Things you don't like about Materialism

[sandy whitelinger]

Materialism is defined as:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.In contrast to idealism, materialism concedes the primacy of material, not consciousness. Which means, material exists before consciousness, material creates and determines consciousness, not vice versa. Materialists believe that material is the ultimate origin of the existing world, and they aim to explain the world via materialistic reasons. (Materialism | Wikiwand)

There is an association between materialism as the obsessive and destructive desire for material possessions and earthly goods at the expense of the divine such as wealth, power, fame, etc. Its also closely associated with atheism, nihilism, communism, evolution, social Darwinism, etc and therefore treated negatively by many religious adherents for being in direct opposition and a threat to their beliefs. Secular critics often describe materialism as a faith, a dogma, a religion, or an excessive faith in scientific materialism (aka. "scientism").

Speaking as someone with strong materialist sympathies, I'm curious to better understand why it is so common for people on RF to dislike materialism and what I could do that would help improve its reputation. Do you have any specific issues or criticism of materialism you'd like to have addressed?

(Edit: Its not the whole story but I voted "positive" in the Poll).

And here I though materialism meant Christmas shopping.

 

[Laika]

And here I though materialism meant Christmas shopping.

Yeah. It is commonly used that way. The idea that materialism means being obsessed by material possessions is meant to contrast it with less "worldly" concerns of religion but doesn't describe the philosophical side of it at all.

 

[atanu]

And here I though materialism meant Christmas shopping.

Philosophical materialism may well lead to consumerism. Yes, why not? And personally I do suspect that consumerism is a force that keeps the philosophical materialism alive.

YMMV.

 

[atanu]

lol. Thanks. That's very kind. My thinking is pretty fussy on this so I could do better though.

That sounds about right. I had to look it up, but materialism is about the source of knowledge as the relation of consciousness to the external world. The paragraph below may be useful just to illustrate or clarify the point if its needed.

Yeah. That is about right.

"Materialism teaches that the world exists objectively, and that consciousness is a reflection of the world. Matter, therefore, is a philosophical concept to designate this objective world. As for the physical structure of the world and its physical properties, these are studied by physics, and as science develops our views on the physical structure of matter change. But those changes, however great, cannot shake the proposition of philosophical materialism that there exists an objective world and that physics, like many other sciences, deals with this objective, material world."For the sole 'property' of matter with whose recognition philosophical materialism is bounded up", Lenin wrote, "is the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside our mind". That understanding of matter is the only correct one. It embraces all diversity of the material world, without however reducing it to any one form of matter. " (p.33, Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, (ed) O. Kuusinen, 1961)

I was brought up under the paradigm of dialectical materialism and I liked its humane aspect but always disagreed with my father and other teachers. I held that 'materials do not participate in dialectical processes as much as human minds do'.

See. I as a Vedantist believe that the universe exists objectively as Brahman -- the infinitude of all possibilities. What we see are only representations.

And as of now QM, as I understand it, ..... well....

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Philosophical materialism may well lead to consumerism...

YMMV.

And eating oysters leads to sex.

 

[Laika]

I was brought up under the paradigm of dialectical materialism...

Ok. Now I'm intrigued. how did that happen?

Your profile says you are from India, so I'm guessing your dad must have been in the Communist Party there? Probably Maoist at a guess?

I only came across it by accident when I went round second hand book shops. The books I bought are about fifty years old each and had a stamp in them with the same name, who must have been in the Communist Party a while back.

and I liked its humane aspect but always disagreed with my father and other teachers. I held that 'materials do not participate in dialectical processes as much as human minds do'.

See. I as a Vedantist believe that the universe exists objectively as Brahman -- the infinitude of all possibilities. What we see are only representations..

Marxists would argue that nature, and not simply thought, is dialectical. The humane side of it is very attractive but the class struggle isn't as much because its just violence, pain and suffering. That's not as attractive obviously.

If I've understood you correctly, I think what you are saying is that the universe exists objectively but as pure thought, as a manifestation of a deity. Most Marxist texts I've read call that "subjective idealism" or "immaterialism" in that is says matter is not real. The way you describe it as "representations" makes me think that you would argue sense data is unreliable so we can't assume what we sense is actually what is there. Would that be about right?

Its an idea that is very hard to disprove as far as I know.

And as of now QM, as I understand it, ..... well....

Yeah. QM is like getting lost in a maze really.

 

[atanu]

Ok. Now I'm intrigued. how did that happen?
Your profile says you are from India, so I'm guessing your dad must have been in the Communist Party there? Probably Maoist at a guess?

I only came across it by accident when I went round second hand book shops. The books I bought are about fifty years old each and had a stamp in them with the same name, who must have been in the Communist Party a while back.

Yes. I learnt the tenets of dialectical materialism from my dad. He was not a Maoist though.

Marxists would argue that nature, and not simply thought, is dialectical.

I would arrive at the same conclusion, but from a top down approach.

