Why the bias against materialism?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Another God
Umm..excuse me, but back in "The good old days" when many of the questions hadn't been answered, and nothing was understood about our world people cut down trees without consideration of the effects. Species of animals were wiped out without a second of atherthought, and often without people even noticing that it had even happened.

Back when "Man was created in Gods image" and All the creatures and plants of the land were here specifically for mans use...people ABUSED them. Wasted, threw away, didn't care, partook in hedonistic whatever they wanted.

You can't blame science, materialism, progress, consumerism or modernity for the behaviours of man. We do what we want when we want how we want, and often at the expense of others and other things.

It's just cute how periodically someone sits back and comments "Oh, how terrible we are" as if they are superior to everyone else for having noticed.

Cute huh? Now were these materialists committing these acts or, were they "true idealists?"

And you think u can just assume this is a consequence of materialistic philosophy? Perhaps (and that's a big perhaps) you have noticed a correlation, but that doesn't link the two objects up as a cause and effect relation... (this is logic I am using by the way. Logic comes from philosophy. Science is a 'denomination' (thats how i think of it) of Philosophy.)

My theory on the suicide rate increase is actually that our lives are too damn easy these days, and so people find themselves creating internal problems for themselves, and then find they can't deal with them.

See, there are statistical studied that show that during times of hardship (depression, war etc) suicides drop to almost insignificant levels. The obvious reason in my mind is to do with the fact that we are designed to deal with hardship. In the absence of hardship, we just don't know what to do with ourselves, and so it would seem we just self destruct.

Yes, and when you begin to focus on the spiritual aspect (quality of life), instead of "lavishing it on ourselves," you don't need all these material things.

Now is science to blame for this?

Probably. It's only thanks to science that our lives have become so easy.

Yes, we have the quantity (materialism) which, suits our vanity, but not the quality (idealism), which suits our ultimate sense of worth and humility. So it seems it's all a matter of values.

 

[Royce]

Zero, I'm getting a different read of your stace as a materialist in this thread than in the other one where we discussed marterialism vs subjectivism or idealism. I understood your position to be that only the objective physical material universe existed here you seem to be making room for the subjective as well as material. Am I miss reading or are you taking a slightly different position in this thread?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Zero, I'm getting a different read of your stace as a materialist in this thread than in the other one where we discussed marterialism vs subjectivism or idealism. I understood your position to be that only the objective physical material universe existed here you seem to be making room for the subjective as well as material. Am I miss reading or are you taking a slightly different position in this thread?

I believe you are misreading me...can you point to the specific part of a post of mine that is confusing you?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32 We have the "effect" all around us, which is external. But, if this is the extent of our focus, how does it belie the "cause," which is internal? Life itself is nothing but subjective, which is say, if we wish to find meaning in life, then we must look within. Doesn't that make the least bit of sense?

Whereas the materialists will say, there is no meaning to life, we are just here. Now you tell me which makes more sense? ... and, which sounds outright foolish?

What is the point to doing anything in this life if it doesn't mean anything?

You have an absolute talent for misrepresenting materialism and science. Where does science/materialism say such a thing?
There is a purpose in our life, cause we are the very beings, that determine and define purpose for ourself, unlike rocks, and planets and stars, and the universe, which does not have that kind of subjectivity. To be alife is meaning in itself, cause it is a struggle to be and remain in life, that is what billion of years of evolution can tell us.

But science is neither prescribing people how to find purpose and meaning in life, since that is a personal matter. Science can only say something meaningfull as our biological nature and drifts is concerned, or whay our psychological behaviour is considered.

It is theism on ther other hand that gives a false meaning to people's lifes since religion is based on an alienated self-consciousness. That is what is trouble some, cause religion defines a false meaning to someone's life.


" (...) Hunger is a natural need; it therefore needs a nature outside itself, an object outside itself, in order to satisfy itself, to be stilled. Hunger is an acknowledged need of my body for an object existing outside it, indispensable to its integration and to the expression of its essential being. The sun is the object of the plant — an indispensable object to it, confirming its life — just as the plant is an object of the sun, being an expression of the life-awakening power of the sun, of the sun’s objective essential power.

