Kastrup’s Idealism, Nagarjuna’s Middle Way and the Perils of AI
If we have expertise in some particular area of knowledge, as most of us do, then we may have noticed that in this particular area of knowledge the information provided by Chat GPT is unreliable, and sometimes downright misleading. I suspect that if we were an expert in every area on the map of knowledge would see that this is global problem, and also that it is particularly a problem in philosophy.
I have never had a philosophical argument with AI, but on countless occasions have had to point out important subtleties or errors. The reply, as you probably know, is usually, ‘This is an excellent observation’ followed by further flattery, as if I must be genius to catch it out, and then ‘Let me re-phrase this passage’.
We always end up agreeing, and I learn a great deal from the process of reaching an agreement, but it requires some expertise. I fear for those without it, as most of us are for most of the time, who may be impressed by the eloquence and authority of AI, misjudge the limits of its competence, and believe whatever it tells us. We forget that the phrase ‘Artificial Intelligence’ is marketing hype.
I say this because I have been talking to Chat GPT about the relationship between Bernardo Kastrup’s Analytic Idealism and Nagarjuna’s Middle Way Buddhism, about which I am writing an article. I asked it to list the points of disagreement between them. The first on the list, presented as a bold paragraph heading, was ‘Nagajuna was not an idealist’.
I pointed out that if we define idealism as does Kastrup, or in a way the ambiguity of his definition allows it to be defined, then he was. If we define consciousness as it is defined in the Perennial philosophy, then Nagarjuna’s position might be described as a form of idealism, as it is in the case of Transcendent or Absolute Idealism, and there is no reason Kastrup cannot, if he so chooses, define it in this way. Analytic Idealism would survive unscathed. AI conceded the point, and proceeded to wrote me a far briefer and clearer explanation of it than I could have written.
This is not a trivial matter. I believe the Perennial philosophy is true, and am honoured that the Essentia Foundation has published my book. How can I succeed in persuading people that Analytic Idealism is backed up by the might and muscle of the Perennial philosophy when AI goes around telling them, in no uncertain terms, that Nagarjuna was not an idealist?
The Issues at Stake
Whether it is consistent with the Buddha’s teachings depends entirely on how Analytic Idealism defines mind and consciousness. At this point, it seems to me, it leaves them loosely defined, and I suspect deliberately so.
As Kastrup confesses in one of his Youtube interviews, he is playing a game. As I understand it, the game involves using hard science and rigorous philosophical argument to lead his audience to the very gates of mysticism, while never letting slip that this is where they are heading. In mysticism this is called ‘skillful means’.
It is precisely the value of Analytic Idealism, it seem to me, that it leaves the question of whether is consistent with the Perennial philosophy a little unclear. It makes no ‘appeal to mysticism’ for its plausibility and, crucially, is silent on the foundational issue of whether it incorporates or is consistent with the mystical principle of nonduality. After all, if it were obvious that Analytic Idealism incorporated the principle of nonduality it would be obvious that it is mysticism, and then it may frighten off all the people for whom it was designed to appeal.
My article will explain that the relationship between the nondual Middle Way doctrine of Nagarjuna and Kastrup’s Analytic Idealism is unproblematic just as long as we are careful with the definition of consciousness. In modern consciousness studies it is usually defined as individual or ‘intentional’ (subject-object) consciousness. For mysticism, however, we would need to define it as having two aspects or states. The distinction between these states must be made in order for mysticism to make sense. In the Upanishads we are told that there is no consciousness after death, and yet also that Brahman is consciousness. If we do not recognise the two meanings of ‘consciousness’ this will look like a contradiction.
If we distinguish vijñāna (individual, cognitive consciousness) from cit (Brahman as pure awareness), then the Upaniṣadic claim that “there is no consciousness after death” refers to the cessation of vijñāna, and the affirmation that “Brahman is consciousness” refers to cit, which neither arises nor ceases.
Hence, Kastrup’s idealism, while it might be seen as reifying mind, and Nāgārjuna’s nondualism, which denies the true reality of all conceptual entities, need not conflict, for both point to cit, the unconditioned reality beyond affirmation.
Thus it is possible to endorse the Perennial philosophy and Analytic Idealism simultaneously. It is is also possible to endorse Analytic Idealism while knowing nothing about and even being sceptical of the Perennial philosophy. This allows Analytic Idealism to serve as a pathway to the 'land of Woo' while avoiding any need to confuse the issues by delving into the 'mystical' principle of nonduality, and stay carefully within the respectable limits of empirical science and analytic philosophy.
As long as Analytical Idealism endorses the Upanishadic definition of consciousness I will be able to say that my book In Pursuit of the Inconceivable is an explanation of its metaphysical foundation, and try to persuade fans and critics of Analytic Idealism to buy it.
As for AI…
I enjoy talking to AI and find it highly educational, but it is clearly not intelligent. On the topic of philosophy it reflects and reproduces the confusion of human beings, and it is certainly not going to understand the subject before we do.