or, “The Enlightenment and Idealism”
or, “A defense of historical investigation”

The idealist movement specifically describes the philosophical view that what we perceive of reality ultimately consists of the mind. However, in it’s grand sense, the term can also be seen as describing the trend of philosophy and thought since the enlightenment. It sparked dialogue and discourse which ushered humanity into a new age of thought and expression. It is out of concern with the current progression (or rather, regression) of society that I write this paper, looking back on the early stages of modern idealism, and attempt to establish new discussion about some implications of their ideas, and of thought and mind itself.

On our perception of reality and thought

The claims of the idealist movement, especially the views of Berkeley and Kant, ultimately lead to a form of solipsism, which I will term “Intellectual Solipsism”. In the same way that we can never perceive the neumena [atomic particles] which produce phenomena [what we see] in perceivable reality, we can never perceive another human being’s mind. I must be cautious in how I present the term “Intellectual Solipsism”, for I do not intend to suppose the lonely and ultimately implausible view that reality, in it’s entirety (including people) exists solely in the mind of the perceiver. Rather, I posit the claim that all of perceivable reality exists solely in the mind of the perceiver. Just as we can never perceive (in the grand sense of the term) an atom, we can never perceive others’ thought. We can only perceive the qualities of both. I am confident that this is absolutely true and I will attempt to explain my claim with a short allegory:

Imagine a village in a desert where the inhabitants are forced to re-use their water over and over again, which has become polluted and stale. A bright young man sets out one day, and after a while of searching, he comes upon a glistening lake, full to the brim with crystal clear water. The man gathers an amount of it to bring back to the village, and as he does so, dust and salt from his hands mix with the water, putting his mark upon it. As the man heads back, he encounters another traveler. They exchange words, some water is spilt, and the traveler marvels at the man’s discovery, putting his mark upon it as well. The two part ways, and the man returns to the village, presenting his find to them. The villagers marvel at the clear water, although the man sees now that it is not the same clear, sparkling mass as when he first encountered it. Dust and salt had altered it, he had put his mark upon it, as too did the traveler. The people of the desert city dump away their old water with glee, and use the man’s new water, adding to it, spilling it, putting their marks upon it in scores, and polluting it with every use. Others are enthralled with the find, stimulated by it, and set out to find the source themselves, but foolishly mistake the puddles spilt by the man as he returned as their goal.

We see how the water becomes inevitably changed by everything it comes in contact with. The same process affects thought: Any attempt to rationalize and potentially externalize thought will inevitably bestow linguistic elements, and other categories of understanding upon it, altering it at it’s core. Similarly, as we listen to an ‘Other’ attempt to convey a thought, we are putting our mark upon it, rationalizing it with our own categories of understanding, and altering it further. By this process, we will never truly perceive what the Other’s mind intended.

Do not mistake this claim I have made as a declaration of defeat, that we can never know our fellow man. On the contrary, I posit that to constantly fight against the state of intellectual solipsism is to participate in reality. I believe that this claim is what all modern philosophy has been attempting to grasp, with varying degrees of accuracy. We fight against the state of intellectual solipsism in many ways (as Heidegger attempted to convey in his philosophy), but they can be summed up simply and generally as discourse. It is inherently wrong to take an idea at face value, and treasure it as your own since it is inherently flawed upon perception. We must debate the phenomena, the idea, synthesize theses and strive to create unique ideas of our own. Only a select few thinkers have this ability (as is illustrated in the allegory above), since the vast majority of the populace are fixated on simply understanding ideas and claims already posited, and seem to be solely fixated on exploring the implications of those ideas in the narrow form their mind has presented to them. It would seem that they lack the ability to understand that they have already understood what they will of the claim itself, and the next step is to seek out it’s source, the meaning, the neumena behind the phenomena of the idea. The point that most miss is that ‘claims’ are different from ‘thought’. One cannot speak thought, as when thought is rationalized, it becomes ‘claim’. The few who truly understand this appear throughout history as the great minds which have moved our society.

The source of ideas must be thought itself, and therefore, discourse which promotes thought, coupled with meditation on ideas is the only way to actively participate in reality. Not to do so would mean that one’s existence is meaningless. Expressing thought subjectively (as Sartre attempted to convey in his philosophy) as opposed to objectively is the only means of participating in the ongoing dialectic of life, for subjectivity openly embraces argument and dialogue – to present a thought objectively, rejecting dialogue is heresy to thought itself. The Greek philosopher Socrates understood the concepts described above, and presented the claim that there was a realm of the intellect, and a realm of the material. Meditation on the implications of his Metaphysical dualism show striking similarities to the claims posited by myself in this essay.

It is said that an enlightenment occurs whenever a people discover the Greek classics. I believe that this is because, due to their age, the classic works of Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato (among others) are inherently viewed subjectively by society. Indeed, as our modern society progresses, works more and more modern are naturally viewed more and more objectively by students and are taken (incorrectly) for truth at face value. This is the natural way that society progresses, and so it is only though the study of history that we can attempt to trace the idea back to it’s source, and in turn produce crisp, clear thought of our own.

On contemporary implications

According to the model and views expressed above, society can only progress by process of ‘looking back to move forward’. However, we as a society are in danger of losing this dialectic process and entering upon another dark age. We are discouraged to look back, and echo phrases like “history is boring” or “ancient civilization is irrelevant and backward”, but it is insensible to agree that this is the case. We are constantly encouraged to distract ourselves from pure thought with materialist values imposed upon us by our consumer society. If this trend continues, as a society we will loose touch with the classics, and regress into a new age of ignorance. Unlike the dark ages of past, we will not worship deities of gold and stone, but of plastic and electronic. The old estates of religion will not rule us, but marketing and technology will be the guides we blindly follow. Do not mistake me for belittling any religious view or ideology, for religion, spirituality, and the material object can be wonderful subjects for thought. I am merely stating blindly following an idea is inherently wrong.

We as a society have already started down this road and it is up to us, the thinkers of this era to turn the tide. If you disagree with me, dear reader, I am pleased. I invite you to debate the contents of this essay and create your own synthesis of it’s content. It is with that last thought that I leave you to your task.

Simon Mysak