Mind versus reality

In Internal and external reality the relation between the internal impressions in our mind and a possible external reality has been discussed. It has been asserted that what goes on in our mind is (a lot) more than what goes on in the outside world. When made elsewhere, this assertion has led to discussions about whether the internal or the external world is the more important, a discussion that has been going on at least since the time of the Greek. The idea that the internal world is more important is in Greek terms named after Plato, while the idea that the external world is more essential is usually associated with Aristotle. In fact, there were a number of philosophers long before Aristotle that are usually called the Greek naturalists but in fact lived in outside mainland Greece, that were the real originators of the natural philosophy, the philosophy of the outside world, and also scored some significant results, like finding the size of the earth (Eratosthenes), the distance of the moon, guessing the existence of atoms (Democritus), etcetera.

The struggle for the primacy of the internal or the external world has been going on ever since. The common opinion about our world is that it is highly materialistic and focussed on the external world. Relative to the times before, this is probably true.

Since the start of the discussion, the mind-first people have had the supremacy almost all the time and everywhere. For ease of reference we here take all kinds of religion to belong to the mind world, since there has never been any proof of the phenomena that religious people refer to. The other reason for doing this is, is the very explicit and vocal opposition of religious people against those that put the external world in the first place, notably scientists.

While we introduced the discussion between mind and reality through the Greek philosophers, there is little doubt about what the Greek in general thought was the final outcome. The Greek were much more theoretically minded than practical. This changed with what usually is considered as their successors: the Romans. Much of their empire was build upon their organizatorial capacities, but also and probably not less upon their technological skills. The Romans were marvellous engineers not only in service of their army, but in almost every aspect of civil engineering.

After the fall of the Roman Empire, and hopefully we are forgiven for this Western outlook on history, civilization came into the spell of religion, in the Middle Ages. There have been many discussions of the relative merits of this era, but there is no doubt that the main stream of society was heavily geared towards divine explanations of the world, and very little to physical, rational ones, however one might rate this.

The end of the Middle Ages coincided with a greater awareness about other civilizations, through travels of discovery by land and by sea. Starting in Italy, Spain, and later in the more Northern European countries, one discovered other ways of thinking, and other ways to enhance material wealth besides farming and basic skills like that of the carpenter, blacksmith, etcetera.

What is now called the time of the Renaissance is in fact the first time there was some degree of balance between theoretical and practical attitudes towards the world. The people that did the thinking, the intellectuals, did not confine themselves to the higher, like the Greek and the Middle Agers, nor to the practical like the Romans, but applied their theoretical efforts also to things that were at least remotely practical. And one took the equally important step of trying to verify the things they were purporting. This latter step is of course the essential one: one doesn’t test reality against theory (Is what has happened the will of God?), but one tests theory against reality.

These steps took mankind on the road of modern science. And there is little doubt that it is the results of modern science that makes our culture stand out against anything that has gone before. However, this does not mean that the opponents of the rational view have given up the struggle. With success they have tried to limit the influence of science by embedding it into a system were it is only a tool to advance our material wealth, while trying to keep its inherent cultural values out of this world.

Besides this fundamental movement, there are different kinds of groups that have specific interest in keeping the practical and moral influence of science as little as possible. These present day movements are studied in more detail elsewhere.

Go to General semantics list here , all articles here , site home here .