Are mental and material ontologically distinct realities? Are

File: 1795134.jpg (16KB, 263x400px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 263x400px

Why does noone read Jean Gebser's "The Ever-present Origin"? Think kind of thing would no longer be a problem. Dualism is a symptom of the deficient Mental mode we currently inhabit

>>8364071
What does it even mean to say everything is reducible to matter when we are still unable to account for the true nature of matter? I don't think there's any less of a mystery even if the two were not ontologically distinct. Property dualism is probs the way to go t b h

>>8364133
>we are still unable to account for the true nature of matter
How so?

physical and mental substance are the same

>>8364332
A coherent ontology of quantum mechanics must be provided before we can even begin to say anything about how matter fundamentally is.

As a physicist I have yet to come across a truly convincing argument for any kind of material ontology. I like Kant's transcendental idealism but I'm not exactly sure where I fall.

>>8365432
Do you have any suggestions for philosophers of science or scientists dabbling in philosophy that is > dawkins tier?

>>8365478

I'm a big fan of Deleuze's work (though I don't *quite* understand transcendental empiricism yet) but you need to work up to that. Start with Foucault's Discipline and Punish to get a taste for poststructuralism.

just a quick shitpost on how damn stellar and frankly underrated berkeley is

>>8365772

I know you mean the person but also the uni is pretty great. I wish I could take classes with Judith Butler.

>>8365772
This!

I've never been a fan of dualism, yet it is hard to escape how ingrained it is within our language. I vacillate between extremes of hard physicalism and a concoction of different idealisms.

>>8364071
they both coalesce around the soul.

I think all is sensation. Basically, no perception of reality or thought can be reduced to anything else after-the-fact, for when you do so, you corrupt it or change it.

Ergo, color red has no structure: you dont need eyes to see red, u just need to experience redness, redness+eyes comess after that experience and is analyzed by abstracting redness out of red and attributing new characteristics

All that matters is the now, and truth and falsehood are mere pleasures: pleasure is harmony whilst falsehood (pain) is an icky anxiety we strive to remove

I fear these thoughts i came up with confuse the object of thought with the thoughts as analyzed in a meta-analysis. So i may be wrong, but who knows.

>>8366330
>dualism comes from language
>i vacillate between two things

I love the ironies.

File: tumblr_lxyp9qgYjY1r0p8d9o1_400.jpg (22KB, 250x294px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 250x294px

a b s o l u t e i d e a l i s m

>>8364071
go with the greeks.

Sound Mind, Sound Body