Western Materialism

[F1fan]

Do you really not grasp it?

Science needs a decent, life-affirming philosophy to underpin it for ethical reasons.

It needs it for the same reason we still argue whether it were right to drop the bombs on Japan, or perform medical experiments on dogs. Science alone would tell us nothing about whether performing vivisections on animals is right or wrong. In fact, if it gives us helpful results the logical conclusion seems to be it was the right thing to do. Yet a life-affirming moral philosophy would tell you not to perform vivisection on animals, no matter how useful to scientific understanding it may be. It's the same with modern issues like testing products on animals.

Back in 1945 when the atomic bombs were confirmed as working there was discussion among scientists, the military, and the US government about how to use them. Some scientists advocated to not use tha bomb on targets. Leo Szilard was the Hungarian physicist who first realized the "chain reaction" and filed the patent but asked the British admiralty to hold it and keep it secret. After the war started and Germany was known to have a atomic bomb program the Americans started their own (now a major motion picture). Szilard was adamant about the bomb only being demonstrated in front of an international audience, including Japan, so they could understand the power of this weapon and be allowed to sue for peace before they were used on japanese targets. Szilard wrote a letter to Roosevelt, and Einstein signed it. This letter failed to reach Roosevelt because he died suddenly and Truman was sworn in. The appeal was suggested to Truman, but he rejected this. As we know Truman and the military decided to drop two atiomic bombs on Japanese cities.

So this reveals that scientists are not devoid of sensitivity to morality, as suggested by some in this discussion. I notice no appeal to the military or politics to develop an ethical philosophy. But as noted I suggest all do have a philosophy, and as we know this doesn't impy moral attitudes. They could be quite self-serving, and justified with the ends justifying the means.

 

[Rival]

Back in 1945 when the atomic bombs were confirmed as working there was discussion among scientists, the military, and the US government about how to use them. Some scientists advocated to not use tha bomb on targets. Leo Szilard was the Hungarian physicist who first realized the "chain reaction" and filed the patent but asked the British admiralty to hold it and keep it secret. After the war started and Germany was known to have a atomic bomb program the Americans started their own (now a major motion picture). Szilard was adamant about the bomb only being demonstrated in front of an international audience, including Japan, so they could understand the power of this weapon and be allowed to sue for peace before they were used on japanese targets. Szilard wrote a letter to Roosevelt, and Einstein signed it. This letter failed to reach Roosevelt because he died suddenly and Truman was sworn in. The appeal was suggested to Truman, but he rejected this. As we know Truman and the military decided to drop two atiomic bombs on Japanese cities.

So this reveals that scientists are not devoid of sensitivity to morality, as suggested by some in this discussion. I notice no appeal to the military or politics to develop an ethical philosophy. But as noted I suggest all do have a philosophy, and as we know this doesn't impy moral attitudes. They could be quite self-serving, and justified with the ends justifying the means.

Who here has suggested philosophy inherently leads to good outcomes?

It is needful for discussion.

My whole point is that you can't do science without philosophy. Why is this so controversial?

 

[F1fan]

Yes, I want to promote philosophy to those who believe science is better

Science is better at making true conclusions. This doesn't mean how the results of science are used are ethical. The process of science has improved its ethics over the last century, as anyone who gets a science degree in college learns. The ethics of science is always a required class for a degree.

because it can apparently give concrete answers (which it can't) and has somehow usurped philosophy, as though they are doing the same thing, which of course they aren't.

Science can't give you a concrete answer as to why you seek meaning in your life. It can cure your diseases that might have been fatal 100 years ago.

Some people here seem determined to relegate philosophy to second class because it gives no solid answers,

I'm glad you can acknowledge this. So having a wishy washy philosophy on how to manage concrete atomic energy is why we had Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Humans wanted the power generation from a dangerous method before there was adequate safety. We should have been patient.

but it is the only tool we have to discuss the ins and outs of morality, justice, ethics and so on.

It doesn't tell us about greed and self-service, and the consequences to society in a way that we are wise today. How much more philosophy do we need before humanity is uniformly wise and prudent? Look at the rise of Trump as an indication of sloppy thinking, and a severe lack of a moral philosophy for the average MAGA. Where's your appeal to them?

