Metaphysics make a difference for daily living and ethics. For example, the idealism of Plato can lead to moral authoritarianism. Similarly, the application of Kant's a priori allows for an underlying moral absolutism. As far as the Eastern concept of 'maya' it a softer metaphysics than in Western metaphysics. It does not lead to complete relativism or nihilism. It is far more subtle in its scope, allowing for awareness of the nature of existence being impermanent and fluid.

That is not to deny the importance of the meanings and concerns of those partaking in the dramas of life. Eastern metaphysics, including the idea of 'maya', does not mean that morality is superfluous and redundant. It may be a basis for standing back from our daily dramas rather than seeing them in an extremely fixed and rigid manner.

A lot of the images in surrealist art are statements about absurdity and with a certain amount of humour. Many works of surrealism, including some by Dali and Magritte have a lot of sexual content, even a celebration of polymorphic perversity.

It is partly a reflection of psychoanalysis, which includes ideas of others. Some of this looks at the dynamics of splitting into 'good' and 'bad' objects in the processes of projection. Also, Lacan looks at the symbolism of the phallus in gender and culture.

Lacan stands at the doorway between psychoanalysis and postmodernism and ideas of the deconstruction of gender and sexuality. In many ways, such an outlook is meant to be provocative and may have been followed on by artists like Gilbert and George.

I have done some experiments with blank paper (not canvas), while on art therapy course. Some people get very abstract to the point of incoherency. I am a little bit the other way and end up with more familiar subject matter of drawings, such as rock guitarists and punk rockers. It is probably about getting into the frame of consciousness for active imagination.

What I have found to be useful for more automatic drawing by myself is music. This can allow for a degree of altered consciousness for accessing the imagination, almost as lucid dreaming. The ideal would be to incorporate dream images but it can be difficult to remember the details but I would like to experiment with this more. The process of this, like dream journaling may lead to greater coherency of one's own inner symbolic narratives.

As a result of this thread I have been reading about the surrealist movement as it encompasses a whole approach to the arts. It also has an important contribution to the philosophy of ideas, such as in the thinking of Andre Breton.

Part of the approach draws upon Freud's understanding of the unconscious and one aspect of this is the idea of automatic drawing and writing. This does involve the generation of ideas and symbols. Of course, this does relate to the whole tradition of fantasy and the unconscious, including James Joyce's idea of the 'stream of consciousness' and the writings of WB Yeats, including his ' A Vision'.

What the surrealists recognise is that the products of the imagination are not 'real' in a metaphysical sense. Many religious thinkers and writers took the ideas in a literal sense, which may have been a great error. I am not even sure to what extent William Blake thought of his angels and demons as symbolic or something more. The surrealists manage to deconstruct metaphysical literalism, recognising the human being juxtaposing images and words in creative experimentation.

The surrealistic paintings, such as those of Dali, show the way in which the imagination interprets facts. It is a source for ideas and creativity. The idea of Plato's forms may be a bit too literalistic metaphysically. Nevertheless, there does appear to be an archetypal or mythic dimension. The surrealistic interpretation or deconstruction allows for a certain amount of playfulness in the way one relates to ideas.

Sorry for the late reply, as I took a couple of days break from the site. I found your reply to be one which I could relate to. That is because the distinction between how ideas separate from the perspective of the physical is complex. That is because i ideas ars representations, based on experiences but not simply that. They are beyond our subjective interpretations. For example, people may have different ideas about morality, but the idea of morality exists beyond that.

Postmodernism deconstructed ideas to some extent, but not completely. The nature of constructed 'truth' may be a bit fuzzy, blurring facts and inner interpretation, making it surreal in many respects.

I have had the 'Accepted Answer' come up in several threads at some points. I have wondered if I had jolted my phone while balancing it in my hand. If anything, the mystery may show the arbitrary nature of automated information in sifting ideas discerningly. It may point to the danger of relying too much on technology as a means of 'truth'.

