bsit

Practice. I’ve learned it by meditation (specifically paying attention to the whole of your experience), and so have many other people I know.

It entails exactly what you see in the world. Humans trying to come up with some universal good and evil and then fighting each other because they believe their definition is better.

“Morality” in itself is a human concept, like every word in general.

This realization often entails a kind of nihilism too, unfortunately, as a sort of rebellious backlash against any ideas of harmony with others.

Vast majority of people don’t want to directly cause suffering to others. Then there’s a lot of opinions on how much you “should” (a thinly veiled callback to universal good and evil again) endeavour to reduce the indirect suffering you cause, and also how to define suffering.

Ultimately it’s always just people’s personal values clashing and best you can do is figure out what your values are, and find people who share them. You can’t really force people to value anything they don’t - you can only teach it if they are willing to learn. Or you can force compliant behavior despite their differing values - if your value system allows forcing. If your values allow for forcing compliant behavior on others, then you must of course accept that others will try to use force as well. If you don’t allow forcing, then you pretty much need to be prepared to die for the ability to live according to your values.

Very much this. Just going for walks is great. Meditation is great.

And people need to stop consuming political content in social media. Read/watch the news, sure. Especially LOCAL news - find opportunities to actually DO something. Do it intentionally, not passively

Letting oneself be constantly exposed to outrage and doomerism is just going to be more incapacitating than activating.

When they no longer feel a desire to argue with reality that they have faced fully (no lying to oneself) and have accepted that everything is temporary.

And they understand that the above is not a call for nihilism and resignation, but inner peace.

Not saying if you should or should not be jaded but I would ask you: please, please don’t give into the jadedness.

I do understand the impulse and I used to be that way myself. But it’s something that eats at you more than it helps you. Online you can always step away from the strife and in the offline world you can find truly good and caring people who do listen to reason. I realize it might be easy for me to say but I really don’t want to see any more people turn to hopelessness and cynicism. It only helps people who would add more misery to the world.

I’m not the best person to say this and it’ll sound weird on this platform but I do mean it with all my heart. I hope you can find enough good in your life to protect it without despair.

There’s a world of difference between disagreeing with someone and mocking them. Especially if the mockery is based on a complete misrepresentation of what is being said.

Hehe, the funny thing is that on me, your assumption would actually more correct than the fundie Christian assumption.

Very specific yoga philosophy, and “healing” crystals in the sense that I’m fine with people saying that looking at pretty rocks makes them feel better. Wouldn’t generalize that into a cancer cure though.

Thanks for proving my point I guess.

Discussion about anything spiritual. Mention the word and people automatically assume that you’re an extreme right-wing fundamentalist Christian ready to host a sermon about how much God hates homosexuals.

Not at all to imply that this is your case, but there’s a difference between having an intellectual understanding of idealism and actually having the lived experience of it.

And most people need to do some kind of practices to get there, which are typically found in spiritual contexts (meditation etc.). But there definitely are people who just kinda drop into it.

Though… yes. It’s a philosophical stance but it kinda gets tossed under the umbrella of spirituality. Maybe that’s actually a problem come to think of it. Since spirituality is easier to dismiss as “woo” (as in, everything that goes against the almighty scientism is woo…)

Though you do say:

subjective perception

What do you mean? Because as an idealist, I was specifically taught to see the difference between a subjective perception and general consciousness. It’s very possible this is just semantics of course.

Burden‑of‑proof reversal - >support your positive claim that consciousness is fundamental.

Begging the question / Circular reasoning - Presenting that claim as a settled fact without argument assumes the very point under dispute.

I did offer support, several times. Just because you keep skipping over it doesn’t mean I didn’t. My support is: to say anything about the world, you have to be conscious first. Feel free to refute the fact. Once you do, I’ll respond.

I’m presenting an axiom. Every “proof” you offer for matter is itself an experience appearing within consciousness. I’m not assuming the conclusion; I’m highlighting the only medium through which “evidence” is even possible.

False analogy / Irrelevant comparison

Materialism and Idealism are equally “unfalsifiable” at the foundational level. Science measures the behavior of things (phenomena), but it cannot prove the nature of the “thing-in-itself” (noumena) exists without a witness.

Tu quoque / Defensive turn

It is not a fallacy to point out that you’re guilty of the very “unfounded belief” you accuse me of. It is a valid critique of Scientism (the mistaken belief that the scientific method can solve metaphysical questions)

Equivocation

I’m not “blurring” terms; I’m defining them more precisely. For an Idealist, “to exist” is synonymous with “to be experienced”. You are assuming a secondary, unobservable definition of “existence” outside of experience.

