Is it just me who is going through a lot of existential angst about idealism?

[Hedge90]

Honestly, even though at first idealism simply seemed like an interesting yet surprisingly logical ontology, the more I thought about it the more existential anxiety welled up in me. I'm at the point where I'd happily "convert" back to physicalism if I could still believe it to be true, which I cannot.
Do you experience any similar issues? If so, how do you cope?

[Martin_]

No. I don't. What is it, in this Idealism of yours, that is causing you angst, which isn't present in physicalism?

[Hedge90]

No. I don't. What is it, in this Idealism of yours, that is causing you angst, which isn't present in physicalism?

A lot of things. Firstly, the notion of eternal existence. This may seem strange, since most people would prefer for reincarnation/afterlife/heaven etc. to exist, but I have been terrified by the idea of eternity since I was a child. Final non-being seemed scary too, but way less.
Second, the notion that we will never be able to really understand the world. If nothing is really rooted in an underlying reality that is independent of consciousness, then you can never really be certain about anything.
Third, and somewhat on the previous note; until I thought physicalism to be the only reasonable explanation of reality, the notion of solipsism was out of the question. In idealism, it's not IMPOSSIBLE. I have more arguments against it than I can count, but it's still not something that can be conclusively refuted.

It just feels like I've lost all sense of certainty and feel disoriented and scared.

[lorenzop]

As I suggested in another thread, an ‘ism’ can only bring dread and angst if the ism is treated as real or as true.
Physicalism and Idealism are only model/explanations and can’t be true or false, they can only be (somewhat) useful.
Re being useful, the only standard is happiness.
Natural authentic inner happiness.
Happiness is the base from which do what is right naturally follows.
Re understanding the world - even the most wise are befuddled. However the wise know happiness is the purpose, happiness is the understanding you seek.
The good news is that everything you need to be happy, you already have-hint: it’s not an ism.

[AshvinP]

No. I don't. What is it, in this Idealism of yours, that is causing you angst, which isn't present in physicalism?

A lot of things. Firstly, the notion of eternal existence. This may seem strange, since most people would prefer for reincarnation/afterlife/heaven etc. to exist, but I have been terrified by the idea of eternity since I was a child. Final non-being seemed scary too, but way less.
Second, the notion that we will never be able to really understand the world. If nothing is really rooted in an underlying reality that is independent of consciousness, then you can never really be certain about anything.
Third, and somewhat on the previous note; until I thought physicalism to be the only reasonable explanation of reality, the notion of solipsism was out of the question. In idealism, it's not IMPOSSIBLE. I have more arguments against it than I can count, but it's still not something that can be conclusively refuted.

It just feels like I've lost all sense of certainty and feel disoriented and scared.

Honestly, it sounds to me like you are lost in abstractions of "consciousness", "idea", etc. rather than perceiving their more living essence. The tyranny of abstraction is real and the inevitable nihilism as well, which you also pointed out in BK's recent writings. Moreover, spiritual experience by itself, via psychedelics or meditation, won't bring abstractions back to life. Once you return to normal waking cognition, you are left with the same abstractions and now even more abstractions in the form of those spiritual experiences. Keep in mind, "abstraction" relates to how we perceive and cognize ideas at any given time from our localized first-person perspective, not to the essence of those ideas. This is why we stress qualitative thinking rooted in a living logic. This is what gives the abstractions new life. We don't need to eliminate or abandon "idealism", "eternity", or whatever else, but only to redeem them in and through our own higher thinking.

[Hedge90]

No. I don't. What is it, in this Idealism of yours, that is causing you angst, which isn't present in physicalism?

A lot of things. Firstly, the notion of eternal existence. This may seem strange, since most people would prefer for reincarnation/afterlife/heaven etc. to exist, but I have been terrified by the idea of eternity since I was a child. Final non-being seemed scary too, but way less.
Second, the notion that we will never be able to really understand the world. If nothing is really rooted in an underlying reality that is independent of consciousness, then you can never really be certain about anything.
Third, and somewhat on the previous note; until I thought physicalism to be the only reasonable explanation of reality, the notion of solipsism was out of the question. In idealism, it's not IMPOSSIBLE. I have more arguments against it than I can count, but it's still not something that can be conclusively refuted.

It just feels like I've lost all sense of certainty and feel disoriented and scared.