A being which does not have its nature outside itself is not a natural being, and plays no part in the system of nature. A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for some third being has no being for its object; i.e., it is not objectively related. Its being is not objective.

A non-objective being is a non-being.

Suppose a being which is neither an object itself, nor has an object. Such a being, in the first place, would be the unique being: there would exist no being outside it — it would exist solitary and alone. For as soon as there are objects outside me, as soon as I am not alone, I am another — another reality than the object outside me. For this third object I am thus a different reality than itself; that is, I am its object. Thus, to suppose a being which is not the object of another being is to presuppose that no objective being exists. As soon as I have an object, this object has me for an object. But a non-objective being is an unreal, non-sensuous thing — a product of mere thought (i.e., of mere imagination) — an abstraction. To be sensuous, that is, to be really existing, means to be an object of sense, to be a sensuous object, to have sensuous objects outside oneself — objects of one’s sensuousness. To be sensuous is to suffer.

Man as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a suffering being — and because he feels that he suffers, a passionate being. Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object. (...)"


" (...) The way in which consciousness is, and in which something is for it, is knowing. Knowing is its sole act. Something therefore comes to be for consciousness insofar as the latter knows this something. Knowing is its sole objective relation.

It [consciousness] then knows the nullity of the object (i.e., knows the non-existence of the distinction between the object and itself, the non-existence of the object for it) because it knows the object as its self-alienation; that is knows itself — knows knowing as object — because the object is only he semblance of an object, a piece of mystification, which in its essence, however, is nothing else but knowing itself, which has confronted itself with itself and hence has confronted itself with a nullity — a something which has no objectivity outside the knowing. Or: knowing knows that in relating itself to an object it is only outside itself — that it only externalises itself; that it itself only appears to itself as an object — or that that which appears to it as an object is only itself.

On the other hand, says Hegel, there is here at the same time this other moment, that consciousness has just as much annulled and reabsorbed this externalisation and objectivity, being thus at home in its other-being as such.


In this discussion all the illusions of speculation are brought together.

First of all: consciousness, self-consciousness, is at home in its other-being as such. It is therefore — or if we here abstract from the Hegelian abstraction and (put the self-consciousness of man instead of self-consciousness) it is at home in its other being as such. This implies, for one thing, that consciousness (knowing as knowing, thinking as thinking) pretends to be directly the other of itself — to be the world of sense, the real world, life — thought surpassing itself in thought (Feuerbach)[51]. This aspect is contained herein, inasmuch as consciousness as mere consciousness takes offence not at estranged objectivity, but at objectivity as such.

Secondly, this implies that self-conscious man, insofar as he has recognised and superseded the spiritual world (or his world’s spiritual, general mode of being) as self-alienation, nevertheless again confirms it in this alienated shape and passes it off as his true mode of being — re-establishes it, and pretends to be at home in his other-being as such. Thus, for instance, after superseding religion, after recognising religion to be a product of self-alienation he yet finds confirmation of himself in religion as religion. Here is the root of Hegel’s false positivism, or of his merely apparent criticism: this is what Feuerbach designated as the http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/future/future1.htm#21b" — but it has to be expressed in more general terms. Thus reason is at home in unreason The man who has recognised that he is leading an alienated life in law, politics, etc., is leading his true human life in this alienated life as such. Self-affirmation, self-confirmation in contradiction with itself — in contradiction with both the knowledge and the essential being of the object — is thus true knowledge and life.

There can therefore no longer be any question about an act of accommodation on Hegel’s part vis-à-vis religion, the state, etc., since this lie is the lie of his principle.

If I know religion as alienated human self-consciousness, then what I know in it as religion is not my self-consciousness, but my alienated self-consciousness confirmed in it. I therefore know my self-consciousness that belongs to itself, to its very nature, confirmed not in religion but rather in annihilated and superseded religion.

In Hegel, therefore, the negation of the negation is not the confirmation of the true essence, effected precisely through negation of the pseudo-essence. With him the negation the negation is the confirmation of the pseudo-essence, or of the self-estranged essence in its denial; or it is the denial; or it is the denial of this pseudo-essence as an objective being dwelling outside man and independent of him, and its transformation into the subject. (...)"

