Existential Idealism
As it is always in life, there are at least two competing sides, battling it out for supremacy, attempting to prove their stand as the right stand and also to discredit or out argue the other side. In Philosophy these 'two clubs' are usually divided along the basic lines of dispositions and each of them includes a number of variants to their basic World View. More over, one could argue, unless a Philosophical discussion does not touch upon any one of those basic "Weltanschauung" lines, the same should not be merited with 'philosophical". However, not every discussion is fought over those basic Weltanschauung premises. When ever this occurs, a prospective reader looks immediately for identification markers, in order to uncover the origin of discussion. In this study, we will outline a proposition, which may sound as being an attempt to resolve this 'dichotomous' relation once and for all. However a diligent analyst will notice immediately, from which Weltanschauung 'club' our discussion stems!!!
If we look back at, what is commonly termed as "Western Philosophy" and which usually either starts or gets really interesting with Plato and Aristotle - yes, we are in ancient Greece here, and pay attention to discussions revolving back then - and ever since, we can rest assured that we have hit the right spot, where to look for our 'clubs'. And if we can agree over Plato's 'man in a cave' discussion, then we have pretty much chosen sides in this dispute. Discussions, ever since, and we may assume "and possibly way back from before", will be fierce, no stone will be left unturned, no point forgotten and heaps of fuel added but the resolution to the problem will remain as far as it has always been. Does this discussion endeavors to offer some sort of acceptable solution or is its aim to add some more fuel to an already long time burning furnace?
We cannot answer any of these questions in a positive way but we can give it a shot!!!
Spirit versus Body, Mind versus Matter, Essence versus Substance, Idealism versus Materialism, Ideas a priori versus Ideas a posteriori - these are our competitors in the battlefield we term as Philosophy and the question is: what comes first? Based on these characteristics, we determine nature of any given discussion. Of course, not every discussion deals with these moments but every discussion rests on either one of these. It must rest on one or the other because there is a particular Weltanschauung behind discussion's content - ups, we may have just dispensed with objectivity and hence striped this discussion down to, lets call it unscientific. But to make a claim that something in order to be scientific must also be objective is nothing else than to introduce Subjectivism, through the back door though. It is a very tricky business to engage oneself into a Philosophical discussion without encountering objections of this and similar nature...