Spiritualism vs. Materialism

[Gambit]

Because it is your definitions that are problematic.

They weren't "my" definitions. I cited a public source. They are only problematic for those who lack basic reading comprehension skills.

 

[Bunyip]

They weren't "my" definitions. I cited a public source. They are only problematic for those who lack basic reading comprehension skills.

*FAIL*

Or possibly because you read into those definitions something that is not there, and whenever people can not see it all you have is insult.

 

[Gambit]

You've provided me with definitions of methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism that indicate a distinction between the two of them.

Correct.

Your notion that I am confusing the two, however, is a separate issue. I have no respect for it

Then you will continue to reveal your ignorance on this matter.

 

[Sunstone]

Then you will continue to reveal your ignorance on this matter.

What you call my ignorance is actually thinking outside the boxes you would try to shoehorn everyone's opinions into. Nice try. Have fun with the notion you know everything!

 

[Gambit]

What you call my ignorance is actually thinking outside the boxes you would try to shoehorn everyone's opinions into. Nice try. Have fun with the notion you know everything!

I know the difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. You don't (even though I have clearly explained the difference to you).

 

[Angel1]

Definitions





Comment:

Generally speaking, I believe there are two fundamental worldviews: spiritualism or materialism. (The "spiritualism vs. materialism" debate is more fundamental than the "theism vs. atheism" debate.)

Question:

Do you have a spiritual worldview or a materialistic worldview?

Spiritualism is the belief in the spiritual nature of man. It teaches that the material and physical worlds are only as shadows of the spiritual. The object of Spiritualism is to prove the survival of the human spirit. Hence, many communications are ongoing between the residents of the spirit worlds and ours.

Materialism believes that the physical world is the only reality. After death, there is nothing. And so, believers work themselves to death in pursuit of carnal pleasures and material things.

But Christ tells us that he is not of our world. He asserts that at our death, we will be transitioning to his "spirit" world. Those who realize that life here is only temporary and the Afterlife is eternal therefore assign more importance to the things of the spirit more than the things of this world.

 

[George-ananda]

Although the bulk of participants clearly do not see it that way.

I see that the bulk of the participants don't understand the definitions. It is logically impossible to be 'both'. If you can't see that then I give up. Have on with whatever you want to babble about.

 

[Bunyip]

I see that the bulk of the participants don't understand the definitions. It is logically impossible to be 'both'. If you can't see that then I give up. Have on with whatever you want to babble about.

Yes mate, that has been your go to position any time your unevidenced assumptions are questioned. You resort to rude, demeaning insults. Sadly you 'give up' and start being insulting, attacking your oponant personally whenever you can not answer simple questions. Pretty much says it all about your 'spirituality'. The definitions given of spirituality and materialism are not in fact mutually exclusive - your only argument that they are is that any who disagree with you are ignorant. Not much of a defence.

 

[Bunyip]

I see that the bulk of the participants don't understand the definitions. It is logically impossible to be 'both'. If you can't see that then I give up. Have on with whatever you want to babble about.

My understanding is that you are a Hindu - do you think that Australian Aboriginals are ignorant materialists because they disagree with your worldview? Is the dreamtime and their worldview 'babble' because the two definitions in the OP are not mutually exclusive in their culture, but are in yours?
Do you feel this cultural superiority to other groups?
Is your idea that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and babbling something you get from your faith, or is it a personal position?

 

[Darkstorn]

I find overt materialism to be the same thing as overt spiritualism: Both are clinging to extreme views and should be purged.

Also: I might be alone in thinking like this but: Why is there an option for none of the above, but no option for all of the above? Both are just as contradictory; And neither is truly contradictory in any sense except the literal.

And whoever said that materialism only deals with facts, while spiritualism with opinions: Nope. Materialism is a state of mind the same as spiritualism... It could be caused by wrong reasoning... And lies. And propaganda...

Both materialism AND spiritualism are essentially, opinions. Neither is truly rooted in fact: Because they are states of mind and not states of the universe.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

As of now I see 'both' is leading in the poll.

I argued in an earlier post that it is logically impossible to be 'both'. If the definitions are fully understood they are mutually exclusive. I'm saying those that choose 'both' are not fully grasping what the definitions are saying and are going off their own interpretation of these much used words.

Do you agree with my assessment.

Your argumentation is invalid. You say the existence of physical things is temporary. Fine, so what, that it is temporary does not mean it is not real.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I find overt materialism to be the same thing as overt spiritualism: Both are clinging to extreme views and should be purged.

Right, the spiritualist conflates beauty with weight, saying weight is a sort of beauty, and the materialist conflates weight with beauty, saying beauty is a sort of weight.

Materalist: love is electrochemistry in the brain
Spiritualist: all electrochemistry is a sort of love

It is all same, opinion blends into fact, while opinion and fact are only mean9ngful as distinct from each other.

 

[Darkstorn]

Right, the spiritualist conflates beauty with weight, saying weight is a sort of beauty, and the materialist conflates weight with beauty, saying beauty is a sort of weight.

Um... No.

Materalist: love is electrochemistry in the brain
Spiritualist: all electrochemistry is a sort of love

More like:

Materialist: I like materia! I want materia, gimme materia!

Spiritualist: I like spirituality! I want spirituality, gimme spirituality!

That's... It.

It is all same, opinion blends into fact, while opinion and fact are only mean9ngful as distinct from each other.

So you're saying they're only meaningful because they are there to be distinct? A potato is distinct from a carrot...

