There's obvious there's more to us than a bunch of atoms and that nature has also an abstract part, not only the concrete one, so why do philosophers like Harari, who simply ignore obvious facts and produce so much aberration are so popular nowadays? I don't want this to be a topic about denying or defending materialism, but rather the reasons behind its popularity. — Eugen
To get a more meaningful answer, I think we need a more meaningful question. In pursuit of this, can you explain why it's obvious to you that there's more to us than a bunch of atoms?There's obvious there's more to us than a bunch of atoms — Eugen
This seems to imply your picture of materialism rejects the abstract... is that the case and, if so, could you explain your impression of materialism?nature has also an abstract part — Eugen
To get a more meaningful answer, I think we need a more meaningful question. In pursuit of this, can you explain why it's obvious to you that there's more to us than a bunch of atoms? — InPitzotl
This seems to imply your picture of materialism rejects the abstract... is that the case and, if so, could you explain your impression of materialism? — InPitzotl
Probably because its adherents have figured out that insisting on imagined things is not a compelling argument for believing in them. When faced with one philosophy that explains nothing and concerns nothing apparently real, and another whose explanatory power is good enough to make it accurately predictive in the real world, spotting the fake isn't hard. — Kenosha Kid
Monism, the belief that there is only one metaphysical reality, is widely held by contemporary philosophers. This was not always the case. Up until the enlightenment, dualism, the idea that there are two metaphysical domains, the natural and the supernatural, held sway. Science (aka methodological naturalism) as a form of monism, has been instrumental in debunking the supernatural. Philosophical naturalism, another form of monism, has also provided powerful arguments against dualism.
I'm not sure if a strict philosophical naturalism is popular with the American public. Most American are religious to the extent that they believe in a supernatural "higher power." This would seem to put them in the dualist camp although their dualism seems very restricted -- ie. yes to god and angels but no to fairies, pixes, unicorns or magic. — elphidium55
Materialism did not invent, but appropriated all the elements of science that do not actually belong to it and denies absolutely everything that science cannot prove. — Eugen
- I don't know much about dualism and I do not think that if dualism is wrong. therefore materialism has to be right.he observation that dualist philosophy is useless and under-defined, — Kenosha Kid
- Science, religion, or magic explain everything as well, I don't see the difference. Materialism is not science, it is just a belief that science is 100% materialist and that science can prove anything. Unfortunately for materialism, it hasn't been capable to prove that. Moreover, it is against the principle of science to argue everything is demonstrable through science.Everything that has been usefully and meaningfully explained has been explained materialistically. — Kenosha Kid
- why are you keep bringing up dualism in this debate? If dualism says black magic is true and not everything is material, it doesn't mean it is 100% false just because it said black magic exists. Same goes for materialism, I truly believe it has lots of truth in it, the problem is that it hasn't proven its own base statements and it is not capable to do so, but instead insists on the fact they're right.dualism depends always on ignorance. — Kenosha Kid
- science will only highlight the material translation of thoughts, perceptions, experiences, pain, happiness, etc. but it will never go at the core of these things, because the perception itself, the thought itself or even the notion of ''feeling good'' itself aren't material and it's silly to believe that (materialism thinks that, not science). Even if science will go into the deep abstract, materialism will be only scientifically denied, because science will show that there are some non-material aspects in this Universe.If and when consciousness is fully understood materialistically, the effect on dualism will be to either insist on some new, mystical, ill-defined component that isn't evident, or to just stop mentioning consciousness when insisting that not everything is material and therefore materialism fails. — Kenosha Kid
I'd like to hear a genuinely compelling argument for dualism. — Kenosha Kid
- I don't know much about dualism and I do not think that if dualism is wrong. therefore materialism has to be right. — Eugen
the problem is that it hasn't proven its own base statements and it is not capable to do so — Eugen
science will only highlight the material translation of thoughts, perceptions, experiences, pain, happiness, etc. but it will never go at the core of these things — Eugen
I'd like to hear a genuine argument that only what we can see and physically measure exists — Eugen
- yes, but when you suggest that thoughts are material and actually everything is matter, you should come up with some really good arguments. All I have heard so far was that matter clearly exists, but the point wasn't that, the point was to hear that matter is all that exists.You will find that with anything. — Kenosha Kid
- so in your opinion, perception, or even the laws of nature are all fundamentally material. I just can't wait for those irrefutable proofs. But again, not to show me that thought produces a material effect, like an electric impulse, but that thought itself is material. Not to mention perception which is totally subjective an abstract. Again, I just can't wait to see these proofs.Yes it will, if the core of these things is found to be a material system (which it almost certainly will be). — Kenosha Kid
- well, there aren't many elements that have purpose in this universe, but the reality shows that some of them have. I don't see how a bunch of atoms with 0 purpose have purpose. 0+0+0+........+0 = 0. This goes fairly well with the rest as well (free will, thoughts, maybe even soul).Because the universe behaves as if it were so, and because, until it behaves otherwise, the assumption of additional degrees of freedom in the universe is unjustified, unfalsifiable, arbitrary, and meaningless. — Kenosha Kid
- for a current that claims itself to be the same with science, this is very unscientific.This is not a proof that only matter exists, but rather a reason why the assumption is valid. The popularity of materialism does not depend on its being proven. — Kenosha Kid
It's kind of ironic, really, since it recognises materialism as the explainer. — Kenosha Kid
Seeking refuge from something silly that denies all my obvious perceptions, feelings ang pure logic? This is the old excuse of materialists when they have no arguments, they accuse others of being too weak or stupid for accepting the reality. Again, very unscientific.You are seeking refuge for anti-materialism not in the materialist interpretation of explained things, but in the lack of materialist explanation for as-yet-unexplained things — Kenosha Kid
- yes, but when you suggest that thoughts are material and actually everything is matter, you should come up with some really good arguments. — Eugen
- 0 evidence for it, tons against.A good argument to me is the absence of any posited immaterial realm that makes any difference. — Kenosha Kid
- this is why it is so unscientific to say science can explain everything.The success of science depends on the material world behaving in a predictable, deterministic or probabilistic way — Kenosha Kid
- absolutely not! Science's role is that to discover the things how they are, not how we want them to be in order to confirm our theories. Matter acts under the rule of laws which are immaterial. Even if you don't believe in free will, you should admit atoms in your brain act in certain ways not because an immaterial law or laws of biology demand so, oftenly being in contradiction with physical or chemical laws for example.way such that any effect in the material world can be understood to have a material cause — Kenosha Kid
0 evidence for it, tons against. — Eugen
- this is why it is so unscientific to say science can explain everything. — Eugen
It is unnecessary for science to explain everything. Either:
1. the immaterial world does not interact with the material world
2. the immaterial world does interact with the material world as a statistically predictable mediator of material causes;
3. the immaterial world does interact with the material world, but not as a statistically precitable mediator of material causes. — Kenosha Kid
None that I've heard, but go for it! — Kenosha Kid
4. There is an immaterial abstract part of the world that actually governs the material world — Eugen
Gravity (not material) governs matter. — Eugen
Hunger (non-material) makes your physical body to move in order to eat food (purpose - abstract) — Eugen
I could go on for hours. — Eugen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.