The 'Accepted Answer' was not of my own doing. It is an automated part of the digital software of the forum. I am not sure how it works and why it was generated on my post. Perhaps, some artificial technology decided my answer was correct, when I was only stating uncertainty of my questions and my own weaknesses.

It is even possible that artificial intelligence will be the new realm of 'spirits' taking over the role once projected onto and enacted by the 'gods.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sorry, I am late getting round to replying to you because I started at the bottom of replies. However, your question is important. It does seem that materialism and realism have become fashionable. This is connected to the rise of science at the centre of philosophy, with philosophy almost being seen as an appendix to science.

The rise of materialism 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?

Unicorns exist as a fantastical idea and, who knows, in a previous universe or a future one, they may exist. They may not exist physically at all other than a construct of fantasy. There is a danger of fantasy being mistaken for more than it is and that is probably where 'psychosis' comes in. But fantasy itself, if not taken too literally, can be useful as an alternative to the concrete logic of scientific realism.

The view that ideas 'a product of the mind' is open to question, as it is hard to where they come from exactly. That is where, even though Plato's theory of forms and archetypes is still an arguable position because ideas seem to exist almost independently of human conditions. It may be related to biological wiring but it could be more than that.

The problem would be hars to prove, except in conditions in which life was so different from cultural socialisation. The closest proof would come down to individuals raised in the wild, such as by wolves. It is likely that a lot of human understanding involves socialisation and the role of language in narrative construction of experience. Nevertheless, themes exist as universal constructs, possibly as independent ideas in themselves, like the underlying physical laws of nature.

Yes, thinking involves maps and models. One way in which I came across this was in the sociology of knowledge. In particular, Berger and Luckmann, in, 'The Social Construction of Knowledge saw the way in which human thought occurs as negotiated socially.

I am not saying this to dismiss epistemology itself, but as about understanding social contexts of knowledge. The whole idea of paradigms involves models. It is possible to see maps and models too literally, as if they are the 'reality' itself. With the idea of the surreal, which I borrowed from the art movement, it would involve the metaphorical. This is going into the nature of the mythical aspects of human understanding.

Your argument for the existence of ideas as they are thought and expressed is an interesting one. It reminds me of what a tutor once said in a class 'Ideas don't exist unless they are expressed and are only in one's head'. Some people in the class were rather horrified by what the tutor said, but it may capture something of the intersubjective aspects of thoughts and ideas.

Apart from exchange of ideas in conversation and writing, however, there is the repetition of ideas throughout cultures and history. Even though there are many languages there is an almost universality of concepts, such as good, evil, morality and time. This may be down to innate ideas. Alternatively, it could be down to underlying factors in all human experiences of life.

What I mean by the idea of 'mere partial perspectives' are viewpoints which differ from one another and are relative. It may be that each human being's unique way of thinking reflects such partiality and relativity of knowledge and understanding.

It's possible that any confusion in my posts is on account of stress, because it can lead to muddled thinking. However, it would probably be going too far to describe me as 'psychotic' or 'deluded'.

If anything, I see it as arising in connection with muddles in the philosophy of ideas, going back to ancient thought. For example, I have some kind of resonance with Plato's theory of forms; this in itself is incongruent with so much of twentieth-first century thinking. The question for me would be whether both the ancients and philosophy after postmodernism, analytic philosophy and Wittgenstein, have mere partial perspectives? The same applies to the division between science and art, as well as between the secular and spiritual viewpoints...?

Your further clarification of Berkley's consideration of the tree in the forest is useful. It would be a human fallacy to think that it is only a person who is able to perceive sounds. This is likely to be an anthropocentric fault in philosophy. Language is the way humans process experiences, with the formation of concepts, but it does not mean that it the only possible way. For example, it is possible to form visual representations of ideas and this itself is likely to have come first in human culture, such as in symbolic representations.