Source: Marx in http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm"

 

[TENYEARS]

Zero, in the materialist handbook page 54 line 13 it says that although it may have not been performed in a laboratory paid for or subsidized by big business to create more ways to be irresponsible while makeing lots of money. It is generally accepted from the materialist as long as it boosts ones ego or increases pocket currency. Since the kidnapping of kids was an observed fact which would qualify for a materialist view, since there is no money to be made on the subject or ego or power boost, rule 182 on page 176 is now invoked which means it did not happen from a materialist stand point.

I must be a dam fool, because I agrue with them.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
I think the materialist philosophy is a practical one. The 'line' for something to be considered 'material' is having a defined understood existence. It is not, necessarily, having the cause of that existence completely understood. For instance, if telekinesis could be shown to work in a laboratory setting, and replicated, it would count as being part of the materialistic worldview, even if we couldn't figure out HOW it worked for centuries, if ever.

I this is what I'm reading as leaving room. specifically;
" The 'line' for something to be considered 'material' is having a defined understood existence. It is not, necessarily, having the cause of that existence completely understood."
I had thought that the materialist view required a physical measureable existence. The next line is even more outside the materislist box and telekinesis is the subjective influencing to objective.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that you are being inconsistant at all only the you seem to be taking, for the purpose of this thread, a slightly different stance. It's okay to do so. I often do myself. I just want to know where you are standing now so if I do try to take a shoot at you I will at least be aiming in the right direction.

Not to worry I'm still recovering from our last go around.[zz)]

 

[Zero]

What I meant, specifically, is that for something to have an objective existence, it must be measurable. We don't know exactly how gravity works('graviton particles' or spacetime curvature), but we can absolutely measure and predict the effects of.
As far as telekinesis, I don't understand what you mean by 'subjective influencing to objective', but my point was simple. If it can observed in controlled conditions, invariably repeated, and observed by anyone who cares to see, it becomes part of a materialist worldview. Both gravity and telekinesis describe action over a distance with no easily apparent link between the objects, but gravity can be measured, can be shown to exist the same way for all observers, and can be predicted with great accuracy. When the same can be said for psuedoscientific ideas like telekinesis, they will then become part of what we can consider to be 'reality'.

Does that make any sense?

 

[Royce]

Yep, and consistant.

telekinsis is an esp term for moving material objects by mind power alone ie. subjective thought physcally causing an object to move. I assumed that that is what yo were talking about. So far I wouldn't even place it in the suedoscientific category more illusion or fraud.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Zero, in the materialist handbook page 54 line 13 it says that although it may have not been performed in a laboratory paid for or subsidized by big business to create more ways to be irresponsible while makeing lots of money. It is generally accepted from the materialist as long as it boosts ones ego or increases pocket currency. Since the kidnapping of kids was an observed fact which would qualify for a materialist view, since there is no money to be made on the subject or ego or power boost, rule 182 on page 176 is now invoked which means it did not happen from a materialist stand point.

I must be a dam fool, because I agrue with them.

What "Materialist handbook" are you talking about here?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Yep, and consistant.

telekinsis is an esp term for moving material objects by mind power alone ie. subjective thought physcally causing an object to move. I assumed that that is what yo were talking about. So far I wouldn't even place it in the suedoscientific category more illusion or fraud.

Well, what about any 'non-physical' idea? Shouldn't it be held to the same standard as any other idea?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
I think the materialist philosophy is a practical one. The 'line' for something to be considered 'material' is having a defined understood existence. It is not, necessarily, having the cause of that existence completely understood. For instance, if telekinesis could be shown to work in a laboratory setting, and replicated, it would count as being part of the materialistic worldview, even if we couldn't figure out HOW it worked for centuries, if ever.

This definition you have is exactly my point. I don't see how this definition can be acceptable. If we make "material" mean something which can be shown to exist, then the word material is useless. We already have a word that means that and it's called existence! This was my point earlier when I said that if you start off with a definition of material that is equivalent to existence then you have no where else to go. You must conclude materialism is correct. It's built right into the assumption! No, I think the definition has be much more specific. You can't just define away what you don't want to believe.

