Can British Idealism save God?

[@MonisticIdealism]

Your coverage of the great British idealists, the decline of British idealism, and how its return can overcome the difficulties of today's crisis of faith is excellent. Certain versions of idealism provide a response to atheism and materialism that has not been explored much these days, so I'm looking forward to watching more of your videos to find out more.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Thanks for the reply. As mentioned in the video, some of the Idealists were more committed to religion than others. But all believed there needed to be something to ground values and a notion of reality beyond the material. I wholeheartedly concur with that sentiment, now more than ever.

[@TheVeganVicar]

Likewise, Jordan. :)

[@MyContext]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy I don't see how there can be a grounding of values in anything beyond your individual cognitive tapestries. Further, I don't actually understand the need being claimed.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

@@MyContext If you mean by 'I dont see how' that you cannot conceive of another possibility then that is a strong claim. Metaethical positions in philosophy are numerous, and most point beyond individual cognitive states. But I suspect you simply think that this is the correct position. But if values really were a matter of individual cognitive states then there would be no public nature to values at all, even at the level of community. That just seems to flatly contradict my notion of value. If I (say) abuse my children that is simply wrong, no matter what cognitive state I happen to have. And if you say that my act was immoral, it seems as though you are not merely reporting your cognitive attitude to it, but are appealing to a public standard of some sort. It is the basis of this standard that I refer to as the 'grounds for value'.

[@MyContext]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy What is value? This is the core problem. I find that value is an emotional byproduct and thus automatically a product of individual cognitive linkages. This seems to suggest that a grounding which is not common to all will be a failure. I find no basis for there to be something that is common to all, thus I find the idea to be a failure. This is not to say that there is no possibility, just no possibility that I can see. However, I do see grounding with regard to the majority with such a grounding enshrining the idea sociologically as various theological notions had formerly acted as grounding. I am a moral anti-realist, since this seems to be an important point of disclosure for review/consideration. When I make moral appeals, there is no actual appeal to a standard but rather what I understand as popular sentiment (that I support) or even what could become popular sentiment (that I would support). The point being that the average person doesn't seem to have any formalized process. They simply go with what they feel with those feeling less often having less moral considerations as understood by others' notions of moral considerations. There are times when my moral utterances aren't an appeal, but rather a veiled threat. Why? I recognize that there are those that don't recognize moral considerations (issues that impact others). I suspect that I am definitely not alone even as I haven't seen any references about such. Currently, the best candidate for a universal standard seems to center around the idea of being supportive of well being with regard to what is denoted as moral; and assaults to well being being denoted as immoral. This of course makes issues that entails a mix of issues more of a challenge with regard to adjudication, but there is at the very least what would seem to be an operational criteria by which adjucations can be rendered and/or review. (Which is what you were referencing in your commentary.) I consider this to be the best candidate, since it is an appeal that is almost universally desirable by most people either implicitly or explicitly. I will grant that some are simply functionaries with the consequence that well being isn't the point but rather whatever they goals happen to be even if they are destroyed in that pursuit. There are also functionaries with regard to defending moral notions such that in net the idea would seem to be properly guarded as a byproduct of how humanity tends to be.

[@xavieragummochy]

Thanks for covering this topic. From my studies at uni I have to say this is perhaps the most important area for philosophy students. Hope you continue on this path!!

[@emmashalliker6862]

Excellent video, looking forward to the journey.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Thanks! Great to have you with us :).

[@cedriccarette6028]

It seems that you must then interview Dr Bernardo Kastrup who's idealism is made analytical 😉. Good work and thanks for the sharing 👋

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Yup. Hope to do this one day.