Materialism and spiritualism have nothing to do with fact: They might be influenced by it in some cases depending on the person but it is NOT a prerequisite. They are STATES OF MIND: Not states of universe. I.E: Materialism and spiritualism DO NOT EXIST per say. They are literary devices brought to us by Aristotelean logic: To HELP DIFFERENTIATE different things. But that's just it: Materialism and spiritualism are not properties of the universe. At all.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Um... No.



More like:

Materialist: I like materia! I want materia, gimme materia!

Spiritualist: I like spirituality! I want spirituality, gimme spirituality!

That's... It.



So you're saying they're only meaningful because they are there to be distinct? A potato is distinct from a carrot...

Materialism and spiritualism have nothing to do with fact: They might be influenced by it in some cases depending on the person but it is NOT a prerequisite. They are STATES OF MIND: Not states of universe. I.E: Materialism and spiritualism DO NOT EXIST per say. They are literary devices brought to us by Aristotelean logic: To HELP DIFFERENTIATE different things. But that's just it: Materialism and spiritualism are not properties of the universe. At all.

... you simply use the logic of fact and opinion in daily life, and then you turn around and say that all what you have said in daily life is gibberish. But then really you have no grounding whatsoever to say it is gibberish, because you deny all grounding. It is chaotic nonsense from the point of view where fact and opinion are valid.

 

[Darkstorn]

... you simply use the logic of fact and opinion in daily life, and then you turn around and say that all what you have said in daily life is gibberish. But then really you have no grounding whatsoever to say it is gibberish, because you deny all grounding. It is chaotic nonsense from the point of view where fact and opinion are valid.

Stop talking about facts and opinions: It has nothing to do with spiritualism and materialism: One is not more fact based than the other, and one is not less opinion based than the other.

Spiritualism and materialism are states of mind explained by philosophists: The states didn't exist before someone decided to make them... They are words used to describe certain behaviour. Nothing more. The universe does not revolve around human literary concepts. It just does not.

And then comes the obvious issue: Most people do not equate opinion and fact. You do. Therefore you do not share the typical thought process of most people. Therefore what you experience has no true grounding: We cannot grasp it. To my point of view, YOU seem to be of chaos.

I don't think chaos exists though: Once you repeat chaos enough, it starts to resemble order... And the universe has shown us this. Chaos is in your mind, it is also not an universal concept: Physics posit that NOTHING is random, or due to chance, or due to luck. Therefore, there is no true chaos: There is only your view of it.

Seriously: Your argument seems to hinge specifically on semantics: Yet semantics have no meaning whatsoever in an universal scale: They were invented by humans. The words were invented by humans, the concepts were invented by humans... ETC.

Try to dig deeper than that and you'll see it.

/E: The human mind is essentially conditioned to see patterns where there are none: Now, switch it around. What if you see no patterns when there are some? Therefore, chaos and order: differing view points of the very same thing.

 

[Darkstorn]

beauty, love, soul, God etc. all obviously belong to the spiritual and opinion category.

potato, carrot, planet, water, etc. all belong to the material and fact category.

You're misunderstanding one very important point: Spiritual is not the same as spiritualism. And material is not the same as materialism: Physical things are material. Hoarding of physical things is materialism. That's the thing here:

Both spiritualism and materialism are essentially wanting for something more than you already have: They are extreme views. The fact that these words end in "ism" should point this out to you... They are view points in the exact same sense as religions are. Philosophies:

Spiritualism = wanting more in terms of the spiritual

Materialism = wanting more in terms of the material

Same thing.

What you say is yet another blistering attack on common sense, enough is enough. What you say is bogus, contorting understanding which works perfectly well on a practical level, and replacing it with something that is not worked out, does not function, is just your fantasy that you thought up not more than 1 minute ago.

What? You're getting reported for a personal attack.

 

[idea]

I believe that "spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;"

 

[George-ananda]

My understanding is that you are a Hindu - do you think that Australian Aboriginals are ignorant materialists because they disagree with your worldview?

Aboriginals are 'spiritualist' not 'materialist'. You are not understanding the definitions. Aboriginals are on my side of this divide. It is the hard-core materialist reductionist science types that are on the other side of the divide.

Is the dreamtime and their worldview 'babble' because the two definitions in the OP are not mutually exclusive in their culture, but are in yours?

The two definitions in the OP; 'materialism' and 'spiritualism' are logically incompatible in all cultures. Again by the definitions Aboriginals are not materialists.

Do you feel this cultural superiority to other groups?
Is your idea that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and babbling something you get from your faith, or is it a personal position?

I am showing that there are two world views; materialism and spiritualism and that many people here don't understand the definitions. I'll ignore the personal attack.


In good humor I will try one more time. 'Materialists' believe everything that exists is the result of physical interaction. Concepts of God, spirits whatever can exist in materialism but the materialist believes they are just concepts in people's brains.

A 'spiritualist' believes there are things that are real that are not just physical matter interactions. Our aboriginal friends belief in a spirit world makes them 'spiritualists'. They believe the spirit world is real and exists even if no human has such a concept in their brain.

 

[George-ananda]

Your argumentation is invalid.

You apparently did not understand my argument.

You say the existence of physical things is temporary. Fine, so what, that it is temporary does not mean it is not real.

Certainly physical things have a relative reality to physical beings. But ultimately it is all Brahman.

 

[Gambit]

Also: I might be alone in thinking like this but: Why is there an option for none of the above, but no option for all of the above? Both are just as contradictory; And neither is truly contradictory in any sense except the literal.

Even if I put options for "none of the above," "all of the above," ""none of the above" and "all of the above"," people would still be whining and complaining. It's an impossible task to account for all the stupidity.