Priority Monism and Idealism

I explore what priority monism is, what priority monism looks like when combined with idealism, and what benefits that combination has to offer.

Timestamps:
00:00 – Introduction
00:12 – Priority Monism
04:16 – Priority Monism and Idealism
10:34 – Pluralism and Idealism
12:13 – Conclusion

Sources:

(Priority Monism)

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Monism – 3. Priority Monism

Jonathan Schaffer – Monism: The Priority of the Whole

Jonathan Schaffer – Beyond Fundamentality

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Fundamentality

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Fundamentality – 3. Metaphysical Foundationalism

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Fundamentality – 4. Metaphysical Infinitism

Joshua Rasmussen – Why an infinite regress fails to explain existence

(Priority Monism and Idealism)

feallsanachd – Jonathan Schaffer - "This is Jonathan Schaffer"

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Monism – 3.1 Priority Monism Overview

Mary Whiton Calkins – The Persistent Problems of Philosophy

Philip Goff – Cosmopsychism, Micropsychism, and the Grounding Relation

(Pluralism and Idealism)

Jonathan Schaffer – What Not to Multiply Without Necessity

Bernardo Kastrup – Bernardo Kastrup on idealism, dissociation, dreams, and more

Music Credits:

A Space Love Adventure – Midnight Stinger

TV Players – Add Fuel to the Fire

Sellorekt/LA Dreams – Taken Under

#monism #idealism

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

[ienjoyapples]

When discussing philosophy, I always like to have background music that sounds like it comes out of an Miami discoteque in the 80s.

[anduinxbym]

Great summarization of priority monism and the advantages of idealism over materialism!

[shogun]

Thank you, I think you’re one of the few that “get it” as to how important as rare these topics are to find on YouTube

[BibleLosophR]

10:54 Occam's Blazer commands us not to multiply our wardrobe without necessity.

[bayreuth]

The physical or material is a pure abstraction. The most parsimonious explanation is that consciousness, which is most immediately obvious to us, is fundamental.

[mysticder]

Great video! Love the work you're doing to advance the truth of Idealism!

[CosmicFaust]

Great video. That sound animation and the music kicking in at 5:22 made me laugh 😂. I also think a model like this could escape the metaphysical (and political/social) dichotomy between metaphysical individualism vs holism. It can also be summed up as reductionism/atomism (individuals are like islands in the sea by themselves) against existence monism (only the whole exists). A model like this can possible lead to a greater synthesis (Hegelian dialectical logic) between the individual and the community.

I also tend to see the difference between the modern idealists Bernardo Kastrup and Donald Hoffman as a modern day Schopenhauer vs Leibniz metaphysical idealist battle - only the cosmic conscious whole exists (idealistic existence monism) vs infinite conscious agents (monadic pluralistic idealism).

I’m also sceptical of Plato being classed as an idealist. We do tend to sometimes refer to his system as “Platonic Idealism” but I think its better to classify him as a defender of metaphysical dualism since he makes a sharp dividing line distinction between the realm of Becoming and the realm of Being (and mathematical forms and ideas were described as non-physical, non-mental, objectively existing abstract entities). Plato’s dualism is an integral part of his whole metaphysics since he was trying to overcome the problems with Heraclitus and Parmenides. I also don’t believe Baruch Spinoza was an idealist too. I believe the best way to describe his position within metaphysics and philosophy of mind is to describe it as a type of dual-aspect monism combined with pantheism/panentheism (Oppositum also believes this).

[Aidan-chlb]

This has become my current metaphysical leaning - so great video on it!

I think it's also important to note that the term 'physical' is a little amorphous. We only know of the 'physical' - say the trajectory of a bullet being fired as captured by Newtonian physics - through our experience of it. And thus, all is ultimately traced back to the mind. It is a theoretical abstraction to say that that object exists in some mind independent state governed by subject to some form of existential inertia. And thus we have no real basis to think the 'physical' exists as we often assume it to.

I also think there is an interesting parallel between reductive physicalism and idealism. Both pose that the brain and the mind are the same thing, and that there is a single substance that permeates reality. I sometimes wonder if the differences between them is more of a language problem. But I don't know.

[Rybot]

Great video. I've come to think that there is no subject without an object either but instead of a duality of physical and mental I posit a third non-dual possibility. A superclass of subject-object duality. The idealist explanation seems to reverse the hard-problem because then we have to ask how does the subject form objects. If there is one self that needs to be objectified in some way to become manifest it would rely on the a subclass of selves to provide the optics. What if God wanting his wrath to be known created vessels unto dishonor? That is to say the All had to create subjects so that the All could exist. These subjects are still a subclass of the all but are necessary as well. The other thing is that to these subjects the All undergoes some objectification just as those subjects do among each other. A self seen from another self is an object of subjective experience.

[Angel.on.a.mission]

grateful for this video, but the music is very distracting and disturbing in the beginning.

[bds]

great video 👍
what about the idea that there are third person properties (shape, color, mass) and first person properties (sensation, memory, intentionality)?
Would you say that ultimately all objects require an appeal to first person properties to describe them? Because if we can wholly describe a rock in terms of third person properties then that seems to undermind idealism.

[jemandoondame]

How did you make that Schaffer call thing?

[danielhager]

This was a great video, and is it ok if I email you an article?

[anarcho]

I'm not really I sure I understand how idealism work
Do you deny the actual existence of physical properties such as mass, spin and charge and everything is just tastes and sounds and other perceptions?

[jimmyfaulkner]

Does priority monism imply a belief in metaphysical holism?

[anarcho]

I do have some difficulties with going as far as positing the mental to be the foundation of reality
It's a little bit some sort of neo-geocentrism, conscious beings represent just an infinitly small constituant of reality, i just have some difficulties with saying that the experiences of those small beings will make is change all our understanding if the world
It seem consciousness represent just a small portion of the universe

[CMVMic]

And exactly what is the argument against metaphysical coherentism? Also, explanations need not termintate or be grounded, they can also be circular. Clearly, people aren't familiar with Munchhausen's Trilemma enough to understand that. Rasumussen is wrong. Existence doesnt require an explanation, it can be brute, also, being cannot come from nonbeing so @3:41 you cannot bring yourself into existence, you were never brought into existence, what you are made of always existed. When one assumes linear causation, that is when the problem arises.

[Dhorpatan]

I cant believe no sight thus far of Jacob Power or video gamer AnduinX BYM!😅

[oflameo]

It can indeed be the case that it is turtles all of the way down.

[noxot]

personalism and love are higher in my hierarchy of mind than some concepts of parsimony and even my idea of parsimony might not be compatible with others if they can't manage to regard one and many as the same whole that are co-equal and co-eternal. the infinite mind is one and many and the only thing that is and thus the only foundation of itself. it is a whole and not a fragment though humans seem to be fragments due to their ignorance. the many make the one and the one make the many but we are okay because we are infinite and eternal and thus have infinitely better versions of ourselves to make sure we never get caught in a permanent chaos. I cast out from myself all crude christian baggage as unnecessary and something evil trying to keep me away from God and I accept that what Jesus spoke was just as true for me as he. without love people get an insane idea about reality, that it has no bias, that it just produces everything irrationally and that evil and goodness are equal to it. it is a reverting back into naturalism and physicalism due to only an abstract knowledge of reality.