Honestly, it sounds to me like you are lost in abstractions of "consciousness", "idea", etc. rather than perceiving their more living essence. The tyranny of abstraction is real and the inevitable nihilism as well, which you also pointed out in BK's recent writings. Moreover, spiritual experience by itself, via psychedelics or meditation, won't bring abstractions back to life. Once you return to normal waking cognition, you are left with the same abstractions and now even more abstractions in the form of those spiritual experiences. Keep in mind, "abstraction" relates to how we perceive and cognize ideas at any given time from our localized first-person perspective, not to the essence of those ideas. This is why we stress qualitative thinking rooted in a living logic. This is what gives the abstractions new life. We don't need to eliminate or abandon "idealism", "eternity", or whatever else, but only to redeem them in and through our own higher thinking.

I'm sorry Ashvin, but I never seem to be able to understand what IN PRACTICE these things, like "redeeming XY through higher thinking", and "qualitative thinking rooted in a living logic" mean. I read the words and they don't mean anything to me.

[Ben Iscatus]

I'm sorry Ashvin, but I never seem to be able to understand what IN PRACTICE these things, like "redeeming XY through higher thinking", and "qualitative thinking rooted in a living logic" mean. I read the words and they don't mean anything to me.

Everybody has this problem! It's such slippery, abstract language - nothing concrete there at all! Maybe Dana can reword for us?

[Soul_of_Shu]

Honestly, even though at first idealism simply seemed like an interesting yet surprisingly logical ontology, the more I thought about it the more existential anxiety welled up in me. I'm at the point where I'd happily "convert" back to physicalism if I could still believe it to be true, which I cannot.
Do you experience any similar issues? If so, how do you cope?

Following BK on Twitter aside , I can't say I feel much angst at all while focused on that which is never thought up.

[AshvinP]

A lot of things. Firstly, the notion of eternal existence. This may seem strange, since most people would prefer for reincarnation/afterlife/heaven etc. to exist, but I have been terrified by the idea of eternity since I was a child. Final non-being seemed scary too, but way less.
Second, the notion that we will never be able to really understand the world. If nothing is really rooted in an underlying reality that is independent of consciousness, then you can never really be certain about anything.
Third, and somewhat on the previous note; until I thought physicalism to be the only reasonable explanation of reality, the notion of solipsism was out of the question. In idealism, it's not IMPOSSIBLE. I have more arguments against it than I can count, but it's still not something that can be conclusively refuted.

It just feels like I've lost all sense of certainty and feel disoriented and scared.

Honestly, it sounds to me like you are lost in abstractions of "consciousness", "idea", etc. rather than perceiving their more living essence. The tyranny of abstraction is real and the inevitable nihilism as well, which you also pointed out in BK's recent writings. Moreover, spiritual experience by itself, via psychedelics or meditation, won't bring abstractions back to life. Once you return to normal waking cognition, you are left with the same abstractions and now even more abstractions in the form of those spiritual experiences. Keep in mind, "abstraction" relates to how we perceive and cognize ideas at any given time from our localized first-person perspective, not to the essence of those ideas. This is why we stress qualitative thinking rooted in a living logic. This is what gives the abstractions new life. We don't need to eliminate or abandon "idealism", "eternity", or whatever else, but only to redeem them in and through our own higher thinking.

I'm sorry Ashvin, but I never seem to be able to understand what IN PRACTICE these things, like "redeeming XY through higher thinking", and "qualitative thinking rooted in a living logic" mean. I read the words and they don't mean anything to me.

In practice, it manifests as humility, "the only true Wisdom is in knowing you know nothing", genuine desire for higher knowledge, and thoughtful contemplation of the reasons underlying our inner experiences and outer forms of the world. The first step is the hardest. The intellectual ego always wants to feel in control over its own experience, i.e. desires, feelings, and thoughts. I have been writing about this in a new essay, so I will just quote an exerpt here.

Next time you are in the shower, or wherever you spend time to think alone without too much sensory stimulation, try to observe how your thoughts were arising and flitting around over the last few minutes, jumping from one topic to another in an erratic manner. If it even occurs for us to reflect in this manner, which most certainly does not happen unless someone has recently suggested it to us, we will get a sense of how little control we had over our thoughts.

