Things you don't like about Materialism

[SabahTheLoner]

I don’t like it. I feel that materialism by itself offers insufficient explanations. I also recognize some of the things I want to have aren’t material things. It doesn’t mean I reject the fact our world is made of matter but matter is made of energy (E=mc^2) so matter is probably not the building block of the entire world, just the stuff we can touch.

 

[Nous]

In any definition worth its salt, bosons would be material.

We've been over this before quite thoroughly. You've never been able to coherently argue that bosons are objects with mass and volume or that bosons are the same as or indistinguishable from objects that have mass and volume.

You have also never been able to coherently argue that non-conserved quantities such as matter are somehow more "fundamental" than conserved quantities such as energy and momentum.

My claims are based on, or mere quotations of, facts and definitions, not on metaphysical allegiance, such as yours.

Matter:

(in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy:​

matter - definition of matter in English | Oxford Dictionaries

2 b : material substance that occupies space, has mass, and is composed predominantly of atoms consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons, that constitutes the observable universe, and that is interconvertible with energy​

Definition of MATTER

Matter can be identified by its characteristic inertial and gravitational mass and the space that it occupies.​

Classification of Matter

There are many possible definitions for matter. In science, matter is the term for any type of material. Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space.

EXAMPLES OF MATTER

Proton

Atoms (e.g., a helium atom)

Molecules (e.g., water, sugar)
Compounds (e.g., table salt, silicon dioxide)

Cat

Tree

House

Computer

EXAMPLES THAT ARE NOT MATTER

Not everything we can perceive consists of matter. Examples of things that aren't matter include:

Photons (light)​

What Is the Definition of Matter?

Matter is anything that has mass and occupies space.​

Chemistry Is Everywhere - American Chemical Society

All particles fall into one of two classes, bosons or fermions. Two bosons with identical properties can be in the same place at the same time, but two fermions cannot.

There are two kinds of elementary particles in the universe: bosons and fermions. Bosons don’t mind sitting on top of each other, sharing the same space. In principle, you could pile an infinite number of bosons into the tiniest bucket. Fermions, on the other hand, don’t share space: only a limited number of fermions would fit into the bucket.

Matter, as you might guess, is made of fermions, which stack to form three-dimensional structures. The force fields that bind fermions to each other are made of bosons. Bosons are the glue holding matter together.​

Bosons

Article by Sean Carroll, who "is a theoretical physicist and author of the new book The Particle at the End of the Universe: How the Hunt for the Higgs Boson Leads Us to the Edge of a New World."

 

[PureX]

What is matter? Never mind.
What is mind? Doesn't matter.

Clever.

But both are expressions of energy.

What is energy? ... We have no idea.
What is governing the way energy can and cannot express itself? ... We have no idea.
What is existence apart from the conceptual opposite of non-existence? What is non-existence apart from the conceptual opposite of existence? ... We have no idea.

 

[Quintessence]

I voted "mixed/indifferent" in the poll. For better or worse, many who adhere to various forms of substance monism (materialism included) can be rather obnoxious when it comes to expressing their perspectives. Stripped of human annoyances like the presentation of philosophical positions as if they are some sort of incontrovertible dogma or matter-of-fact, the philosophy itself is fine. The narrative works for those who like the idea of some sort of oneness behind everything and are okay ignoring the inherent contradictions and idiosyncrasies that come along with that.

But, it doesn't work for me for much the same reasons monotheism doesn't work for me. It makes no more sense to me to suggest there's somehow only one god than it does to suggest to me that there's somehow only one root of all reality. I don't experience the gods that way, I don't experience reality that way, so any variety of substance monism is nonsense to me. Substance materialism strikes me as particularly nonsensical, though. I cannot comprehend how someone can reduce things that are by definition and experience immaterial to the material. It just seems really illogical.

 

[Nous]

Materialism as you've noted in the OP is reductionistic claiming that everything can be reduced to matter. That is not my view - matter is the manifestation of spirit.

You've raised a good point that no one else really has. Reductionism is difficult to argue in light of the many indisputable examples of downward causation. Physicalism, Emergence and Downward Causation

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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.

Don't see what materialism has to do with all the other stuff you mentioned. Go to any megachurch and see the problem with your assumption.

The problem with philosophical materialism is that it places all importance on the ooze from which life and consciousness arise, rather than on the life and consciousness that arise from it. It ignores the transcendent nature of nature so it can claim there is none.

We ARE just meatbags, though. Doesn't mean we don't have to care about meatbags.

I also recognize some of the things I want to have aren’t material things.

Even emotions are "material". I think a lot of the problem with anti-materialists is that they don't understand what "material" is. They act like if you can't hold it in your hands, it's not "material".

What is energy? ... We have no idea.

Energy - Wikipedia

 

[George-ananda]

I'm curious to better understand why it is so common for people on RF to dislike materialism

I dislike it only because after decades of studying paranormal phenomena and studying spiritual teachers, I am convinced beyond doubt that materialism is wrong. So, I would call it more a disbelief than a dislike in my case.

I voted 'negative' as my best voting option.

I can also see why it is a less attractive view than a spiritual view that increases the extension of the universe and our consciousness.

 

[Polymath257]

We've been over this before quite thoroughly. You've never been able to coherently argue that bosons are objects with mass and volume or that bosons are the same as or indistinguishable from objects that have mass and volume.

My point is that the definition of 'material' as being limited to things that have mass and volume is absurd given what we know today.

The rest is stuff I am quite familiar with. But if you want to use an out-dated concept of 'matter', then you will arrive at such positions.

