They’re just categorically different, there isn’t an “inside” or an “outside” in the sense of spatial structure as that is something derived a posteriori as part of thought.

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?

I’m not sure what it would even mean to say reality is “thought”.

That is the standard definition of idealism, is it not? That existence is immaterial?

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

https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/17708289

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.

We need journalism, not vitriol, in !humanrights@lemmy.sdf.org <- I’m the moderator there. Just saying, if you see something in the news that speaks to the human right to privacy, we’ll spread the news if you cross-post it.

Article 12, UN UDHR

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

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

You cannot buy a decentralised network!

https://www.bbc.com/rd/blog/2023-07-mastodon-distributed-decentralised-fediverse-activitypub

Disappointment is the feeling that I experience when looking at the right-side-up flag, so I feel for ya.

Well, then, you better start handing out hazmat suits and respirators to everyone before you start burning.

What would rise from the ashes?

they ‘commit suicide’, or commit a crime that gets them sent to prison in Siberia

Like I said, arguably. Show me some data that says that the opposition has grown above 25% (arbitrary, you may understand what I mean) and then I’ll come down on the side that he probably doesn’t speak for the majority of the country.

That’s like asking if Texas can choose to secede. They can not. Nor can the rest of the US vote to expel Texas without triggering a constitutional crisis.

The only way that they can secede is if we make a constitutional amendment to allow states to secede, yes. Personally, I’d vote for letting Texas secede, if they wanted to.

Now, if an entire country votes to allow a region of their country to be annexed, then sure. Even if elections in Crimea were free and fair–and the evidence strongly suggests that most of the people voting were coerced–it would need to be all of Ukraine voting to allow the annexation.

Now we are seeing eye-to-eye, Helix - that’s pretty much my point. There are diplomatic avenues to solve this problem, so maybe Ukraine can solve the whole thing, in the interest of preventing future wars. I say “solve” in the sense that they may be able to negotiate a plan for how to handle this in the future for the whole old Soviet bloc.

concern trolling

No argument with this paragraph, I agree, in principle.

The whole thing reeks of Putin trolling the West.

rather than the victim accepting a little victimizing

Point taken, however, instead of a little victimizing (by way of that hypothetical peaceful path that we outlined earlier) they are now getting a lot of victimizing (vis a vis, death and destruction).

Again, for the sake of argument, assuming that Russia itself was victimized during the fall of the USSR, and assuming that Putin is seeking to redress that, rather than him trying to take over the whole old-bloc, then is there any other peaceful path?

if we assume that he is trying to take over the whole old-bloc, then I’d be entirely in agreement with you on this topic.

I’m just not willing to make blanket assumptions like that - I prefer the probabilistic approach.

Thanks, by the way, for taking the time to discuss this with me. I’ll keep replying if you do.

word

https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-history-flag-burning

You are so very welcome, friend. I totally agree.

I appreciate your enthusiasm! You do make solid points, some of which I am well aware of, but as Russia is not a specific area of interest for me, I can’t match your level of enthusiasm.

However, in the interest of the spirit of brotherhood and interestimg conversation, I would ask this of you:

That’s entirely due to Vladimir Putin.

Having been in power for so long and with arguably a strong level of domestic support for decades, isn’t it fair to say that we ought to continue to operate as-if he did speak for the whole country?

Building on that semi-rhetorical question, and especially in regard to your concession that the West could have helped more, and in a larger, more historical perspective, might we perhaps give Russia slight leniency to make minor readjustments to borders, if (hypothetically) the local regions did legitimately vote in agreement?

Recall, being “ethnic Russian” is of key interest and, in my opinion, it might be the case that there are border towns that legitimately prefer to be part of Russia, given their local history, but were never represented properly at the fall of the USSR.

You’ve definitely piqued my interest in the specific mechanism by which the USSR was dismantled.

NATO is strictly a defensive organization.

No argument there. Again, though, I’d ask: when exactly would we start to repair our relationship with Russia by loosening up on them a little?

At this juncture, I presume it would be a long ways away, but one never knows what can come out of diplomatic negotiations, so maybe Ukraine solves the whole thing, if we are lucky.