I think AG will understand what I'm asking for. Maybe he will get a chance to respond.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Nevertheless, this post, while not foolish by any means, doesn't address the truth or falsehood of the meterialistic worldview.

Nor was it intended to. It accomplsihes this no better and no worse than AG's post that it is responding to. You might want to go back and tell him the same thing about his post. (or is this bias for materialism? )

I was just responding to a specific sub-issue in the thread.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption
This definition you have is exactly my point. I don't see how this definition can be acceptable. If we make "material" mean something which can be shown to exist, then the word material is useless. We already have a word that means that and it's called existence! This was my point earlier when I said that if you start off with a definition of material that is equivalent to existence then you have no where else to go. You must conclude materialism is correct. It's built right into the assumption! No, I think the definition has be much more specific. You can't just define away what you don't want to believe.

And the ironic part is that I believe Zero's definition is essentially what materialism (where materialism is the thing which science is supposedly based on) and still people deny it... Look at them all...crowding around yelling it down "You stupid materialists...blah blah blah" And here we have it, the definition of materialism, as used by science and anyone who cares for it, is "Something which has a defined and measurable existence" or something to that effect.

Excuse me for a second: The world is full of morons.

OK, I'm back.

I don't believe in Ghosts, I don't believe in ESP, in Psychic powers, in UFO's (the phenomenon), in God, in Satan, or even in Santa Claus. Why not? Because there is no basis for my belief. No evidence, no place that I can go and say 'Hey, look, that's evidence for God'. There is no 'thing' that i can do to find evidence for any of them, there is no dance I can dance which will allow me to verify their existence.

And apparently, my denial of these phenomenon which can't be verified labels me as a materialist.

The second we find out that Ghosts are a consequence of alternate dimensional interference in the alpha wave of the fundamental subunit of the power generators which are trying to push the citizens of that alternate universe through to our own universe so that they can interact with us...then I will believe in Ghosts. ...


Wait, that's not even true. I'll believe in ghosts when this alternate universe people get a machine stuck, and it keeps trying tyo put a person through the same spot once everyday forever more. Becuase then, people could go and watch as the 'Ghost appears' on schedule, every day. Tests can be conducted, afffects measured etc.. And the ghost won't be "scared away" and crap like that.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
This definition you have is exactly my point. I don't see how this definition can be acceptable. If we make "material" mean something which can be shown to exist, then the word material is useless. We already have a word that means that and it's called existence! This was my point earlier when I said that if you start off with a definition of material that is equivalent to existence then you have no where else to go. You must conclude materialism is correct. It's built right into the assumption! No, I think the definition has be much more specific. You can't just define away what you don't want to believe.

I think AG will understand what I'm asking for. Maybe he will get a chance to respond.

Good. That is the definition. Materialists claim that the only things that exist(in a practical sense) are those things which can be shown to have existence. That leaves out wishful thinking, gut feelings, emotional claims, what 'everyone' believes to be true, mythology, etc. We materialists take it as a given that there is a single existence, shared by all, which can be measured and observed by everyone in much the same way. Things that cannot be measured cannot be stated to exist.

If someone claims the existence of things that DON'T exist, what does that make them?

 

[Zero]

Oh, and before someone decides to post that concepts like beauty and love cannot be measured, but do exist...don't bother. Biological brain functions developed during our evolution that provide some survival trait don't count as proof of anything but the complexity of our incredible, but purely physical, brains.

 

[TENYEARS]

The unspoken rule book which guides humanity to all of it's wonderful decisions. You see this is not a personal attack on zero, but he does not understand what gravity is and yet he has this thing called a materialist view. I find it absurd. I am not expecting any of you to know why. It is not that people can't understand it is that it is not important enough to them so they don't. Importance usually comes at crunch time and by then it is usally to late.

The understanding of humanity can be akin to where the food comes for the eloi in the book/movie "the time machine". The morlock in our sense is not really people, but is now the warped nature of humanity.

Our future will be resigned to a similar fate.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Our future will be resigned to a similar fate.