To go beyond one's 'awareness' would be like becoming some -kind-of-all-knowing- mind-of-'God' state of consciousness. So much of everyday awareness is based on the consensus views of others as a means of confirmation. Even with a sense of mortality, it is based on the deaths of others and empirical observations, as opposed to the awareness of experiencing ultimate death itself.

I do plan to reply to the other responses. However, I am just changing my title question from 'real' to 'surreal' because I am thinking that may be more interesting. That is because it is a possible way of reframing ideas in the metaphysical imagination.. What do you think? Does it make sense, as opposed to seeing language and symbols in a concrete ways, or is just trying to avoid the nature of clear and critical thinking?

I am aware that 'real' is a human construct. This is the case whether one adheres to a philosophy of idealism or realism, or materialism. The concept of 'real' is a bit like that of 'truth' and may only be seen as definitive if seen from a standpoint of absolutist philosophies.

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'.

One of the main reasons why I gravitate towards the idea of non-dualism is because it makes a case for the two being conjoined. Also, panpsychism suggests different subtle degrees of consciousness than the classical mind-body arguments of dualism.

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.

Thank you!

I definitely don't wish to derail my own thread by discussion of rioting. But, yes I fear what will follow. This is another 'What happens next...?' in real life dramas.

As far as catharsis and pleasure as an antidote, it is about the cathartic emotions on a symbolic as opposed to literal one. For example, I sometimes listen to'dark' music, such as metal, emo and goth which I find pleasure in as a form of release of angst. Some people take the view that the 'dark' aspects of the arts, like porn, is likely to generate 'dark' behaviour, such as violence. It may be that it would have some negative effects to one's mental health to indulge in dark entertainment always. However, it may be about balance, such as the need for both tragedy and comedy in drama. The symbolic expression of sex and violence in the arts is so different from its translation into such expression in human behaviour.

I can tell you how pleasure as an antidote to suffering works for me. It was during and after a period in which 3 friends of mine committed suicide that led me to the path of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll. It was part of the quest for understanding, but it was also part of my attempt to indulge in pleasure as the only way which I could see to cope with the misery of the tragedies of the deaths of my friends.

Your quote and inclusion of the Scottish perspective on the riots is interesting. My own one is that they express a lot that is going on in the political unconscious in the UK. It comes at a time of mixed fear and optimism with a change of government. The right may fear that so much may change while others are hoping for change, especially from poverty and 'the cost of living' crisis.

Of course, there is the end to the plans to deport illegal immigrants which the Conservative government had begun. Also, there may be issues around religion as opposed to skin colour, especially Islam. So much has changed since the time of Muslims being seen as potential terrorists but there may be remnants of this, just as the Antisemitism is being expressed. It involves scapegoating and at the core of catharsis. But, of course there is the dynamic of the counterprotests, which is the more left wing ventilation protest about so much misery and suffering.

Thanks for your reply because I have almost abandoned my thread in the last few days. That is because I am so stressed out as I found out this week that the place where I am living is probably going to be repossessed this week. I know that it is horrible (bed bugs) but I went through a repossession eviction a year and a half ago which was so stressful...

One of the ways which is see trajedy and pleasure is that pleasure may be an antidote to suffering. The quote you gave from@Wayfarer regarding hedonism is interesting. The issue of perfectionism in religion has often led to repressed pleasure.

Going back to Freud's ideas, catharsis involves sexuality but trauma too. It also involves the whole spectrum of love and hatred, with aggression sometimes being a source of cathartic pleasure.

I am wondering about this in relation to the outbreak of the current outbreak of riots in the UK. In some ways it is the opposite to the Brixton riots which were based on opposition to racism. Rioting may be the expression of deep anger and hatred, like the expression of primordial anger of the tribe in the form of cathartic aggression in real life as opposed to in the form of the arts.

Yes, poor Freud has been ignored here a bit. I see his thought as vital, especially as the art therapy course I did was based so much on his psychodynamic theory. A lot of people are put off his thinking, based on the emphasis he places on sexuality and the idea of the Oedipus complex. I see the Oedipus complex as rather restrictive and his viewpoint can be seen as sexist.

