Quote:
|
Most idealist philosophers say the transcendent world influences the visible world. They do not postulate a total disconnect from the world but rather, in many cases, say that the world of understanding in none other than the transcendent world.
|
Words like 'mind' and 'understanding' developed to qualitatively (conceptually) describe functions and activities of the nervous system. Whereas neoruscience aims to understand the mind quantitatively (numerically, aka, as empirically verified data), philosophy (under the guidance of logic) tries to make it comprehensible in terms of everyday language. While I don't think philosophers are obligated to adhere to scientific norms during their reasoning, I do think their ideas should not be inconsistent with scientific depictions of the world.
The idealistic philosophers (Plato) posulate the existence of a world of eternal forms (abstracts) from which the particulars of our universe derive. The Nietzchean assertion that abstracts are just the mind's comparison similarities of unlike things (observations of leaves create the impression of an abstract leaf in the mind) is more down to earth and sensible than supposing abstracts exist in another world.
The mind, since it is just a way of describing the physical activity of the brain and other nerves, is a continuation of the world, not a world apart.