But what justification is there that what is thought of is actually in existence outside of thought? One can think of things that do not exist outside of thought.
What justification is there that reality isn’t thought by it’s very nature?
How do you justify the premise that reality is objectively-existent?
Well, please do share what you find!
You are on the right track w/ idealism vs materialism in psychology, at least.
The question there arose from the brain: how do you rectify the mind/soul with the brain/body? Dualism apparently fails (the idea that there is a separate mind from the brain) which leaves only some form of monism. A sort of hybrid materialism-idealism seems to make the most sense, where consciousness is a property of the universe, like time or space, and different entities have differing consciousnesses. In that sort of a philosophy, when talking about the brain of a person you are equally talking about the experience that person is having, just in different terms.
I suspect that in sociology that would be some sort of unified anarcho-marxism, if such a thing exists. The atomic theory of society seems to be the thing where they are working on unifying language. If society is fully atomized, asking whether a new society arises due to free choice or resource demands is like asking whether rivers rise due to rain or sewer overflow, if that makes sense?
apparently, depending on the language used, it will drive the easily angered on the right to insanity
You are very welcome!
I’m glad to be able to be of appreciation, as I know how that is - looks like you are in the right place to discuss political science though!
In the interest of conversation, maybe you can explain or point me to an explanation of why Anarchism vs. Marxism is considered “idealism vs materialism” in sociology?
In Psychology, we had an “idealism vs materialism” debate, but it is mostly resolved with a sort of “idealistic materialism” or “materialistic idealism” where, essentially, “idealism <=> materialism”, as I understand it.
I’m curious about what the current state of the art is, in that debate!
Either way, I’ll definitely spend some time in !politics@lemmy.ml checking things out.
Have you read about the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights yet?
Based on my understanding, that treaty will require us to have universal healthcare and social security.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights
I think “Outsider Left” may have subsumed “Faith and Family Left” in the new version of the typology.
A good rule of thumb is to measure twice, cut once, so perhaps give it a try twice: once where you answer philosophically and once where you answer practically?
I’m due for taking it again, myself, but I generally consider myself a radical moderate (I’m all for system-wide changes) and I think Pew described me as “faith and family left” when I last took the test.
Hah, hello neighbor :D
I’m curious how universal these political typologies could be made. I’m sure this one might apply a great deal to a number of western countries, if you change the names accordingly, etc.
Have any resources to journalistic articles that describe the way in which Meta implementing ActivityPub would be bad for the Fediverse?
Happy to highlight any !Privacy@lemmy.ml human rights concerns (right to privacy, right to share opinions, etc.) on !humanrights@lemmy.sdf.org
IAEA is the international body responsible for standardizations on nuclear energy.
Four years is not a long span of time in the context of nuclear energy, where technological developments take the scale of decades.
This press release pertains to the newly announced western strategy for nuclear, low-carbon energy. That strategy is still current.
By working to ensure that everyone can benefit from nuclear science, the IAEA underpins rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1976. These include the right to benefit from scientific progress; the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to the highest-attainable standard of health.
The Agency does this by using nuclear science to combat zoonotic diseases; bolster food safety; protect fruits from pests; strengthen water management; treat cancer; and of course, to help countries mitigate climate change.
Enjoy your echo chamber.
Irony. She sounds kind of similar to how Manchin and Smyrna are to the Democrats.
“Gore rushed to share the news with the hard-liners who had encouraged her to run for the seat. She expected them to be as relieved and excited as she had been. But she said they were indifferent, even dismissive, because “it didn’t fit the narrative that they were trying to push.””
I say to thee, I’m mad as hell, and I can’t take it any more.
No Human Rights, No America
or feral swine
Forgot the opportunity cost.
Big tech - move fast, break things, disrupt, and destroy
Hopefully they do a better job with it than they did with Foundation. At least they likely won’t cancel it early like Amazon did to Peripheral.
So… there are things that are either within the category of thought or not? Is thought mutually exclusive to material? Is thought composed of material or the other way around? Or are they both the same?
That is the standard definition of idealism, is it not? That existence is immaterial?