[@saulbee]

Another good video, my rank amateur first impression is that a lot of modern pressupositionilist apologetics seem to be derived from this type of British idealism, but I am not convinced. I think some of this seems to step over the bounds of what we can comfortably claim to know by establishing grounds to reality which are to some degree arbitrary and then justifying them. Like I say just first impressions and this is not something I am familiar with so am keen to see where you take us. Thanks again for the video.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

You may be right. I'm not familiar with apologetics, partly for the reasons you hint at. But I think you'll find Bradley and McTaggart (at least) were more concerned to explore their own convictions regarding the intrinsic rationality, goodness, and beauty of reality in a rigorous way, in coherence with science, rather than defend orthodoxy. And even Green was not orthodox in his philosophy (from what I understand). When Bradley released his great metaphysical work 'Appearance and Reality' it was a disappointment to those who had hoped it could provide an intellectual defence of orthodox Christianity. My own view, is that it is almost impossible not to somewhat identify the Absolute with the God of monotheism. Both claim to be 'that which is ultimate'. But in that case, we all hold something to be ultimate, even if it is only matter and the laws which govern it. In which case the discussion moves away from the atheism/theism issue, and onto the issue of whether reality is ultimate mechanical or personal. Since no one denies that there is a reality, this can become the universal starting point for metaphysics, an Archimedean point as it were. Which I think can be a much more helpful discussion. On the flip side, if religion (better: theology) is taken to provide a theory of 'that which is ultimate' it could be that the notions of the Absolute and God are incommensurable, since they play a specific role within those theories that may or may not be identical. If I were to be Wittgensteinian for a moment, they are from different 'language games'. There is a connection between the notions, but they aren't automatically transferable, a bit like Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity. Maybe.

[@TheVeganVicar]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy, did you not imply that you were a Christian believer in your latest video? If not, then it seems I misheard.

[@TheVeganVicar]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy "...the issue of whether reality is ultimate mechanical or personal." Firstly, I assume you meant "ULTIMATELY". Secondly, I would suggest the most accurate dichotomy is "IMPERSONAL or personal", for reasons I won't go into here, unless you are genuinely interested in my viewpoint.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Feel free to express your viewpoint. It's the perfect forum for it. Yes, I am a Christian. But I don't use Christian language or make Christian appeals in my philosophical work. Yes, 'impersonal' would be the opposite of personal, but it is a rather negative term. Many of the idealists I am interested in were positing idealism as a counterweight to the merely mechanical world posited by those that read their metaphysics from their interpretation of Newtonian science.

[@TheVeganVicar]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy, how is "impersonal" a "NEGATIVE" word, other than the obvious fact that it negates personality? :)

[@NoReprensentationWithoutTax]

Simply... AMAZING !!!! Keep doing what you are doing.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Thanks! I will 😊

[@ajw9533]

I'm reading Rowe's life of J L Austin. This is a useful gloss on his section on the British Idealists.

[@onewithall6946]

Thank you for your extensive knowledge of philosophy. I was ignorant of English "Idealism", grateful.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Thanks for the encouragement. And thanks for listening!

[@wildcatguy99]

Excellent overview. I first discovered these thinkers in Timothy Sprigge’s book ‘The God of Metaphysics’.British idealism and process philosophy have interested me ever since.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Glad you found the channel then. Are you referring to Whitehead's thinking? I've not read him but what I come across of his is very intriguing!

[@wildcatguy99]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy Yes, there’s a chapter on Whitehead, Hartshorne and William James in the book. It’s a great overview, but obviously Sprigge is critical of them as an absolute idealist.

[@LegionXCV]

Took me a while to come around to absolute idealism, but, I would say yes.

[@michaeldillon3113]

Idealism now has a profound and scientific advocate in the work of Bernardo Kastrup ( PhD PhD) who came to the conclusion through his work in AI , that ' matter ' is a product of Consciousness - not the other way around . To my humble mind I think this is a natural conclusion that follows on from the conclusions of particle Physics where the observer and observed become part of a process . People pointed out to Bernardo that his view seemed to reflect very closely the millennial old teachings of Advaita Vedanta . So here we have someone giving a modern scientific and philosophical basis to a very ancient ontology . Disappointingly Bernardo seems to have been expounding his views for about ten years ( I have only discovered him in the last year ) but publicly has found little traction . The materialists still hold sway in the British media at least . Personally I think Bernardo will come to be seen as the Galileo of Consciousness ✌️.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Thanks for the comment. And glad to have someone knowledgeable watching on the channel. I am very glad Kastrup is bringing Idealism to a more general audience. And quantum mechanics does seem to have opened the door for Idealism to be taken seriously again. Along with panpsychism. Not sure Kastrup could be a 'Galileo' figure though, especially as the view (as you note) is an ancient one.