No other tool can do this. So yes, philosophy is just as important. The NS had a philosophy; they didn't just wake up one day and decide to murder a bunch of people, they thought it out. Philosophies can be good or bad, as can science experiments, medications and so on. We need both to be able to make informed decisions about ethics and practice. Nurses are obliged to take ethics courses - i.e., a philosophy course. Not discussing philosophy at all would be the biggest issue. When we debate with Nazis over who is right and wrong, we are engaged in a philosophical debate.

I think we mostly agree here, tbh.

It's just that philosophy can be abused as much as science, so how does philosophy self-monitor and self-correct as science has since WW2? Has morals improved since WW2? Why are so many evangelicals supporting a criminal ex-president? If you want to focus some concern I'd say the average citizen with a voter registration card is more a threat than science.

 

[F1fan]

Who here has suggested philosophy inherently leads to good outcomes?

Me. Do you disagree? Should it come to bad conclusions?

It is needful for discussion.

No doubt, the unskilled thinker shows the liability in their posts. But I suggest the thinker's best opponent is themselves. They need to question their own thinking, not just face off with others in discourse.

My whole point is that you can't do science without philosophy. Why is this so controversial?

Arguably you can't do much at all in life without it as you describe it. Do you take out the trash the night beofre, or first thing in the morning????? Got to develop a philosophy of taking out the trash.

Arguably everyone has a philosophy, whether adopted or carefull thought out.

 

[Rival]

Science is better at making true conclusions. This doesn't mean how the results of science are used are ethical. The process of science has improved its ethics over the last century, as anyone who gets a science degree in college learns. The ethics of science is always a required class for a degree.

Science can't give you a concrete answer as to why you seek meaning in your life. It can cure your diseases that might have been fatal 100 years ago.

I'm glad you can acknowledge this. So having a wishy washy philosophy on how to manage concrete atomic energy is why we had Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Humans wanted the power generation from a dangerous method before there was adequate safety. We should have been patient.

It doesn't tell us about greed and self-service, and the consequences to society in a way that we are wise today. How much more philosophy do we need before humanity is uniformly wise and prudent? Look at the rise of Trump as an indication of sloppy thinking, and a severe lack of a moral philosophy for the average MAGA. Where's your appeal to them?

It's just that philosophy can be abused as much as science, so how does philosophy self-monitor and self-correct as science has since WW2? Has morals improved since WW2? Why are so many evangelicals supporting a criminal ex-president? If you want to focus some concern I'd say the average citizen with a voter registration card is more a threat than science.

What other tool would you suggest we use? The only tool we have is philosophical discussion. Whenever you debate a point of ethics, it's a philosophical discussion. If the answer you conclude is not the same as someone else's, that's normal. The benefit is in the discussion being had, points being raised, instead of things not being discussed and things just assumed. Science is a method, not a form of discussion, so it is amoral and can account for no system of ethics. A philosophical discussion does that. You and I will disagree on many things, but it is better to reach one's conclusions through discussion with others, studying relevant material and sharing ideas than assuming your position is correct. Many minds have been changed by such discussion. No-one has claimed more philosophical discussion will lead to a paradise, but as you noted, ethics classes are mandatory for medical professionals and we now see the outcome differences, which means philosophical discussion has worked to a large degree.

Of course philosophy discusses greed and self-service - this is included in ethics discussions.

 

[Rival]

Arguably everyone has a philosophy, whether adopted or carefull thought out.

Absolutely. They just won't realise it and it will be culturally imbibed, usually.

 

[Rival]

Me. Do you disagree? Should it come to bad conclusions?

It should aid in one's growth, growth of cultures and self and societal reflection. Philosophy should hold up a mirror to societies and individuals, for good or ill.

Whether that growth is deemed bad or good is also a philosophical discussion/conclusion.

 

[Rival]

Do you take out the trash the night beofre, or first thing in the morning????? Got to develop a philosophy of taking out the trash.

As a cleaner in a hospital, I absolutely have a philosophy about taking out trash so has every housewife, trust me!!

