Sorry, I am late getting round to replying to you because I started at the bottom of replies. — Jack Cummins

No apologies necessary. I much too often fail to respond to others who merit a response, to judge anyone for that. Off the top of my head, I can think of recent posts from @Tom Storm, @Patterner, @schopenhauer1, and @Joshs that I have wanted to respond to, but haven't gotten around to.

However, your question is important. It does seem that materialism and realism have become fashionable. This is connected to the rise of science as at the centre of philosophy, with philosophy almost being seen as an appendix.

The rise of materialim may also be related to popular philosophy, especially thinkers like Daniel Dennett and his notion of consciousness as an illusion. But, fashions change and who knows what will come next? — Jack Cummins

I guess I don't see scientific understanding as so much a matter of fashion, and the direction that things are likely to take in philosophy of mind, to be so mysterious.

I see Dennett as someone who recognized the importance of science to understanding what we are, and as someone who has contributed substantially to philosophical thought on our natures as a result of his efforts at understanding, where the science he was apprised of was pointing.

:up:

The view that ideas 'a product of the mind' is open to question, as it is hard to where they come from...
..themes exist as universal constructs, possibly as independent ideas in themselves, — Jack Cummins

No one has had an idea that isn't tethered to his perception, beliefs, and experiences. We can't give a scientific account of the process of creating an idea, but it seems a product of abstract reasoning and pattern recognition. Even seeing a simple pattern is an idea.

Are you suggesting all ideas exist as "universal constructs" before they appear in a human mind? How then, do they get in the mind? Doesn't this mean they existed 100 years after the big bang, and they would have existed even if evolution hadn't taken the accidental course that led to our existence? Suppose there exist intelligent beings (e.g.Tralfamadorians) elsewhere in the universe; do the Tralfamadorians capture the same set of ideas as do we? IMO, this raises more issues than the alternative.

It is hard to know how ideas are constructed, in brains and beyond. There is inner and outer aspects of experience and the interface between this is important. It may come down to the issue as to whether the intersubjectivity of ideas is purely about transmission or more than this an independent realm.

The article on 'metaphysical imagination' was interesting and I have seen the phrase in a few different contexts. My own working conception of it is about it being less abstract than conventional metaphysics. It would involve not simply philosophers but a multidisciplinary approach from the sciences, arts and field such as anthropology.

The reason why I introduced the term psychosis, was not just due to my own query about my stress and confusion. It was also because I began reading a couple of books in my pile about the thinking of Lacan. He talks about the concept of 'psychosis' and makes connections between psychoanalysis and philosophy in doing so. However, I am still reading the couple of books, so I probably dived in too quickly.

Sometimes, my lack of clarity may be as a result of reading too many books at the same time. If my thread is still active when I have finished I may be able to add them in more fully. Of course, if anyone else has read in this area it may be possible for them to comment but Lacan is complex. I tried reading his own writing on psychosis while I was working in mental health care, but got a bit stuck. Of course, there are online summaries, but I am more of a book reader. Also, the more I research online, the more I come across extra writings which I need to explore ideally. The forum is good in that respect because it allows for collaboration.

Pattern recognition is useful for thinking about ideas and creativity, especially the generation of original ideas. It may be an evolutionary process.

It is interesting to wonder if the Platonic realm of ideas existed before the 'Big Bang' or birth of the universe. Even though he did consider history in this way, it would make sense to see the forms as being outside the dimensions of space and time. Of course, it is questionable whether time itself exists outside of space and time, because the physical nature of reality may not have existed before the 'Big Bang'. That is unless ideas exist an eternal realm, which may be how many ancient, especially esoteric thinkers held in idealist world views.

I am not completely critical of Dennett as I found some of his writing to be readable and useful for thinking about. His ideas on the origins of language seem important. I guess that it was his idea of consciousness as an illusion that I found too reductive. His philosophy probably followed on from behaviorism, especially the work of BF Skinner, which is significant for philosophy as well as psychology. Such philosophy systems are bound up with determinism.

The author of the paper you linked to writes

…justified belief aims at truth, not imaginative capacity, or understanding. If we focus too much on having justified beliefs, it is harder for us to suspend disbelief and try to inhabit views that we don’t believe.