Hmmm, yeah...evolution.

 

[Zero]

The unspoken rule book which guides humanity to all of it's wonderful decisions.

What does this mean? Spouting deep-sounding nonsense is no way to start off, dude!(unless English isn't your first language? I've seriously been meaning to ask you about that!)

You see this is not a personal attack on zero, but he does not understand what gravity is and yet he has this thing called a materialist view. I find it absurd.

That's funny, I find most of the things you say(when I can understand them at all) to be absurd. To each his own, I suppose.

I am not expecting any of you to know why.

It would be nice if we could understand you, if you see what I mean?

It is not that people can't understand it is that it is not important enough to them so they don't. Importance usually comes at crunch time and by then it is usally to late.

Again, you say things that sound deep, but are completely empty of meaning.

The understanding of humanity can be akin to where the food comes for the eloi in the book/movie "the time machine". The morlock in our sense is not really people, but is now the warped nature of humanity.

Once more, do you think you could stop speaking in code and metaphor, and be a bit more direct?

Our future will be resigned to a similar fate.
Our future has nothing to do with a silly movie with bad CGI...does it?

 

[TENYEARS]

Yes, it is evoulution, but that does not deny the reality of cause and effect. If I have two stones and I take away one there is one left no matter what I want or need to believe. If I have an ocean and posion it so that nothing can no longer live in it that leaves me with what exactly, ah it's a paradise.

Just wash off after you swim and don't stay in the water for more than 7 minutues at a time. Hell I remember when I was a kid you used to be able to stay in the water for 20 minutes before you had to come out and wash off. Ah I don't buy everything they say today it doesn't look any more toxic than it did 15 years ago except for in some parts where it seems way worse. Hell last year only 8700 people died on this part of the coast due to TP so to me it's no big deal. They were proably in the water for over 20 minutes anyway or never washed off properly with the chemical treatment series. Hell todays treatment series is far better than it was 15 years ago, yes it is more expensive but so what it's better quality. The world is getting better with better technology. Some day we could push the limit back up to 10 minutes again if we conserve and don't pollute as much.

Just rambling or not.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Yes, it is evoulution, but that does not deny the reality of cause and effect. If I have two stones and I take away one there is one left no matter what I want or need to believe. If I have an ocean and posion it so that nothing can no longer live in it that leaves me with what exactly, ah it's a paradise.

Just wash off after you swim and don't stay in the water for more than 7 minutues at a time. Hell I remember when I was a kid you used to be able to stay in the water for 20 minutes before you had to come out and wash off. Ah I don't buy everything they say today it doesn't look any more toxic than it did 15 years ago except for in some parts where it seems way worse. Hell last year only 8700 people died on this part of the coast due to TP so to me it's no big deal. They were proably in the water for over 20 minutes anyway or never washed off properly with the chemical treatment series. Hell todays treatment series is far better than it was 15 years ago, yes it is more expensive but so what it's better quality. The world is getting better with better technology. Some day we could push the limit back up to 10 minutes again if we conserve and don't pollute as much.

Just rambling or not.

I would ask: please try to stay on topic, ok? I don't have any idea what the *expletive deleted* you were rambling about, but it sounded vaguely anti-technology...which has NOTHING to do with this thread.

 

[TENYEARS]

Actually it has everything to do with the thread. This is the result of a materialist view without understanding what matter or gravity is. Nothing but Eloi, as in the first movie or the book but not the second movie.

The result of human beings living in the land of the king with no cloths. Ah yes there is understanding, when it gets cold we will see.

If you are looking for deep, fall into the ditch that materialism is diggning. Not by nature of pure materialism but by nature of so called practiced/regcognized materialism.

For anyone that qualifies themselves as a materialist you would understand gravity and what matter is. Without it you have a house due to crumble because you have no foundation.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Actually it has everything to do with the thread. This is the result of a materialist view without understanding what matter or gravity is. Nothing but Eloi, as in the first movie or the book but not the second movie.

The result of human beings living in the land of the king with no cloths. Ah yes there is understanding, when it gets cold we will see.

If you are looking for deep, fall into the ditch that materialism is diggning. Not by nature of pure materialism but by nature of so called practiced/regcognized materialism.