If I've understood you correctly, I think what you are saying is that the universe exists objectively but as pure thought, as a manifestation of a deity. Most Marxist texts I've read call that "subjective idealism" or "immaterialism" in that is says matter is not real. The way you describe it as "representations" makes me think that you would argue sense data is unreliable so we can't assume what we sense is actually what is there. Would that be about right?

Not really. Not as pure thought.

Let me point to a link that may satisfy your appetite on QM in a non mathematical fashion.

Rig Veda 1.01.164.4...how the formless One supports the formed?

Its an idea that is very hard to disprove as far as I know.

Again I say not really. Like you can prove taste of grape to yourself, you can prove your essential nature to yourself.

 

[Laika]

Yes. I learnt the tenets of dialectical materialism from my dad. He was not a Maoist though.



I would arrive at the same conclusion, but from a top down approach.




Not really. Not as pure thought.

Let me point to a link that may satisfy your appetite on QM in a non mathematical fashion.

Rig Veda 1.01.164.4...how the formless One supports the formed?



Again I say not really. Like you can prove taste of grape to yourself, you can prove your essential nature to yourself.

Thanks for the link. I only really know a caricature of different beliefs and even though I was brought up in a Christian culture, I have become more aware of how ignorant I am about Christianity. (For that matter I struggle with Marxism most days and that god dam confusing "Dialectic"). As a blend of Quantum Mechanics and Eastern Thought, it is something that is going over my head, but it does look thorough and well thought out. Its difficult to know where to start. I did get a copy of an East German Physics Textbook in English and I guess you'd feel the same way.

How did you get interested in Quantum Mechanics by the way?

 

[atanu]

Thanks for the link. ...

You are welcome. That book is said to be a non mathematical explanation of QM and may suit some of us. You may start with Introduction.

How did you get interested in Quantum Mechanics by the way?

I am a science man and that's how .. I like QM in a very general way and not in any special way. I bring in QM often in discussions with materialists, because IMO it helps to shake their minds a bit. You see, there is no material form until a measurement or observation.

 

[Laika]

You are welcome. That book is said to be a non mathematical explanation of QM and may suit some of us. You may start with Introduction.



I am a science man and that's how .. I like QM in a very general way and not in any special way. I bring in QM often in discussions with materialists, because IMO it helps to shake their minds a bit. You see, there is no material form until a measurement or observation.

Yeah. Sure. I will give it a look sometime.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And eating oysters leads to sex.

spooning leads to forking!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Materialism is defined as:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.In contrast to idealism, materialism concedes the primacy of material, not consciousness. Which means, material exists before consciousness, material creates and determines consciousness, not vice versa. Materialists believe that material is the ultimate origin of the existing world, and they aim to explain the world via materialistic reasons. (Materialism | Wikiwand)

There is an association between materialism as the obsessive and destructive desire for material possessions and earthly goods at the expense of the divine such as wealth, power, fame, etc. Its also closely associated with atheism, nihilism, communism, evolution, social Darwinism, etc and therefore treated negatively by many religious adherents for being in direct opposition and a threat to their beliefs. Secular critics often describe materialism as a faith, a dogma, a religion, or an excessive faith in scientific materialism (aka. "scientism").

Speaking as someone with strong materialist sympathies, I'm curious to better understand why it is so common for people on RF to dislike materialism and what I could do that would help improve its reputation. Do you have any specific issues or criticism of materialism you'd like to have addressed?

(Edit: Its not the whole story but I voted "positive" in the Poll).

Voted negative.

I don't really dislike it, we all believe in something, but there is an inherent tendency in materialism to adhere to Occam's razor, which reality doesn't seem to care too much about

materialism tended to side with eternal/ static/ steady state universes- shunning the 'supernatural implications' of a specific creation event. It was very happy with classical physics, a handful of simple 'immutable' laws- no mysterious unpredictable guiding forces needed. So too with classical Darwinism- being passionately resistant to recognizing problems with the theory

Without materialism, there is not so much rush to close the book on the simplest, God refuting explanation at hand, and a lot of barriers to delving deeper, scientific progress, can be pushed aside-

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Materialism is defined as:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.In contrast to idealism, materialism concedes the primacy of material, not consciousness. Which means, material exists before consciousness, material creates and determines consciousness, not vice versa. Materialists believe that material is the ultimate origin of the existing world, and they aim to explain the world via materialistic reasons. (Materialism | Wikiwand)

There is an association between materialism as the obsessive and destructive desire for material possessions and earthly goods at the expense of the divine such as wealth, power, fame, etc. Its also closely associated with atheism, nihilism, communism, evolution, social Darwinism, etc and therefore treated negatively by many religious adherents for being in direct opposition and a threat to their beliefs. Secular critics often describe materialism as a faith, a dogma, a religion, or an excessive faith in scientific materialism (aka. "scientism").