 

[George-ananda]

Why are most Western cultures materialist? They take Methodological Naturalism as some kind of baseline, which is a fallacy.

Why is this?

There is the assumption that anything worth knowing can be studied by science. And 'science' not religion or spiritual beliefs are to rule the roost of respect.

But science at this time looks too limited with all the mysteries left hanging and I believe important things can be learned that are beyond current science from other sources such as Vedic (Hindu) science.

 

[sayak83]

I mean, Western societies have much higher rates of atheism and, when asked, these atheists usually respond with something along these lines, 'God can't be proved by science'. Iran and Israel are probably the only non-Western countries with comparable numbers of atheists, but unlikely to be as naturalistic as we seem to be.

Are you sure? I think you will find higher rates in China, South Korea and Japan as well. Eastern Confucian societies have been mostly agnostic in general.

 

[Rival]

Are you sure? I think you will find higher rates in China, South Korea and Japan as well. Eastern Confucian societies have been mostly agnostic in general.

I'm talking about the layman understanding of atheism, commonly used to mean no supernatural beliefs at all. I understand that's not the philosophical meaning, but it's how it's often use by joe pub.

 

[1137]

The "mind" is a vaguely defined term for some or other mix of brain functions, but (depending on context) usually including, say, consciousness (being awake and aware), the sense of self, memory, language, sensory perception and the brain's monitoring of it, and abstract thought and reasoning.

These functions can be largely mapped onto the physical brain. That mapping, and particularly the interplay of the brain's regions, is of course a work in progress. However, unlike non-physical versions as far as I'm aware, this is a matter of active scientific research.

Sure mind and brain states correlate, they're connected. Nobody denies this. If there is scientific support of it it's strange 2 people now won't give any evidence for this position.

Anyway, in short, the 'mind' is the product of the brain's biochemistry and bioelectricity and hormones.

Right I know what your faith is I want to know why you think it's true.

What else do you say it is? How else do you say it arises?

But at least we're actively looking for the answer.

Please point me to the evidence you've presented. I'll be interested to read it.

In this very thread, just go up.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm talking about the layman understanding of atheism, commonly used to mean no supernatural beliefs at all. I understand that's not the philosophical meaning, but it's how it's often use by joe pub.

I've only directly engaged with Japanese people and culture, but I really do think it's more common there than here. Engaging with traditional Japanese spiritualism is not, in most cases, engaging with personal belief in kami, or otherwise spirits and the afterlife, but engaging with a shared cultural practice, traditional storytelling and national identity. But if you asked the average Japanese person if they believed in ghosts or reincarnation or any of that they would (first be uncomfortable, then) tell you no.

The difference is its also very part of Japanese culture to not be contrarian, so there's both less religious authoritarianism and less religious trauma which I believe causes a lot of the US 'angry atheists.' Can't say with with UK or Europe at large.

 

[viole]

Why are most Western cultures materialist? They take Methodological Naturalism as some kind of baseline, which is a fallacy.

Why is this?

Maybe because they come from the incredibly advanced Greek/Roman cultures, at that time. The most perfect and exquisite marriage between philosophical, mathematical thought, with civil and military wisdom. Whose findings and wisdom still reverberate today, and are the main components of western culture.

who knows where we would be now, if we hadn’t been infected with that culturally dark pandemics called Christianity.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Rival]

Maybe because they come from the incredibly advanced Greek/Roman cultures, at that time. The most perfect and exquisite marriage between philosophical, mathematical thought, with civil and military wisdom. Whose findings and wisdom still reverberates today, and are the main components of western culture.

who knows where we would be now, if we hadn’t been infected with that culturally dark pandemics called Christianity.

Ciao

- viole

Lmao.

 

[sayak83]

I asked for examples of abstract concepts existing outside of human brains or not being products of brains and you had none.

I am not convinced by the wishy washy ponderings of philosophy since they can make their own rules and conclusions.

So i take it you have no factual basis for claiming abstract concepts exist outside of human brains?

