Well, idealism is really a child of Plato - wherein the ideas of things (apart from the material world) were the most "knowable" ("real" in a paradoxical way), whereas the material world only had material copies of those divine ideas (forms/essences) for Plato. This is best illustrated in Book 7 of Plato's Republic with the allegory of the cave and the Platonic line of material and immaterial. Plato's top student, Aristotle, posited that the form "essence" was in the matter (hylomorphism). For example the oak tree had the "essence" or "divine idea" or "form" of "oaktreeness" in it, but we see this specific oak tree with all of it's unique material make up, branch shape, etc. We experienced things in the world (sensation), sensing the materiality of things, but our mind was able to abstract the essence (form/divine idea) of that - that is the basis of the true and classic notion of "tabula rasa" thought - Aristotle was a realist. The famous painting of The Academy has Plato pointing up, while Aristotle is pointing to the here and now of the earth. The medievals of Augustine, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Peter Abelard and others grappled with this issue of essences, but those divine ideas kept "things in/as themselves" dinge an sich in German, later discussed by Kant, and (much later) Husserl and Heidgger(most pointedly Heidegger).
Descartes, for wont of clear and distinct thinking, took only one aspect of the Plato's "above the line" ideals (there were three - "the Good" "forms(essences)" and "math"). He took math, and used it to count the "matter" in the world. So essences were rejected as not "clear and distinct". Kant attempted to repair that issue somewhat with his Categorical Imperative (focusing mostly on morality at that point). Kierkegaard further discussed this issue in Fear and Trembling as he attempted to grope through existence (from where we get the term "existentialism") in a world without absolutes (essences of various sort).
There has been recent philosophical criticism, of those on the political right and left, against what is called "ruthless reductionism" - that we are nothing more than a compilation of matter, of chemical reactions (emotions), and so forth. I see "gender fluid" business as a direct offspring of this worldview. I also see "relativism" of morality as a result of reductionism and removal of essence.
I have arguments against reductionism. I am just saying it sure explains a lot to some limit of interest and theory and to deny the reality of the causal link between matter and what we call our consciousness and everything which is a product thereof- whichis, you know, everything human beings create- is short sighted.
Existentialism as I understand is the belief that the meaning fo life, if there is one, is to be found in human existence and not with reference to God or religion.
Has to be said about JS Mill that utilitariansim with its presumption to be able to perform a calculus of cost / benefit and pain / human happiness has given rise to its own monsters, like Peter Singer who should be of interest to us mostly as a autisitic mental case as opposed to a philospher. Him and the euthenasia policies of the Scandinavian nations, which are demented, are really concerning.
Well, there's something to be gained from all philosophical thoughts I think. Some hold up better than others over time. I tend to like Aristotle/Aquinas' worldview, and I think it comes back up in Husserl and Heidegger later on.
Descartes' gives us a lot (science/scientific method), but the sacrifice of divine ideas (forms/essences) is dangerous, and I think it's become endemic in modern and postmodern thought with reductionism and relativism.
Mill's Utilitarianism can certainly be abused, as any theory can. Reading him with the wrong pair of glasses, it can come off a lot like Das Kapital by Marx! Hahaha! I remember in grad school, many classmates had only read that, some Foucault and a bit of Nietzsche - they were SJWed to hell and back. Anything else was Cliff notes through someone else's interpretation. It was sad, and these folks were probably 100x more well read than the average person with regard to Phi.
The debate about types is a good example of what I mean by anachronistic.. most of that discussion was moved to either technical discussions of physics stuff like what it means for a wave to exist as a probability (does a thing exist or not.. what is meant by a "thing" and "existence".. what is "really real" ?) and the study of the brain (is there an minimal table, possessing Platonic tablehood which everyone recognizes as a table no part of which can be removed without subjects reporting it's not a table?).
That kind of shit.
It's like they were all eating a feast and the table got picked up and moved somewhere else but they're still sitting right there moving their empty forks and knives in eternal gestures of eating food that isn't there anymore.
I sound like I think they have nothing to offer and that's not (that) true. I am sure they do . Maybe through some turn of fate science will be forced back on the questions they pondered in the way they pondered them and we'll see they were really radical geniuses beyond anyone's understanding.
That's what Heideggerians must believe. God knows you could go splunking in those caves and come back with pretty much anything you wanted to given enough license for interpretation, and HD has plenty to loan.
Maybe HD found the way to eternal truth- be vague, invent terms freely, posit ill-defined relationships between them and then elaborate on them like you're writing a Bach fugue. Feel free to contradict yourself so long as the contradictions are separated by at least 500 words of brain exhausting verbal thicket.