Thinking of metaphysics this way as split off from empirical truth perpetuates a dualism between ideas and reality, the physical and the metaphysical. The philosophers I follow don’t treat the metaphysical as ‘imaginative capacity’, but as the plumbing undergirding the intelligibility of a true belief. — Joshs

OK. Update: I started reading the article, then started skimming, then stopped. Confused and bemused.
I have sympathy with the view that imagination is central to understanding no matter what kind of 'truth' is involved. This involves a willingness to investigate other ways of thinking - to come in closer to an other's perspective or 'world'. Are some people more capable of this than others? Creatives in any field?

I didn't read the author as trying to separate ideas and reality. But to see the value in describing metaphysics as being like art rather than science. Views or ideas are developed or generated by imagination. But this also includes what is experienced. It's a combination. But there is a high chance of me not having understood a word!

As to the 'intelligibility of a true belief' - is this about understanding what someone truly believes? How can this be known? It seems that engaging in this might mean putting aside self, or pulling aside our own blinkers, all the better to see/hear/sense an other. Is that what you meant by 'plumbing'? To clear the blockages in pipes? Or is it more a processing system or conceptual structures...

Your chosen quote comes at the conclusion of the article:

Metaphysics as Essentially Imaginative and Aiming at Understanding
Michaela Markham McSweeney
Abstract: I explore the view that metaphysics is essentially imaginative. I argue that
the central goal of metaphysics on this view is understanding, not truth. Metaphysicsas-essentially-imaginative provides novel answers to challenges to both the value and epistemic status of metaphysics.

[...]
There are other things that matter besides truth. Imagination is both intrinsically and instrumentally (in part because it can lead to understanding) valuable. Understanding is an important goal of certain kinds of inquiry. On the metaphysics-as-essentially-imaginative view, both imagination and understanding are central to what metaphysics is for. But justified belief aims at truth, not imaginative capacity, or understanding. If we focus too much on having justified beliefs, it is harder for us to suspend disbelief and try to inhabit views that we don’t believe. And there is value in doing so.

I've encountered theists who are "proposition-realists" - meaning that they believe all true propositions that could possibly be articulated, exist timelessly in the mind of God. This would include any idea that a person might develop and articulate. This seems coherent, but it depends on the premise that such a God exists.

Thanks for further clarification. Even if we all end up in a tangled web of confusion...it's fun, innit?! Well...hmm...sometimes :wink:

It is hard to know how ideas are constructed, in brains and beyond. — Jack Cummins

It seems fairly clear that the brain constructs conscious awareness, which in turn, can be about ideas, regardless of whether they're constructed, discovered, mind-dependent or independent, subjective, objective, intersubjective etc.

I don't know of a good reason to believe that there's a dependency relation between the brain and the ideas that one thinks of (disregarding the obsessive etc).

There is inner and outer aspects of experience and the interface between this is important. — Jack Cummins

The assumption that there are inner and outer aspects of experience is what makes it seem hard. Berkeley understood correctly that there is no way to make sense of such a relation. Therefore, he ditched the outer aspect of experience. Kant tried to reconcile the two within an ontology of conceptual schemes.

Naive realism, however, is the assumption that experiences are direct. Problem solved!

'Metaphysical Imagination' - what do you think it is? How have you used it?
In the meantime, I found this: https://philarchive.org/archive/MCSMAE — Amity

Wonderful find! :up:

That really resonated with a lot of my thinking. I especially appreciated the contrast of understanding with truth.

Glad you enjoyed. I just typed in 'metaphysical imagination' et voilà :cool:

It wasn't exactly what I was looking for. Convoluted theories give me a headache.
There's plenty out there relating truth to understanding to interpretation. I wanted something I could get my teeth into, a bit more 'arty' and relatable as it were...

I haven't read all of this but it seems to tick a few boxes - with downloadable pdf:

“Landscape and the Metaphysical Imagination”
Hepburn, Ronald W. | from Multimedia Library Collection: Environmental Values (journal)
Hepburn, Ronald W. “Landscape and the Metaphysical Imagination.” Environmental Values 5, no. 3 (1996): 191–204. doi:10.3197/096327196776679320.