Appeal to ignorance / Appeal to unfalsifiability

Materialism relies on indirect inference. Every “fact” about matter is an appearance within consciousness. Not only that, it’s a thing filtered through language. Idealism relies on direct evidence: the immediate, undeniable fact of experience itself (before labels, words, concepts, map-to-the-territory) There is zero evidence for matter existing independently of an observer. To claim that matter exists when no one is experiencing it is an unfalsifiable leap of faith, not a scientific “fact”.

Rhetorical trap / Straw‑man implication - Labeling the opponent’s method a “trap” without showing how their specific move misapplies logic risks mischaracterizing their argument rather than refuting it.

I did explain, but well… you don’t read. You just want to prove yourself right.

Special pleading - Claiming your position is exempt from the usual requirement to provide independent support while insisting others must disprove theirs functions like special pleading.

I’m pointing at the Hard Problem of Consciousness. It is actually “special pleading” to claim matter is the only thing that doesn’t need a witness to be “real”.

Consciousness isn’t just the starting line, it’s the entire field. Without it, there’s no game, no players, no ‘matter.’ You’re arguing about the rules of a game while standing on the field and pretending the field doesn’t exist. Matter is the “Guess”: You only assume physical things (like rocks or brains) exist “out there” because your awareness shows them to you as images, sounds, or feelings. In short: You don’t have to prove you are aware, but you do have to prove that the “outside world” exists when you aren’t looking at it

Just in case there’s someone else reading this at this point and is actually interested, go read these (because the person I’m responding to won’t and there’s little point in continuing to argue with someone like that):

https://philarchive.org/rec/KASAIA-3 Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only ontology, Bernardo Kastrup

This is a recent philosophical look into Idealism

Some useful wikipedia links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind–body_dualism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map–territory_relation

You accuse me of fallacies, but let’s be clear:

Burden-of-proof reversal: You demand I prove consciousness is fundamental while assuming matter is - without proving matter exists outside consciousness. That’s the very circularity I’m highlighting.

Begging the question: Claiming ‘rocks existed before brains’ assumes a materialist timeline, which is the premise in dispute. Your “evidence” is just experience within consciousness.

False analogy: You dismiss idealism as “unfalsifiable woo,” but your own materialist assumptions are equally unfalsifiable.

I’m not reversing the burden; I’m exposing the symmetry: neither of us can prove our starting point without circularity. But I can point to the fact that to say anything about the world, you need consciousness first.

I’m not begging the question; I’m asking you to justify your assumption that matter is independent of observation.

My analogy isn’t false, it’s precise: You’re demanding I disprove your framework using your framework. That’s not logic; it’s a trap.

Feel free to explain how it’s not circular to insist that a challenge to materialism must be proven within materialism.

“Rationality”

You’re the one who is resorting to just calling everything that doesn’t align with your beliefs “nonsense” and “woo-woo”. That’s about as far as rationality as you can get. You don’t have to like philosophy but then don’t start arguing about it, especially if you don’t know how to recognize logical fallacies in your own arguments.

There is no evidence for that and worse, it’s unfalsifiable, so just a personal belief.

“Please prove to me that God isn’t real by using the Bible”

I’m not arguing for solipsism, as I said in my initial post. I’m pointing out that your “shared reality” is only “shared” because consciousness makes it so. Idealism doesn’t deny the external world; it says the “external” is already a construct of mind. Your objection assumes matter is the default, but that’s the very premise in question. Science can’t falsify idealism because it relies on observation, and observation is consciousness in action. You’re using the tools of matter to dismiss what makes tools (and matter) intelligible in the first place.

It’s not solipsism, as I specifically said in my first post. It’s idealism. There’s a significant difference. I suggest you read on it before throwing around terms.

Everything you’re describing is something that appeared in consciousness and was then put to words, which are not reality, just symbols pointing to an experience inside consciousness.

You’re doing the science sounding equivalent of the Christian “god is real, says so in the bible, and bible was written by god, therefore it’s true”.

Also your education is not too good on the matter if you think I’m saying anything new. This philosophical stance has been around for centuries. I’ve already pointed to idealism.

“plenty that matter existed before consciousness”

Prove it. Prove that anything exists outside consciousness right now, that isn’t just an appearance inside consciousness.

Nope. If you want to say anything (matter, rocks) exist before consciousness, you’re going to have to prove it first. Else, you’re insisting on a materialist dogma.

Just because the idea is novel to you personally, doesn’t mean it’s outlandish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

What would you know about brains if not for consciousness?