Well, idealism is really a child of Plato - wherein the ideas of things (apart from the material world) were the most "knowable" ("real" in a paradoxical way), whereas the material world only had material copies of those divine ideas (forms/essences) for Plato. This is best illustrated in Book 7 of Plato's Republic with the allegory of the cave and the Platonic line of material and immaterial. Plato's top student, Aristotle, posited that the form "essence" was in the matter (hylomorphism). For example the oak tree had the "essence" or "divine idea" or "form" of "oaktreeness" in it, but we see this specific oak tree with all of it's unique material make up, branch shape, etc. We experienced things in the world (sensation), sensing the materiality of things, but our mind was able to abstract the essence (form/divine idea) of that - that is the basis of the true and classic notion of "tabula rasa" thought - Aristotle was a realist. The famous painting of The Academy has Plato pointing up, while Aristotle is pointing to the here and now of the earth. The medievals of Augustine, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Peter Abelard and others grappled with this issue of essences, but those divine ideas kept "things in/as themselves" dinge an sich in German, later discussed by Kant, and (much later) Husserl and Heidgger(most pointedly Heidegger).
Descartes, for wont of clear and distinct thinking, took only one aspect of the Plato's "above the line" ideals (there were three - "the Good" "forms(essences)" and "math"). He took math, and used it to count the "matter" in the world. So essences were rejected as not "clear and distinct". Kant attempted to repair that issue somewhat with his Categorical Imperative (focusing mostly on morality at that point). Kierkegaard further discussed this issue in Fear and Trembling as he attempted to grope through existence (from where we get the term "existentialism") in a world without absolutes (essences of various sort).
There has been recent philosophical criticism, of those on the political right and left, against what is called "ruthless reductionism" - that we are nothing more than a compilation of matter, of chemical reactions (emotions), and so forth. I see "gender fluid" business as a direct offspring of this worldview. I also see "relativism" of morality as a result of reductionism and removal of essence.
I have arguments against reductionism. I am just saying it sure explains a lot to some limit of interest and theory and to deny the reality of the causal link between matter and what we call our consciousness and everything which is a product thereof- whichis, you know, everything human beings create- is short sighted.
Existentialism as I understand is the belief that the meaning fo life, if there is one, is to be found in human existence and not with reference to God or religion.
Has to be said about JS Mill that utilitariansim with its presumption to be able to perform a calculus of cost / benefit and pain / human happiness has given rise to its own monsters, like Peter Singer who should be of interest to us mostly as a autisitic mental case as opposed to a philospher. Him and the euthenasia policies of the Scandinavian nations, which are demented, are really concerning.
Well, there's something to be gained from all philosophical thoughts I think. Some hold up better than others over time. I tend to like Aristotle/Aquinas' worldview, and I think it comes back up in Husserl and Heidegger later on.
Descartes' gives us a lot (science/scientific method), but the sacrifice of divine ideas (forms/essences) is dangerous, and I think it's become endemic in modern and postmodern thought with reductionism and relativism.
Mill's Utilitarianism can certainly be abused, as any theory can. Reading him with the wrong pair of glasses, it can come off a lot like Das Kapital by Marx! Hahaha! I remember in grad school, many classmates had only read that, some Foucault and a bit of Nietzsche - they were SJWed to hell and back. Anything else was Cliff notes through someone else's interpretation. It was sad, and these folks were probably 100x more well read than the average person with regard to Phi.
The debate about types is a good example of what I mean by anachronistic.. most of that discussion was moved to either technical discussions of physics stuff like what it means for a wave to exist as a probability (does a thing exist or not.. what is meant by a "thing" and "existence".. what is "really real" ?) and the study of the brain (is there an minimal table, possessing Platonic tablehood which everyone recognizes as a table no part of which can be removed without subjects reporting it's not a table?).
That kind of shit.
It's like they were all eating a feast and the table got picked up and moved somewhere else but they're still sitting right there moving their empty forks and knives in eternal gestures of eating food that isn't there anymore.
I sound like I think they have nothing to offer and that's not (that) true. I am sure they do . Maybe through some turn of fate science will be forced back on the questions they pondered in the way they pondered them and we'll see they were really radical geniuses beyond anyone's understanding.
That's what Heideggerians must believe. God knows you could go splunking in those caves and come back with pretty much anything you wanted to given enough license for interpretation, and HD has plenty to loan.
Maybe HD found the way to eternal truth- be vague, invent terms freely, posit ill-defined relationships between them and then elaborate on them like you're writing a Bach fugue. Feel free to contradict yourself so long as the contradictions are separated by at least 500 words of brain exhausting verbal thicket.
OK OK too dark I know.