Aesthetic appreciation of landscape is by no means limited to the sensuous enjoyment of sights and sounds. It very often has a reflective, cognitive element as well. This sometimes incorporates scientific knowledge, e.g.,geological or ecological; but it can also manifest what this article will call “metaphysical imagination,” which sees or seems to see in a landscape some indication, some disclosure of how the world ultimately is. The article explores and critically appraises this concept of metaphysical imagination, and some of the roles it can play in our aesthetic encounters. (Source: The White Horse Press) — Environment and Society - Landscape and the Metaphysical Imagination

On p4/15 the question is posed: Why should metaphysical imagination be underacknowledged today? and then gives the answer as 'embarrassment'. Because it might be seen as a religious experience, lacking rational support. Other strands are explored like truth and the scientific understanding of nature.
So far, I find this thought-provoking, and easy to read in quite an old-fashioned style.
More about the author, here:

Ronnie worked alongside Donald MacKinnon and Antony Flew, both serving as important, early mentors. Other thinkers he often turned to included Kant, Marcel, and Otto. This dynamic set of influences shaped a philosophical approach which insisted upon a dialectic between perception and theory, phenomenology and analytic method, where each would be at hand to question and sometimes undermine the other.
Ronnie was wary of fixed positions, and often preferred a critical metaphysical outlook which sometimes put him at odds with other philosophers. In his exploration of the links and boundaries between the aesthetic, moral and religious, his attention was drawn to wonder, the contemplative stance, imagination, the sublime, freedom, respect for nature, and the sacred. Ronnie brought this distinctive approach together with autobiography, narrative and the shaping of the ethical life to challenge moral philosophy’s preoccupation with rules and principles in his paper ‘Vision and Choice in Morality’, his contribution to an Aristotelian Society-Mind Association symposium with Iris Murdoch in 1956. — British Aesthetics - Ronald W. Hepburn

***

That really resonated with a lot of my thinking. — wonderer1

Care to expand? Any examples of how metaphysical imagination is used?

I am not sure that using the term 'thing' introduces any further clarity than the word 'reality'. When you say that the topic is verbal, I would argue that a lot of it comes down to language and its limits, as Wittgenstein suggested as constituting the 'limits of one's world'. — Jack Cummins

You can substitute "thing" for "phenomenon" or "act" or even "realization". The issue here is that we have ideas - quite clearly. What is gained by asking how "real" these ideas are? In distinction to what, or what's the alternative view that renders ideas to be problematic?

Also, I am aware that substance dualism is far less dualistic, but even that involves interpretation. That is why I go back to the initial issue, asked by Berkley, as to whether ideas are mind-dependent. I am also aware of the relevance of the perspective of phenomenology. But, even that doesn't explain consciousness itself and whether that is the source of both what is termed as mind and matter in the dualistic split of human thinking. — Jack Cummins

I am not following. Who has claimed that ideas are not mind-independent? If you could point out that person, I may be better able to follow.

I only ask that someone tell me what property or aspect in matter renders "thinking" impossible. I have not seen a convincing reply yet. But I could be missing something.

Care to expand? Any examples of how metaphysical imagination is used? — Amity

At the moment, the things which come readily to mind are either mind-numbingly technical, or more personal than I feel comfortable talking about on the forum. Let me allow the question to rattle around in my subconscious for a bit, and we'll see what comes out.

OK. Later... :sparkle:

I am wondering if we are speaking at cross purposes somehow. It is not that I fear ideas are being dismissed. They are certainly taken seriously on the forum. My original motive for writing the thread is a genuine interest in the debate between idealism and materialism, or realism. I see it as complex because there is a level at which ideas are constructs in the brain and in social systems.

However, idealism does have some potential for serious consideration. That is because consciousness may be an intrinsic feature of the development of life's evolution and, not simply a by-product.

Ah. That old debate.

I can say my usual spiel, but I fear I may have discussed it too much already. In a sentence: There is good evidence to believe that Newton showed that we have no intelligible concept of "body" or matter so the distinction between mind and matter cannot be sensibly posed anymore.

I do see naive realism as being a problem. Also, the conjoined experience of outer and inner aspects of human experience can make it extremely difficult to put together. We function on both levels and with an angle of thinking about other minds and their inner aspects. It is like weaving inside and outside, in thinking alone and connecting with others, who also have inner lives.

Quantum physics challenges the perspective of both Newton and Descartes.I am certainly not a physicist but from my reading of it, in connection with philosophy, quantum entanglement may be important in the relationship between mind/matter. Physics may have stepped into the ground covered by metaphysics previously. Of course, physics does involve philosophical speculation and interpretation to a large extent. It is far from being simply description of facts.