[@michaeldillon3113]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy I sort of see Kastrup as a sort of Galileo figure because he is capable of making mainstream some earlier theories of reality ( rather than Copernican heliocentrism) . Moreover his background in both science and philosophy gives him amazing intellectual capacity to take on ' doubters ' . Although I have a very intimate relationship with Sri Ramana Maharshi, I have great respect for the monks of the Sri Ramakrishna order because they are encouraged to educate themselves in science and philosophy . Their latest stellar teacher Swami Sarvapriyananda could give a good account of Advaita against many detractors , I think Bernardo could discuss the detail of quantum theory or philosophy of mind with anyone claiming to be an expert in those subjects . I would love to see Bernardo discuss idealism with Richard Dawkins or someone like Alex from the Cosmic Sceptic . Normally they are in discussion with someone who has a limited interpretation of ' God' . Anyway I found your video interesting because I wasn't aware of this English tradition of idealism . I knew of Schopenhauer and Bishop Berkeley but little else in the western tradition . I think of Kastrup as s kind of Galileo because think of the change in world view that must have occurred when people realized and had to accept that the Earth goes around the sun - not the other way around . Think what will happen if mainstream science- philosophy accepts that matter doesn't produce consciousness - rather it's the other way around . They are going to have to rewrite a lot of textbooks - that's for sure !!! Best Wishes .

[@TheVeganVicar]

@@michaeldillon3113 "Although I have a very intimate relationship with Sri Ramana Maharshi,..." You must be over a CENTURY old, Mike. :/

[@michaeldillon3113]

@@TheVeganVicar That was such a wonderful comment - it made my day . Thank you 🙏✝️🕉️🕊️

[@TheVeganVicar]

@@michaeldillon3113, you are most welcome, my CENTENARIAN friend! Incidentally, ALL the guys you mentioned in your previous comment lived an adharmic life (I assume you understand the concept of "dharma"?).

[@TheVeganVicar]

9:13 *separate. :D

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Haha! When will photoshop get a spell checker!? 😆

[@aldensmith316]

Excellent explanation of the historical and intellectual context - very watchable and informative.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Thanks!

[@artisanmage5378]

Bradleys ideas reminds me a lot of Kant, much more so than Hegel.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Although Bradley read Hegel and admitted he had been influenced, he didn't think of himself as a Hegelian as he said he hadn't really understood it. But he readily admitted the influence of Herman Lotze who was a neo-Kantian.

[@Achrononmaster]