Speaking as someone with strong materialist sympathies, I'm curious to better understand why it is so common for people on RF to dislike materialism and what I could do that would help improve its reputation. Do you have any specific issues or criticism of materialism you'd like to have addressed?

(Edit: Its not the whole story but I voted "positive" in the Poll).

I think it's too early to tell.

 

[blü 2]

You weren't able to name what "entities and processes . . are recognized by physics from time to time". You weren't able to show that any "entities and processes" are in fact "recognized by physics".

Well, you claim to understand determinism, so you're only pretending when you claim not to know what I'm talking about.

And anyway, as I said in my previous post, it's not relevant.

Is it now that case that you understand what I mean by fuzzy determinism? And is it now the case that you understand why the rebuttal of strict determinism is thus irrelevant?

And where are you up to in considering whether fuzzy determinism is a 'restraint' or not for purposes of your definition of 'free'?

 

[blü 2]

Doesn't that defintion rule out the existence of things like mathematical proof and music or even conceptual entities and processes like money and marriage?

Maths is a system of concepts. Concepts have physical existence as biochemical and bioelectrical patterns in the brain, even though the contents of a concept need not necessarily have a referent with objective existence.

Concepts are so fundamental to human thought that babies are born with various concepts, and perceive and judge accordingly, even before they can speak.

In the list Maths, music, money, marriage. the first is the most conceptual and I'd say the last is the most physical, with the other two listed in order.

 

[blü 2]

That's physicalism, yes. As long as there is physics, there is physicalism.

It replaced materialism.

Some say they're alternative names for the same thing. Some claim to see shades of difference. When I was reading the metaphysicians the word was materialism, so I've stuck with it.

So my view is that as long as I'm around, it hasn't been replaced. (Still, I confess I have some sympathy with the enemy since 'physicalism' has just the one principal meaning, while 'materialism' has two.)

 

[Nous]

Well, you claim to understand determinism

I do know what the thesis of determinism is. Right here:

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.​

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

That thesis has been refuted by experiments such as cited in posts 11 and 19 here: Solve the Riddle of Compatibilism, Win Big Prize

so you're only pretending when you claim not to know what I'm talking about.

I certainly did not "claim not know what [you're] talking about."

You complained that I had not "touched on" your definition of materialism, which you claim you have gotten from J. J. C. Smart and David Armstrong:

You don't seem to have touched on my definition, which you know from another thread. It was proposed by Jack Smart and David Armstrong, two philosophers of metaphysics. They defined, or Smart defined and Armstrong agreed, that materialism is the view that only such entities and processes exist as are recognized by physics from time to time.​

I noted that you have not been able to name what "entities and processes . . are recognized by physics from time to time," and that you have not been able to even show that any "entities and processes" are in fact "recognized by physics".

BTW, you cannot quote what Smart or Armstrong actually said, can you?

Is it now that case that you understand what I mean by fuzzy determinism?

No. Define it. And if you claim that it is a true thesis, then provide the evidence by which to conclude that it is true. Explain why you are unable to cite any scholar who has proposed such an idea.

 

[blü 2]

I do know what the thesis of determinism is. Right here:

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.​

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What do you mean by 'natural law'?

That thesis has been refuted by experiments such as cited in posts 11 and 19 here

I'll suspend my previous agreement with that, and comment on the rest of your post, until you explain your concept of 'natural law'.

 

[Nous]

What do you mean by 'natural law'?

Are you not able to read and comprehend the SEP article? It specifically describes what is meant by "natural law" in the definition. It is specifically referring to prescriptive, necessitarian laws. Necessitarian or prescriptive laws of nature allegedly are not mere descriptions of regularities but (somehow) cause phenomena to behave as they do. As the article notes, necessitarian or prescription laws, rather than events, are ontologically primary.

I'll suspend my previous agreement with that, and comment on the rest of your post, until you explain your concept of 'natural law'.

You're "suspending your agreement" with the experimental findings that show the postulates of local realism are violated by quanta? Does anything ever get coherent with you? Can you argue for determinism on the basis of evidence that you can cite?

Can you argue for materialism (which is what this thread is about) on the basis of evidence that you can cite?

You didn't define your idea of "fuzzy determinism".

And you haven't been able to name any "entities and processes" that physics recognizes to exist.

And you haven't been able to show that the discipline of physics even "recognizes the existence" of any finite number of entities or processes.

And you haven't been able to cite the literature where either Smart or Armstrong have made such a claim.

Other than bad religion, what do you have?

 

[blü 2]

Are you not able to read and comprehend the SEP article? It specifically describes what is meant by "natural law" in the definition. It is specifically referring to prescriptive, necessitarian laws. Necessitarian or prescriptive laws of nature allegedly are not mere descriptions of regularities but (somehow) cause phenomena to behave as they do.

Then let's proceed on that basis and get back to the point.

Do you say that fuzzy determinism ─ the operation of 'natural law' as affected by quantum randomness ─ is a restraint in terms of your definition of 'free'?