For anyone that qualifies themselves as a materialist you would understand gravity and what matter is. Without it you have a house due to crumble because you have no foundation.

You are speaking oddly again. Houses with no foundation and teh like...can you for one post not use a metaphor? I'll give you a dollar!

Anyways, you keep harping on gravity. Last I checked, the hunt for the graviton was still going on, so the issue isn't exactly settled. Unless, of course, you think that gravity worked by 'God's will', like some people I know.
As far as the 'harmful effects' of the materialist's worldview: whether there are negative effects or not isn't the issue. The question is whether it is a 'correct'(in a practical sense) view of reality. Saying it is wrong because it is emotionally unsatisfying is nonsense. The same goes for saying it must be wrong because some people can use its reality to cause harm.

 

[TENYEARS]

God does not control gravity or anything else, but that god is or is not is for you to discover for yourself. For the rest of today I am otta here.

Where is FZ by the way I sent him my weakest class C vision and he hasn't posted for a month. Vacation?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
God does not control gravity or anything else, but that god is or is not is for you to discover for yourself. For the rest of today I am otta here.

Where is FZ by the way I sent him my weakest class C vision and he hasn't posted for a month. Vacation?

As soon as some god shows up and appears to everyone, we can say it has been 'found'.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
And the ironic part is that I believe Zero's definition is essentially what materialism (where materialism is the thing which science is supposedly based on) and still people deny it... Look at them all...crowding around yelling it down "You stupid materialists...blah blah blah" And here we have it, the definition of materialism, as used by science and anyone who cares for it, is "Something which has a defined and measurable existence" or something to that effect.

Excuse me for a second: The world is full of morons.

OK, I'm back.

Hmmm, this is all a bit cryptic AG heh. But if you're saying that you agree with Zero's definition then I would say that you shouldn't. Because the definition you have stated is not what he said. He didn't say anything about being measureable. He said definable existence. To say that something has a "definable existence" means nothing to me. That's pretty subjective. Your definition has now added the word "measureable". That's better but it's still vague. Define what you mean when you say "measure". I can measure whether or not I am in the mood to participate in this forum today. But my mood is not a material thing, is it. This just needs more specificity.

I don't believe in Ghosts, I don't believe in ESP, in Psychic powers, in UFO's (the phenomenon), in God, in Satan, or even in Santa Claus. Why not? Because there is no basis for my belief. No evidence, no place that I can go and say 'Hey, look, that's evidence for God'. There is no 'thing' that i can do to find evidence for any of them, there is no dance I can dance which will allow me to verify their existence.

What do these things have to do with materiality or non-materiality? This is the problem with equating 'existence' with 'materiality'. The definition of materiality that you are using means that if you ever discovered that ghost do exists, then ghost would now be a material thing, because the criteria for being material is simply to exists! With this definition how could anyone ever be anything but a materialist? Centuries of philosophical debate over nothing. I suspect we don't have the right definition here.

The second we find out that Ghosts are a consequence of alternate dimensional interference in the alpha wave of the fundamental subunit of the power generators which are trying to push the citizens of that alternate universe through to our own universe so that they can interact with us...then I will believe in Ghosts. ...

and then if this happened, according to Zero's definition, ghost would then become a material thing since material simply means existence. The problem with this definition is that there is no test for materialism. It MUST be true by definition! It's like concluding that "a is true" when your first premise is "a is true". It's a meaningless argument and, in this case, the word material is a meaningless word because by definition it doesn't distinguish itself from anything else.

 

[Zero]

Fliption, I suggest that YOU have the wrong definition. We seem to be just fine with it. The point we are trying to make is that some people make the claim for the existence of things that cannot be shown to exist, like 'God'. We materialists stand against those ideas, not because we know them to be wrong, but because they cannot(thus far) be proven to be right.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Fliption, I suggest that YOU have the wrong definition. We seem to be just fine with it. The point we are trying to make is that some people make the claim for the existence of things that cannot be shown to exist, like 'God'. We materialists stand against those ideas, not because we know them to be wrong, but because they cannot(thus far) be proven to be right.

