ok: Here is why our differs, its in your last sentence:
"In all these cases, the mistake is to assume a fundamental difference between
subjectivity and objectivity"
This is where I agree - to me the difference is effectively the same as religion
and science - to me, religion is a subset of social science - not opposed to
science but explainable by science.
In the same way, a square is a rectangle, though a rectangle is not always a
square - Objective is the set of which subjective is a part.
It seems to me, from your brief description of idealism and dualism that dualism
is on the ball, just lacking in empirical data, but gaining rapidly. At least the
option is alive. Idealism on the other hand, though philosophically attractive,
seems pretty doomed to failure for more reasons than it inability to explain the
success of reason.
Bill Roh
Sodom
Robin Faichney wrote:
> Materialism is based on the subjective/objective
> distinction, as it claims that objective phenomena are
> real and subjective ones unreal, but it fails to explain
> consciousness. Philosophical idealism (subjectivity is
> real and objectivity unreal) and dualism (both are real,
> though in different ways) also fail for the same reason.
> Idealism fails to explain the success of science, and
> dualism fails to explain interaction between subjective
> and objective phenomena. In all these cases, the
> mistake is to assume a fundamental difference between
> subjectivity and objectivity.
> --
> Robin