However, the emphasis he placed on sexuality had a profound influence on culture and dealing with the repression of sexual aspects of life. It may be central to pleasure itself and it would be hard to imagine trajedy without a sexual aspect. The nature of trajedy itself may be about the way in which sexuality causes conflict and potential destruction. His philosophy, which drew upon mythology, emphasised the tension between Eros and Thanatos, the life and death drives/instincts.

Also, the whole idea of catharsis was central to his perspective on therapy. The idea was that the ventilation of emotional expression is the road to 'cure'. This was based on his work with patients. The problem which I see is that it does not always follow that ventilation of emotions and traumatic experiences will lead to a cure and the CBT therapists see him psychodynamic therapy as placing too much emphasis on the past.

The other important idea in his work is that of sublimation, especially in expression of the arts. This is particularly relevant for thinking about the pleasure of trajedy. It is possible to channel the nature of the sexual into creativity. This also was suggested in Tantric philosophy. With suffering, in general, sublimation may enable transformation on a mythic and aesthetic level, and from what I have observed in the arts therapies, this is an area for reframing human experiences.

I am sure that Shakespeare( or whoever he was) was a great psychologist, as were the Greek playwrights. Of course, this was before philosophy and psychology became so divergent fields during the twentieth century. It is likely that they still unite in fiction and drama in spite of the academic division.

Nuttall does discuss Shakespeare, mainly focusing on 'King Lear', which was the Shakespeare play which I studied in most depth in English literature. Nuttall says,
'In 'King Lear' the game of death is played very hard_ even to the point of making us aware that all the stately signals of formality are frail, that the rules of language and hypothesis, which make it, still, a game and not death itself, are only temporary defenses...I have stressed the word "nothing" and the destruction of authoritative sequences. I do not believe that the play is morally nihilist. The words "good" and "evil" mean not less but more to one who has just watched King Lear'.

Certainly, I can remember that studying King Lear' at school opened up my philosophical imagination so much, especially in thinking about suffering and the nature of good and evil. Shakespeare's trajedies(and comedies) have probably had such a cultural influence in thinking, making him(or Francis Bacon or whoever wrote the plays) a significant philosopher as well as playwright.

I have discovered that Nuttall does draw refer to George Steiner's ideas, saying that Steiner suggested that the 'starkest suffering was 'hallowed" in trajedy'. Nuttall also quotes CS Lewis:
'Can we wholly avoid the suspicion that trajedy as Mr Steiner conceives it is our final attempt to see the world as it is not.'
In addition, Nuttall argues that tragedy may involve 'subliminal pain through the low magic of a formal usurpation, glorifying the inglorious.'

Trajedy may involve building pictures of good and evil. One interesting aspect of this which Nuttall points to is the question as to whether a tragedy is the whole picture or about happy or unhappy endings to stories.

The moral aspect of bed bugs is connected to assumptions about dirt. In a similar way, I understand moral panic as being involved in the example of Aids being about assumptions about gay sexuality. The moral aspect may involve moral judgements and generalised assumptions.

The advice about Covid-19 was helpful at times, although some of the contradictions and lack of clarity seemed to show that the leaders were so uncertain themselves.

As as writing about difficult experiences is concerned, there is philosophy of understanding it, therapeutic writing about it, as well as fiction and other creative writing about is as an art form. These are separate angles but may be blended effectively. There is fiction which explores philosophy ideas as well as creative fiction. The division between therapeutic and creative writing is a different approach but it is possible to do both.

Personally, I would love to write more fiction. Previous to finding this forum in lockdown, I used to go to writing groups and I have started doing so again. Often, I end up writing real life experiences and people often seem surprised, asking, 'Did that really happen?' I know that a lot of real authors blend personal experiences and fictive elements together. Such fiction probably is also a way of reframing difficult and tragic life events in a meaningful way.