Many have argued this subconscious steering of the rationalizing intellect then exposes humanity's fundamentally machine-like nature, since we can only think in these deterministic loops. We assume we are making "free" choices because we are simply unaware of how 'oppressive' forces are always compelling our thoughts. Whether those forces are conceived as purely material or ideal or some combination, most thinkers who have overcome basic rationalism have fallen into this other polarized understanding of what is happening. Spinoza famously illustrated this conclusion by analogizing the thinking human being to a stone which has become conscious of its own movement:

"Now, please, suppose that this stone during its motion thinks and knows that it is striving to the best of its ability to continue in motion. This stone, which is conscious only of its striving and is by no means indifferent, will believe that it is absolutely free, and that it continues in motion for no other reason than its own will to continue. But this is just the human freedom that everybody claims to possess and which consists in nothing but this, that men are conscious of their desires, but ignorant of the causes by which they are determined. Thus the child believes that he desires milk of his own free will, the angry boy regards his desire for vengeance as free, and the coward his desire for flight." - Baruch Spinoza

The flaw in this argument is very simple - the rational intellect has fortified its own supremacy under the guise of 'criticizing' itself. It assumes its own state of incomplete knowledge is the highest possible capacity of human reasoning, for all people and for our entire adult life. In that process, the intellect has also flattened out the spectrum of knowledge which a human being could possess. We can, in reality, reason our way to awareness of, not only our own actions at any given time, but also the underlying reasons for those actions. Does a motive for an action which I am unaware of exert the exact same compulsion on me as the motive I have become aware of? Is the child who compulsively desires milk the exact same as the adult who has perceived why he compulsively desires alcohol?
...
After a few centuries, this assumption [that human reason cannot penetrate into deeper layers of meaning] is completely untenable. Even in this meager essay, we are reaching analogies which consistently marry phenomenon with nounenon in their shared inner meaning.

As we continue our own inquiry, then, we will be more self-aware of what we are doing. The reading and writing of this essay is simply a means of exploring reasons why our normal intellectual thinking circles around in the loops that it does. All of the reasoning about polarities, dimensions, etc. is a way to perceive, in broad outline, how humanity arrived to its current cognitive condition and what that might suggest about the path forward. We are unearthing some portion, however limited at first, of the influences we are normally unaware of when thinking about the world. The more man knows thyself, the more he also knows the Cosmos as a whole. Even more importantly, though, it is a means of living in the logic which in-forms all the world's perceptual content. The concepts we discuss and conclusions we form are not nearly as important as consciously participating within the process that forms them. That process is the Logos principle which permeates all thinking and thought. It is the self-sacrificial thinking which dies to itself so that we may be self-aware of the meaning we experience and could potentially experience. If we simply keep that grace in mind and heart, then the discussion will have more living meaning for us; more freeing potential.

There is more related discussion and I hope to have the essay posted within a few days. A major way in which the intellectual ego invents narratives for itself is the narrative of, "I can't understand what all this philosophical and spiritual language means, it sounds like people just strung together a bunch of words that don't really mean anyting." Yes, if we suddenly show up in China without speaking any Chinese, then it will sound as if most people are incomprehensible. But we know the people are not fundamentally incomprehensible, and it is we who have chosen to dwell in a place where we don't yet understand the semantics of the language. Everything is non-sense until we choose to make sense of it. This is inconvenient for the intellectual ego, but demanded by our higher Self. Learning the meaning of philosophy of Thinking is much easier than learning Chinese, because it's actually a move back to the original inner experience from which all modern prosaic language was born and abstracted from, to inner experience of our spiritual activity which we all have immanent access to.

In the meantime, I also highly recommend people who genuinely want to understand these things more to revisit, or visit for the first time, Cleric's original essay here, "Man, Know Thyself".

[tjssailor]

Honestly, even though at first idealism simply seemed like an interesting yet surprisingly logical ontology, the more I thought about it the more existential anxiety welled up in me. I'm at the point where I'd happily "convert" back to physicalism if I could still believe it to be true, which I cannot.
Do you experience any similar issues? If so, how do you cope?

For me annihilation was the most horrifying prospect leading to panic attacks and terrible anxiety. All loss of meaning. The realization that I'm not an individual and consciousness is not being created by my brain brought some relief. In the end it's just awakening to your true nature so there is nothing to fear.

I suggest you immerse yourself in the experiential, NDEs. mystic experiences, etc. The more of those you absorb the better you will probably feel.