I find it better to define 'material' as those things made from quantum particles whether they are fermions or bosons.

Besides, how do you deal with bosons like the Higg's particle that *does* have mass, but won't have 'volume'? To not call it material seems absurd.

 

[Nous]

My point is that the definition of 'material' as being limited to things that have mass and volume is absurd given what we know today.

What fact makes the standard definition of "matter" (quoted in my post) false?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is matter? Never mind.
What is mind? Doesn't matter.

Clever. Reminds me of "What's wrong with me? My feet smell and my nose is running."

 

[Vee]

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 everything has a place in life and if people keep a balanced view of material possessions, that's fine. We all need certain things in our lives and there's nothing wrong with wanting to live well. The problem is when material things become the center of our personal universe and we're willing to sacrifice everything else (family, health, personal qualities, etc) in order to get more stuff, regardless of the consequences. I'm a big believer in keeping a balanced lifestyle and focusing on the most important things.

 

[Laika]

Incidentally, you probably agree that conflating the lust for material objects as a source of happiness with a philosophical position that all phenomena are derivative of matter (or probably more properly, of energy) by calling both materialism, and then using the failure of the former as an argument against the latter is a classic equivocation fallacy.

I wanted to see how often it came up and how many people agreed with it so I thought I would include it in the OP.

How do you define 'material'?

In any definition worth its salt, bosons would be material. If they fail according to your definition, then your definition is the problem, not bosons.

Please define matter.

"Matter is objective reality given to us in sensation" (V. I. Lenin)

Its what I've got but it only is really useful in a philosophical context.

I reject materialism because according to the findings and theories of modern physics it simply isn't a true thesis. Bosons, which include photons, gluons and the force-carrying gauge bosons, are not objects that have mass and volume (matter), and, are certainly no less “fundamental” than objects that have mass and volume. Indeed, if anything, bosons would seem to be the more fundamental. Matter isn't even a conserved quantity. Energy and other fundamental quantities are. I cannot conceive how a conserved quantity would be less fundamental than a quantity that isn't conserved.

If everyone had your willingness, even eagerness, to see and understand things from "the other side," the world would be a much smarter place. I sometimes get irritated when speak of materialism in lossey-goosey ways (materialists are probably not the ones who are most guilty of this). But other metaphysical theses are spoken of imprecisely. Personally I think people should be sentenced to prison for using vague and inaccurate language. But other than that, I don't really have a solution.

Having looked at it, I can't say I'm satisfied with many of the responses by materialists to the implications of discoveries in physics. So I have to concede that is an issue I couldn't address within any "Western" definition of science. Soviet Science, maybe, but I don't understand it well enough to try and use quantum mechanics and dialectical materialism in conjunction. Trying to use both just makes it 100 times harder.

Since materialists tend to claim that they rely on science, it would seem that a recent scientific research gives these a headache from the beginning.

Science now claims that this universe shouldn't exist at all. Ups, the materialistic philosophy needs a boost from perhaps a little on the side of those who claim that there is more to it than just simple matter.

Agreed. Big Bang Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics are difficult for materialists because of how they understand matter, space and time and often rely on the belief on an infinite eternal universe.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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).

Until we find some sort of verifiable evidence that consciousness can exist without a physical brain, it seems kind of silly to suggest that it can.

 

[Polymath257]

What fact makes the standard definition of "matter" (quoted in my post) false?

Well, it eliminates things that would naturally be considered to be matter, like electrons, Higg's bosons, photons, etc. The main issue is that it only really applies to things larger than atoms even though parts of atoms would naturally be considered to be material also.

Let's face it, modern materialism considers all fermions and bosons to be fair game.

 

[Nous]

Having looked at it, I can't say I'm satisfied with many of the responses by materialists to the implications of discoveries in physics. So I have to concede that is an issue I couldn't address within any "Western" definition of science. Soviet Science, maybe, but I don't understand it well enough to try and use quantum mechanics and dialectical materialism in conjunction. Trying to use both just makes it 100 times harder.

Yeah, the findings and theories of modern physics simply do not conform to the traditional ideas of materialism of "Soviet Science." The two just don't fit together.

 

[Nous]

Well, it eliminates things that would naturally be considered to be matter, like electrons, Higg's bosons, photons, etc.

False. Read the definitions of "matter" that I quoted again. Not one one of them eliminates the existence of photons, bosons or any other entity that is not matter.

And in addition to failing to cite any fact by which to deduce the falsehood of the definitions of "matter" quoted above, you still haven't been able to cite any fact by which to deduce that non-conserved quantities (such as matter) are more fundamental than conserved quantities. Right?

 

[Nous]

Until we find some sort of verifiable evidence that consciousness can exist without a physical brain, it seems kind of silly to suggest that it can.

And the same goes for the converse? That is: until we find some sort of verifiable evidence that conscious experience and free will are produced by something in brains, it seem kind of silly to suggest that they are.

 

[Polymath257]

False. Read the definitions of "matter" that I quoted again. Not one one of them eliminates the existence of photons, bosons or any other entity that is not matter.

OK, what would *you* consider the philosophical position to be that allows both fermions and bosons as the basic components for the universe? In other words, any quantum particle?

If it isn't materialism, what would you call it?

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

Clever. Reminds me of "What's wrong with me? My feet smell and my nose is running."

Ah, you must be upside down

 

[Sanzbir]

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).

Oh.

Well simply put: It's because almost no one on the face of the planet is talking about that philosophical viewpoint when they're using the word "Materialism".