@0:40 omg, love your channel but I don't think I can disagree more with your initial premise there about the early 19th century. People in Britain were extremely anti-religious then, probably more than today. Why can I say so? It's because it was all pretense and most knew it, and those who considered themselves "god-fearing" were the most hateful and intolerant, for the most part. I'm using a definition of Religion here as _a source of good._ Most things done or practiced in the name of religion are anti-religious. Don't laugh. It's the same in politics and sport. Maybe even art? (I don't know about art, just a maybe, since I do not know what "anti-art" could mean). But for damn sure (as a keen ex sportsman in cricket and rugby) most sport played is anti-sport. I got sick of it because. My father (R.I.P) was a wonderful politician, only lasted a term, because everyone else for the most part in Parliament were anti-politicians, totally acted against the public purpose, with rare exceptions. As Britain became a more tolerant and less a colonial nation it became more religious, not less, regardless of church-going or self-professed "atheists" (yeah, as if they know! ha!) Some atheists (that I know closely) are more religious than church-goers. GB is more religious today than back then, quite clearly. OK, so that's upon my definition of Religion. But I think it's a good one. More should use it. It's good because it shows you true religion is rare, very rare, maybe impossible. You can go a whole lifetime and only see glimpses. Makes it more precious when you find it, like a seemingly unattainable proof of a long standing mathematical conjecture.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Thanks for your many replies on my videos and for your generous comments. Of course there are different ways in which we might understand the reference of 'religion'. I am meaning it here in an intellectual way as the affirmation of Christian doctrine, which is often cultural and unexamined. But you perhaps point towards a more biblical notion of religion: see James 1v27. As for comment on the trend of that kind of religion in the UK in a way that is disentangled from the changes in technology, prosperity, and political factors, I couldn't really comment. But my suspicion is that little has changed in the human heart, either way. That said, I think there is merit in a cultural religious conscience as well.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Its pragmatism that can save it . I wouldnt even call this idealism . This idealism physicalism is the European reactions to Newton it does feedback in. But the arguments are essentially methods of1 ( for-m dy 2 thru dx 3 dz ) = man made time hierarchy knowledge of Good and evil equations. That form is only good for identifying, yes to reductionism but only to sir bacon dig out code / definable matter 1 that will have lattus structure body 2 critical extreme state or environment 3 . Then one can get epigenetics. The platonic values will both interact inside out and phenotypical explanatory power can be used. Darwin Lyle huxly all the former dualist or plutonic movements was strongly Babylonian and opposed the computational simulation approach postulated. Uk faithful Wanted to keep epochs reward human qualities & methods in modeling..where as Darwin or Europe even the orthodoxy perodic table created dementi mendolov was desperate to keep the old world form and shape pov put time ,color all these wonderful human specialities back into nature itself..thus the grand unfinacation. 1300s Peasants revolt theologically inspired scientifically studied mathematically confirmed in concert with Newton already witnessed this the orientation and direction was able to predict all of what keys would unlock natural systems of all kinda. One could think of humans building out soul agency free will inertia frame of reference in a robot where in concert with Darwin wanting to anthromorphized the cosmos and mechanized biology was a trainwreck waiting to happen in the future. Its why esoterica America designed itself the way it did as much as anything else. So was metaphysically designed english orientation and direction with deep masonic lodge for men Eastern star for women encoded views of language and the world around us. It's acceptance to subjective properties is not soul agency idealism but can be objectivly measured despite not being physical as we know it. European feedback seems to create the dualistic battles . I'd argue that understanding that 3 lines of measure ends in physical mystification or one must reorientate and the methods by which relativity no matter where 1soul agency 2 free will inertia 3frame of reference correlated with eternal cosmos allows us to manipulate local systems to evolve how we see fit including the cosmos and biology. Darwin simply reduced platos essence into 1 natural selection & the spiritual into 2 evolution. It only wants old world Deterministic control over birds eye point of view perception management. It's great for form and shape naming ordering categorizing but horizon paradoxes will not allow it to predict anything . Even under platos tripartite nature before Darwin turns it dualistic anthromorphized Babylonian evolutionary primordial flood creation soup goo model where they assume hierarchy of value and prescribe them only objects with a premium on carbon based life. Here lies the problem it has nothing to do with Einstein or Newton they simply go back to old world paganism as huxly seeked Devine matter not definable matter. Yes the literal creationist can know we can manipulate evidence to fit how we see fit. Its a property of our reality we live in..

[@TheYoungIdealist]

This is a wonderful video and you do a great job of summerizing a clear and conscise account of British Idealism

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Thanks for the compliment!

[@TheYoungIdealist]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy You are very welcome, I also have a KZbin Channel with a similar theme except with German Idealism. If you ever want to collaborate on video that would be great! Keep up the great work!

[@lovaloo763]

These short videos that condense a lot of information are helpful, thank you. I don't know what to think, but a lot of people seem to derive purpose and meaning from religion. Humanity takes primacy over metaphysical claims in my moral framework. Religious people tell me my morality isn't up to their standard, but I don't know how to attain that without holding God belief. I think the disagreement comes down to moral intuitions and our political dispositions, which seem to be partly intrinsic and partly influenced by socialization.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

I think a better argument might run the other way: If there is no God there is no meaning. There is meaning. Therefore, there is God. Of course, the premises would need justifying.

[@lovaloo763]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy You're right, I need to ask the questions a presuppositionalist would ask.