something like an ultimate Emptiness as in Taoism and Zen Buddhism, or perhaps labelled as an ultimate Consciousness sans cognition as in Hinduism (though Consciousness again might connote "a thing").
For this second challenge, one could perhaps say that the Ideal, or Mind, always entails an unfathomable Emptiness, or that Consciousness is what Emptiness looks like from the perspective of a transcendent Cognition, and in discourse Emptiness must be referred to somehow. The former conclusion, however, wrongly leaves the focus on the Ideal, or Mind, while the latter conclusion albeit helpful in appreciating ultimate reality also defines ultimate reality from the perspective of what it is not--the Mind, or Matter as may occur in Hinduism. Would it be best to characterize ultimate reality simply as unfathomable Emptiness, Darkness, or Void, without any meaningful opposition?
For the first challenge of relating the Ideal to the real as in manifest reality, it seems like there is no way of doing so except through a central property like the YinYang, which can be both one and two. In a complementary state, the YinYang becomes One, while in a discordant condition, the YinYang is necessarily two—what Bernardo might regard as dissociation. An important distinction between this subtle property and the dialectic in idealism is that a person’s natural state is positive—something akin to flow, and human beings are constantly evolving towards a higher state of flow.
In other words, life is not a matter of simply transcending the suffering that comes with contradiction, though meditating on paradoxical koans might lead to such a peaceful spaciousness. Instead, life is about according with the Middle Way. Such harmony, moreover, is available to society writ large, not just to a few enlightened individuals. It may even be the key to true social progress. Anyway, it would be a delight to hear any insights the forum may have on these two issues.
And then, idealism never really explains where the Ideal, or what Bernardo following Schopenhauer might label the Will, comes from. Is such an idealist Primitive not also suggesting an even deeper, perhaps ineffable reality? If so, is this Idea or One Mind really all that can be said to exist? The answer of course need not be an independent "god" as in popular Christianity, but could be something like an ultimate Emptiness as in Taoism and Zen Buddhism, or perhaps labelled as an ultimate Consciousness sans cognition as in Hinduism (though Consciousness again might connote "a thing").
For this second challenge, one could perhaps say that the Ideal, or Mind, always entails an unfathomable Emptiness, or that Consciousness is what Emptiness looks like from the perspective of a transcendent Cognition, and in discourse Emptiness must be referred to somehow. The former conclusion, however, wrongly leaves the focus on the Ideal, or Mind, while the latter conclusion albeit helpful in appreciating ultimate reality also defines ultimate reality from the perspective of what it is not--the Mind, or Matter as may occur in Hinduism. Would it be best to characterize ultimate reality simply as unfathomable Emptiness, Darkness, or Void, without any meaningful opposition?
For the first challenge of relating the Ideal to the real as in manifest reality, it seems like there is no way of doing so except through a central property like the YinYang, which can be both one and two. In a complementary state, the YinYang becomes One, while in a discordant condition, the YinYang is necessarily two—what Bernardo might regard as dissociation. An important distinction between this subtle property and the dialectic in idealism is that a person’s natural state is positive—something akin to flow, and human beings are constantly evolving towards a higher state of flow.
In other words, life is not a matter of simply transcending the suffering that comes with contradiction, though meditating on paradoxical koans might lead to such a peaceful spaciousness. Instead, life is about according with the Middle Way. Such harmony, moreover, is available to society writ large, not just to a few enlightened individuals. It may even be the key to true social progress. Anyway, it would be a delight to hear any insights the forum may have on these two issues.