LOL. Because 2 proclaimed materialists claim it is so when it is in their interest to do so, is not convincing to me. Nor should it be if I'm going to honestly attempt to find truth.

I am pretty sure I am not wrong on this. You say "we materialists stand against those ideas". And the ideas that you're referring to are "some people make the claim for the existence of things that cannot be shown to exist, like 'God'".

But these statements have nothing to do with materialism. This is my point. You mentioned 'love' earlier. You obviously think that it exists because you said it shows how complex the brain is. Do you consider it material? I am not trying to say that this proves ghost, or santa claus(or any other childish insulting label you can think of) exists. All I'm trying to show you is that 'material'cannot be the same as 'existence'. Science could not show that a quark existed at one time in it's history. Does that mean that quarks weren't material then? Hopefully you can see the problem with making material synonmous with "known to exist".

In order for people to have philosophical debates, they must agree on the definitions of the concepts about which they disagree. The whole philosphical debate around materialism has been going on for years. What I am certain about is that no one in their right mind would
disagree with materialism if your definition is correct. You have conveniently defined it so that it cannot be wrong. No philosopher would ever accept the definition that material things are the things that exists and then turn around and say that non-material things DO exists. They cannot exists by definition! That's
just nuts! So what's all the debate about? Well, they probably have a better definition.

If the non-materialist people that post in this forum were to use this definition they would still claim that god exists. They would simply claim that he is material. The debate would then just shift from materialism versus non-materialism to god
vs no-god. This definition of material solves nothing. It is meaningless.

 

[Zero]

Would anyone like to help me out here? If not, Fliption, I think you are going to just have to live with it...

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Would anyone like to help me out here? If not, Fliption, I think you are going to just have to live with it...

I am going to have to live with people who don't want to understand their own position? That would be a shame. More so for them then for me.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
I am going to have to live with people who don't want to understand their own position? That would be a shame. More so for them then for me.

No, see, I understand my position well. You don't understand it. It is our different perception that you may just be stuck with.

 

[Zero]

Oh, and Fliption, do youn happen to have a worldview of your own that you would care to share with us, as sort of a break from the action, and maybe a jumping-on point for the next phase of this discussion?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
No, see, I understand my position well. You don't understand it. It is our different perception that you may just be stuck with.

You understand it well but you want someone else to explain it to me?
Ok, that makes sense . You cannot say that you have tried to explain it to me either and are now giving up because it is hopeless. I have paved the way for you to provide me understanding by asking very specific questions. This is typically the way a meaningful discussion is held. But these questions have not been responded to.

I hardly think I am stuck with this. I am confident there are some materialists who can ratiional defend their view.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Oh, and Fliption, do youn happen to have a worldview of your own that you would care to share with us, as sort of a break from the action, and maybe a jumping-on point for the next phase of this discussion?

No, but when I get one I will be sure to start a thread asking why everyone is biased against it.

I didn't start this thread so I see no reason why I need to leave this topic so that we can then pick apart my views. But I can assure you that if I get a view, I will be able defend to. You won't be "stuck" with me just telling you it is so.

 

[Another God]

Honestly, I think I am a materialist simply because when I present my views, people call me a materialist. My views are those that have been described by Zero though.

How about this angle on it? I believe in an entirely objective universe, which is fundamental to everything, include our subjectivity. If the objective universe can be called material, then I am a materialist (but Objectivist would be a more accurate description).

Here is a thought: I don't think there is any doubt that all materialists believe in Gravity? Is gravity represented in matter etc? No. So why should the term materuialism be based on matter alone?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Another God
Here is a thought: I don't think there is any doubt that all materialists believe in Gravity? Is gravity represented in matter etc? No. So why should the term materuialism be based on matter alone?

Good point, but I think you are mistaken on that.
For the simple reason that matter in the philosophical sense is not the same as matter in the physical sense.

Philosophical matter:

That what exists independend, outside and apart from consciousness.

Physical matter:

(sub atomic) particles that are the constituents of all mass having physical entities.


I would therefore conclude that matter in the philosophical sense already includes both phys. matter, energy, radiation, fields, etc.