This is easy to show.
You see "two" apples. Thus the number two exists outside our brain and is associated with those "two" apples.
Now which physical theory explains the existence of the "two" that is clearly perceived in those two apples? None. In fact physical theories liberally use numbers and associated mathematical elements and relationships to structure itself. Thus how the world works appears to presuppose and require the existence of mathematical elements and relational structures. Hence abstract entities exist and is not dependent of the physical world for its existence.
Suppose you deny this and say that the "two" of the two apples is an invented construct of the brain. Such things do not exist out there. Firstly it is hard to see how the mathematical shapes of objects etc. cannot but be entities existing outside our brain. Are we saying that the orange exists out there but its spherical shape is an invention of our brain?? Then maybe the orange itself is an invention of our brain? I cannot see how one can avoid solipsism if mathematics is denied its reality.
Convince me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Collectivism results in the most good for the most people, but parasitism results in the greatest immediate good for the individual(s) that practices it.

The prisoner's dilemma restated. It's also akin to Popper's paradox regarding tolerance and the intolerance of intolerance. The humanist vision for society is utilitarian and includes marginalizing and neutralizing the parasites. It's the basis of partisan American politics today and the difference between the liberal, humanistic view and the alt-right, Machiavellian view.

The distinctions you draw in your mind between your inner and outer worlds, between the object, the observer, and the act of observation, between yourself and the world within and without you, are illusions caused by your limited perspective.

OK, but that "limited" perspective defines the human condition. That "illusion" is imposed on thought, which is structured as a subject (first person) observing an object (his conscious content) understood as occurring in spacetime theater occupied by energy, matter, and force. What makes that an illusion to you? And what benefit is achieved by "seeing further"?

I look at a chair beside me and get my subjective first-person perspective of it. Then I move and get another and another. Eventually, I devise a 3D model of a chair in my mind that combines all perspectives. OK, there's the "Illusion" and the "reality." The reality model is only a device for predicting subsequent experience of that chair from any angle. It's an induction, with specific sightings of the chair "deductions."

Here's the main thing: that "illusion" - the individual conscious experience - is more important to me than that model, which only has value to the extent that it accurately predicts those "deductions." My reality perforce is in here. Color can be called illusion, but color (and brightness) is how we experience visible light. I don't denigrate that. What out there is irrelevant except to the extent that it can impact in here (experience), so, given that I always have and always will be confined to in here, which is the illusion?

It seems the key to happiness is found in good relationships, nurtured through selfless behaviour.

Assuming we ever learn it at all, we learn what makes us happy empirically, through trial-and-error, discovering along the way what brings lasting contentment and how to make and keep that a reality.

Well given all the advances science has undoubtedly made over the last 400 years, and certainly in the last century, utopia musty be just around the corner. Just one last application of scientific principles to humanity's seemingly intractable problems, and we'll have all the peace, happiness and fulfilment we could possibly desire. If we haven't made the planet uninhabitable in the process.

Only science has made life better. Religion hasn't done that. Science has made life longer, more functional (eyeglasses), safer (vaccines), more comfortable (air conditioning), easier (automobiles), and more interesting (international travel, electronic media).

I want to promote philosophy to those who believe science is better because it can apparently give concrete answers (which it can't) and has somehow usurped philosophy, as though they are doing the same thing, which of course they aren't.

I'm also a fan of philosophy and don't understand why it is so quickly dismissed by so many.

In order to maximise happiness scientifically shouldn't you just be off your tits on coke all the time?

Does that make maximize your happiness? If you think so, go for it. Utilitarian ethics seeks to create a society that maximizes the social and economic opportunities to pursue happiness as one understands that within the framework of the law for as many as possible. Yes, what you describe is not just foolish, but also illegal, but I don't agree with criminalizing such drug use.

It was a joke, of course, but my main point is if you want to increase happiness scientifically you'd just turn everyone into super hedonists who would ruin society.

Not at all. I'm happy, but am not a hedonist ruining society. Au contraire. We're a positive force in our community, making a difference where we can as volunteers (I volunteer at the bridge club, where I direct and teach) and through charities (there are a lot of happy dogs now with forever homes in our community). We've also gone solar, which is a benefit to everybody, but especially ourselves, and which also gives us satisfaction. We make our friends lives happier as they do ours. We are happy with a simple life. Pleasure for us is safety, comfort, love, beauty, leisure, and freedom from want, fear, anxiety, shame, remorse, guilt, etc.. Yesterday, we played bridge in the bridge club followed by a nice dinner out, and then home for the news, Jeopardy, and two hours on the terrace watching the sun go down while listening to a Grateful Dead concert with our dogs and a glass of wine.

