> "Monism pays attention only to the unity and tries either to deny or to 
> slur over the opposites, present though they are. Neither of these two 
> points of view can satisfy us, for they do not do justice to the facts. 
> Dualism sees in spirit (I) and matter (World) two fundamentally different 
> entities, and cannot, therefore, understand how they can interact with one 
> another. How should spirit be aware of what goes on in matter, seeing that 
> the essential nature of matter is quite alien to spirit? Or how in these 
> circumstances should spirit act upon matter, so as to translate its 
> intentions into actions? The most ingenious and the most absurd hypotheses 
> have been propounded to answer these questions. Up to the present, however, 
> monism is not in a much better position. It has tried three different ways 
> of meeting the difficulty. Either it denies spirit and becomes materialism; 
> or it denies matter in order to seek its salvation in spiritualism (see 
> fn 
> 1<http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA004/English/RSP1964/GA004_c02.html#fn1>); 
> or it asserts that even in the simplest entities in the world, spirit and 
> matter are indissolubly bound together so that there is no need to marvel 
> at the appearance in man of these two modes of existence, seeing that they 
> are never found apart.
> Materialism can never offer a satisfactory explanation of the world. For 
> every attempt at an explanation must begin with the formation of *thoughts
> * about the phenomena of the world.  Materialism thus begins with the *
> thought* of matter or material processes. But, in doing so, it is already 
> confronted by two different sets of facts: the material world, and the 
> thoughts about it. The materialist seeks to make these latter intelligible 
> by regarding them as purely material processes. He believes that thinking 
> takes place in the brain, much in the same way that digestion takes place 
> in the animal organs. Just as he attributes mechanical and organic effects 
> to matter, so he credits matter in certain circumstances with the capacity 
> to think. He overlooks that, in doing so, he is merely shifting the problem 
> from one place to another. He ascribes the power of thinking to matter 
> instead of to himself. And thus he is back again at his starting point. How 
> does matter come to think about its own nature? Why is it not simply 
> satisfied with itself and content just to exist? The materialist has turned 
> his attention away from the definite subject, his own I, and has arrived at 
> an image of something quite vague and indefinite. Here the old riddle meets 
> him again. The materialistic conception cannot solve the problem; it can 
> only shift it from one place to another.
> What of the spiritualistic theory? The genuine *spiritualist* denies to 
> matter all independent existence and regards it merely as a product of 
> spirit. But when he tries to use this theory to solve the riddle of his own 
> human nature, he finds himself driven into a corner. Over against the “I” 
> or Ego, which can be ranged on the side of spirit, there stands directly 
> the world of the senses. No *spiritual* approach to it seems open. Only 
> with the help of material processes can it be perceived and experienced by 
> the “I”. Such material processes the “I” does not discover in itself so 
> long as it regards its own nature as exclusively spiritual. In what it 
> achieves spiritually by its own effort, the sense-perceptible world is 
> never to be found. It seems as if the “I” had to concede that the world 
> would be a closed book to it unless it could establish a non-spiritual 
> relation to the world. Similarly, when it comes to action, we have to 
> translate our purposes into realities with the help of material things and 
> forces. We are, therefore, referred back to the outer world. The most 
> extreme spiritualist — or rather, the thinker who through his absolute 
> idealism appears as extreme spiritualist — is Johann Gottlieb Fichte. He 
> attempts to derive the whole edifice of the world from the “I”. What he has 
> actually accomplished is a magnificent *thought-picture* of the world, 
> without any content of experience. As little as it is possible for the 
> materialist to argue the spirit away, just as little is it possible for the 
> spiritualist to argue away the outer world of matter.
> When man reflects upon the “I”, he perceives in the first instance the 
> work of this “I” in the conceptual elaboration of the world of ideas. Hence 
> a world-conception that inclines towards spiritualism may feel tempted, in 
> looking at man's own essential nature, to acknowledge nothing of spirit 
> except this world of ideas. In this way spiritualism becomes one-sided 
> idealism. Instead of going on to penetrate *through* the world of ideas 
> to the *spiritual* world, idealism identifies the spiritual world with 
> the world of ideas itself. As a result, it is compelled to remain fixed 
> with its world-outlook in the circle of activity of the Ego, as if 
> bewitched.
> A curious variant of idealism is to be found in the view which Friedrich 
> Albert Lange <http://wn.elib.com/Bio/Lange.html> has put forward in his 
> widely read *History of Materialism*. He holds that the materialists are 
> quite right in declaring all phenomena, including our thinking, to be the 
> product of purely material processes, but, conversely, matter and its 
> processes are for him themselves the product of our thinking.
>  The senses give us only the *effects* of things, not true copies, much 
> less the things themselves. But among these mere effects we must include 
> the senses themselves together with the brain and the molecular vibrations 
> which we assume to go on there.
> That is, our thinking is produced by the material processes, and these by 
> the thinking of our I. Lange's philosophy is thus nothing more than the 
> story, in philosophical terms, of the intrepid Baron Münchhausen, who holds 
> himself up in the air by his own pigtail.
> The third form of monism is the one which finds even in the simplest 
> entity (the atom) both matter and spirit already united. But nothing is 
> gained by this either, except that the question, which really originates in 
> our consciousness, is shifted to another place. How comes it that the 
> simple entity manifests itself in a two-fold manner, if it is an 
> indivisible unity?
> Against all these theories we must urge the fact that we meet with the 
> basic and primary opposition first in our own consciousness. It is we 
> ourselves who break away from the bosom of Nature and contrast ourselves as 
> “I” with the “World”. Goethe has given classic expression to this in his 
> essay *Nature*, although his manner may at first sight be considered 
> quite unscientific: “Living in the midst of her (Nature) we are strangers 
> to her. Ceaselessly she speaks to us, yet betrays none of her secrets.” But 
> Goethe knows the reverse side too: “Men are all in her and she in all.”
> However true it may be that we have estranged ourselves from Nature, it is 
> none the less true that we feel we are in her and belong to her. It can be 
> only her own working which pulsates also in us.
> We must find the way back to her again. A simple reflection can point this 
> way out to us. We have, it is true, torn ourselves away from Nature, but we 
> must none the less have taken something of her with us into our own being. 
> This element of Nature in us we must seek out, and then we shall find the 
> connection with her once more. Dualism fails to do this. It considers human 
> inwardness as a spiritual entity utterly alien to Nature, and then attempts 
> somehow to hitch it on to Nature. No wonder that it cannot find the 
> connecting link. We can find Nature outside us only if we have first 
> learned to know her *within* us. What is akin to her within us must be 
> our guide. This marks out our path of enquiry. We shall attempt no 
> speculations concerning the interaction of Nature and spirit. Rather shall 
> we probe into the depths of our own being, to find there those elements 
> which we saved in our flight from Nature."

On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 6:15:29 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dlBROdVjjI
> Same as mine, really, except I use the concept of 'sense' rather than 
> 'spirit'.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to