Quantum physics merely makes Newton's observations much more evident; Newton (nor Locke and Hume and Priestley) could not understand gravity. We don't understand gravity. We understand quantum physics even less.

But the topic I think, should not be prima facie too difficult. One should state what matter is and why is cannot include mental stuff, or the opposite.

If this can be done, then we can proceed. If not, then the issue seems to lack clarity, it is a proposition posed in a question-like format, but it has no answer.

This is done to avoid Descartes formulation of the problem, which most people don't accept in the manner he did at his time. Of course, in his time it made sense to be a dualist.

What does it mean to say ideas are surreal? I haven't really been able to work out what you are asking exactly. Maybe I've missed something.

The term 'surreal' in my updated title is a way of seeing ideas and symbols as being a potential shift from metaphysics as absolutes, to the scope of a tentative notion of the metaphysical imagination. — Jack Cummins

I'm not sure what this means. Aren't all ideas humans hold tentative, even scientific ideas? Science is like a history of discarded ideas.

For something to be surreal, it needs to be bizarre and in conflict with ordinary reality (like a hallucination or dream). Are ideas like this?

I have to confess that I changed my title after @Manuels first post querying my use of the word 'real'. I changed my title from 'How 'Real' Are Ideas', replacing the Real to Surreal. It was a bit of an attempt at a language game.

The thread was intended to explore the debate over idealism, but with reference to semantics. The idea of the surreal was meant to point back to the idea of life as a dream. This was an obscure reference to the view of life as a dream, captured in the Hindu concept 'maya'.

My use of the word surreal was also a reference to the movement of surrealism as an the art movement. The movement does draw upon psychoanalysis and the hallucinatory nature of perception. Salvador Dali is probably the most known artist and the surrealist writers did talk of the absurd, fantastic and bizarre aspects of life. I am sorry if what I wrote was too obscure. It probably also follows on from my interest in trajedy and pleasure; from an arts based perspective on philosophy, in that previous thread.

Thanks for clarifying. I’m certainly familiar with the art movement.

The thread was intended to explore the debate over idealism, but with reference to semantics. — Jack Cummins

What "debate"? You haven't even stated the proposition in contention we're supposed to either be for (thesis) or against (antithesis). Please clarify ...

The idea of the surreal was meant to point back to the idea of life as a dream. This was an obscure reference to the view of life as a dream, captured in the Hindu concept 'maya'.

Dreamt by whom/what – isn't the dreamer more than a "dream" – or is "life just a dream" within a dream within a dream ... all the way down? And, besides, what existential-pragmatic-ethical difference does it make, Jack, if metaphysically (according to some ancient tradition) "all is maya"?

What "debate"? You haven't even stated the proposition in contention we're supposed to either be for (thesis) or against (antithesis). Please clarify ... — 180 Proof

:100:

Of course, it does depend whether one sees philosophy all about clear 'black and white' positions. However, I do believe there is some underlying debatable position, which is the validity of idealism. With the concept of 'maya', or life being a dream, it is about all material objects and events being temporary. The dreamer is the ego, taking all that happens so seriously.

That is not dismiss learning events and morality as life is embodied, involving dramas of sentient beings. When reducing the thread topic to its core, it is asking what is wrong with the standpoint of idealism?

I am also aware that some kind of basic definition of idealism may be necessary. To keep it as simple as possible, I will offer one taken from 'The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy':

'The word was first used by Liebniz, for Plato's ontology, to contrast with Epicurus's materialism.'

This is a very brief excerpt from the dictionary definition and I am sure that people adopt differing ones. So, it can also be asked what is idealism and what is materialism, as well as the terms naturalism and realism?

Disappointed. It's been done before...and probably better...see Search box for other threads on Idealism. For starters: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13196/speculations-in-idealism/p1 - started by @Tom Storm.

It is part of what I wish to discuss, but I am also wishing to consider the nature of language in this. However, I may have rushed in and probably should have followed the principle of listening and thinking before speaking.

If this thread collapses, it may be better if I finish my reading on Lacan's ideas on language for this, and create a new thread when I have less stress. I will see what can be salvaged from this thread and consider creating a new one in the future.