For further disambiguation: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/

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?

Thanks for taking the time to reply, db0! That is much appreciated.

You are very welcome!

Indeed, that is a relatively accurate description.

You are free to leave it or delete, but I’d recommend leaving this one, as I’ve not posted any news about HK yet.

If you come across anything that you really think we need to know about, do post it here, and especially post any relevant human rights-based analysis that you come across.

Congrats on being the first person besides myself to post here :)

This is on target, but don’t flood us with news - resources > news in this community.

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.