I doubt that's what you mean by becoming "super hedonists who would ruin society." And we arrived at all of that empirically - discovering what works and what brings relatively long-lasting happiness. We intend to live like this for as long as we can, and it appears to be sustainable for as long as health and external conditions permit. And I believe that we will leave the world a better place in the process. Win-win.

 

[Rival]

Not at all. I'm happy, but am not a hedonist ruining society. Au contraire. We're a positive force in our community, making a difference where we can as volunteers (I volunteer at the bridge club, where I direct and teach) and through charities (there are a lot of happy dogs now with forever homes in our community). We've also gone solar, which is a benefit to everybody, but especially ourselves, and which also gives us satisfaction. We make our friends lives happier as they do ours. We are happy with a simple life. Pleasure for us is safety, comfort, love, beauty, leisure, and freedom from want, fear, anxiety, shame, remorse, guilt, etc.. Yesterday, we played bridge in the bridge club followed by a nice dinner out, and then home for the news, Jeopardy, and two hours on the terrace watching the sun go down while listening to a Grateful Dead concert with our dogs and a glass of wine.

I doubt that's what you mean by becoming "super hedonists who would ruin society." And we arrived at all of that empirically - discovering what works and what brings relatively long-lasting happiness. We intend to live like this for as long as we can, and it appears to be sustainable for as long as health and external conditions permit. And I believe that we will leave the world a better place in the process. Win-win.

The difference is that most sane people think in terms of communal happiness and flourishing, but there are millions out there who think selfishly for their own gain. We have produced such a society in the neo-liberal Thatcherite tradition, which has become deeply disturbing. There are lofty ideas decimated by many selfish individuals who seek everything for themselves. I am not on board with not telling people how to run their lives if the way they run their lives is selfish and leads to anti-social outcomes.

 

[F1fan]

As a cleaner in a hospital, I absolutely have a philosophy about taking out trash so has every housewife, trust me!!

Yeah, a good reason to yell at hubby for not doing it right.

This is easy to show.
You see "two" apples. Thus the number two exists outside our brain and is associated with those "two" apples.

It exists outside of my brain because other people before me came up with a concept of “two” or “dva” or any other language that represents 2 things. That there are any number of objects in a set doesn’t have any number relevant to it until a human has interest in how many.

Now which physical theory explains the existence of the "two" that is clearly perceived in those two apples? None. In fact physical theories liberally use numbers and associated mathematical elements and relationships to structure itself. Thus how the world works appears to presuppose and require the existence of mathematical elements and relational structures. Hence abstract entities exist and is not dependent of the physical world for its existence.

Disagree. Human minds are why numbers exist and are used. That two objects are in a set is irrelevant to nature. “Two” is only relevant to we humans. Maths only describes how nature works. The formulas and numbers aren’t bouncing around out there.

Suppose you deny this and say that the "two" of the two apples is an invented construct of the brain.

Hahahaha. Me? Would I do that?

Such things do not exist out there.

Hahahaha. Yea, well…

Firstly it is hard to see how the mathematical shapes of objects etc. cannot but be entities existing outside our brain.

Is how objects act in space via gravity an entity itself? The physical laws are what they are regardless of how we describe them for our own understanding and purposes.

Are we saying that the orange exists out there but its spherical shape is an invention of our brain??

No. It is what it is in nature.

Then maybe the orange itself is an invention of our brain? I cannot see how one can avoid solipsism if mathematics is denied its reality.

Objects like oranges are not the laws that govern how they exist in nature.

Convince me.

I’ll send you a million dollars. But to me a one dollar bill equals a million because I say so. So enjoy your million.

 

[Yerda]

In order to maximise happiness scientifically shouldn't you just be off your tits on coke all the time?

Have you ever met anyone with a severe coke habit who was happy?