The Long Awaited Materialism thread
- This topic has 285 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Theory and practice is not 'materialist', but 'idealist-materialist'.
And that's where you're plainly wrong.Materialism entails that all things including 'theory and practice' are material.I think the problem with this discussion is that we are using the same terms to mean different things….
You are now backtracking on what you said earlier LBird wrote: 'the inseparability of ideas and material conditions'. LBird wrote:You're right, 'idealism-materialism' doesn't mean the 'primacy of ideas over material conditions'. As you say, it's 'a false dichotomy'.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:Theory and practice is not 'materialist', but 'idealist-materialist'.And that's where you're plainly wrong.Materialism entails that all things including 'theory and practice' are material.I think the problem with this discussion is that we are using the same terms to mean different things….
But this is what I keep telling you, DJP!I'm 'plainly wrong' from the 'materialist/physicalist' perspective! Of course I am. But I'm not a 'materialist/physicalist'. I'm a 'critical realist'. So, I'm not 'plainly wrong' from that perspective.Unless we discuss the differences between 'materialism' and 'critical realism', and then compare the results to Marx's work, we can't advance the discussion.The real problem seems to be that DJP and Vin don't even accept that they're employing a theory, but are merely just 'dealing with the Truth'. So, we can't resolve our differences, not even on the level of understanding those differences (rather than coming to any agreement, which is impossible).
Vin Maratty wrote:You are now backtracking on what you said earlier LBird wrote: 'the inseparability of ideas and material conditions'. LBird wrote:You're right, 'idealism-materialism' doesn't mean the 'primacy of ideas over material conditions'. As you say, it's 'a false dichotomy'.As long as you're happy that I'm 'backtracking', then you're satisfied. That's OK by me, Vin.
robbo203 wrote:The point Im getting at is that we should move away from this kind of crass mechanistic notion that material conditions "produce" ideasIt is not 'crass mechanistic' to say that a material brain is required for thinking with.
LBird wrote:Vin Maratty wrote:You are now backtracking on what you said earlier LBird wrote: 'the inseparability of ideas and material conditions'. LBird wrote:You're right, 'idealism-materialism' doesn't mean the 'primacy of ideas over material conditions'. As you say, it's 'a false dichotomy'.As long as you're happy that I'm 'backtracking', then you're satisfied. That's OK by me, Vin.
If you wish to ignore things you have no answer for…..
I think it's rather quite simple. Either ideas are material, and thus subject to causation and the laws of thermodynamics, or, they are not, andcauseless effects occur off the back of ideas.
If you can define what you mean when you say 'materialism', 'physicalism' and 'realism' we might be able to get somewhere..
Vin Maratty wrote:It is not 'crass mechanistic' to say that a material brain is required for thinking with.No-one is arguing that it isn't required, Vin.
VM wrote:If you wish to ignore things you have no answer for…..This is starting to border on the childish, now.What I am I supposed to say back? Nah, nah, na-nah, nah…The answers that I've been giving are from the perspective of critical realism, not physicalism.The fact that you won't acknowledge or discuss your perspective is not my fault.
DJP wrote:If you can define what you mean when you say 'materialism', 'physicalism' and 'realism' we might be able to get somewhere..If you will allow me some leeway to try to explain, please, comrade!I'm not saying that you'll agree with the following characterisation, but it's my attempt to explain our differences, from my perspective.Out of non-living material, comes living material.Out of unconscious, living material, comes living consciousness.Out of living consciousness, comes self-consciousness.Out of self-consciousness comes original ideas.Original ideas form the basis for conscious changes to non-living material.But, to reduce these steps to saying 'non-living material changes non-living material', while true at some level, surely loses some of the subtlety in an explanation of human, conscious activity within our natural world.I feel obliged to add, that I'm trying to throw into sharp relief our two positions ('materialism' as opposed to 'idealism-materialism'), rather than giving an accurate account of arguments that have been going on for millenia. Please take this as a rough attempt to illustrate with crayons, rather than an accurate architect's drawing.
LBird wrote:Out of non-living material, comes living material.Out of unconscious, living material, comes living consciousness.Out of living consciousness, comes self-consciousness.Out of self-consciousness comes original ideas.Original ideas form the basis for conscious changes to non-living material.But, to reduce these steps to saying 'non-living material changes non-living material', while true at some level, surely loses some of the subtlety in an explanation of human, conscious activity within our natural world.OK great. Now explain why you think that is not or is incompatible with a physicalist framework.
LBird wrote:Out of non-living material, comes living material.Out of unconscious, living material, comes living consciousness.Out of living consciousness, comes self-consciousness.Out of self-consciousness comes original ideas.Original ideas form the basis for conscious changes to non-living material.But, to reduce these steps to saying 'non-living material changes non-living material', while true at some level, surely loses some of the subtlety in an explanation of human, conscious activity within our natural world.OK great. Now explain why you think that is not a physicalist or is incompatible with a physicalist framework.Thanks.
In the meantime here's some cause for hope http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/internet-argument-resolved-2014030584268
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:Out of non-living material, comes living material.Out of unconscious, living material, comes living consciousness.Out of living consciousness, comes self-consciousness.Out of self-consciousness comes original ideas.Original ideas form the basis for conscious changes to non-living material.But, to reduce these steps to saying 'non-living material changes non-living material', while true at some level, surely loses some of the subtlety in an explanation of human, conscious activity within our natural world.OK great. Now explain why you think that is not a physicalist or is incompatible with a physicalist framework.Thanks.
Emergence.Living is not non-living; consciousness is not unconscious living; self-consciousness is not (just) consciousness; original ideas are not self-consciousness.The reduction of original ideas to matter doesn't explain anything. Emergence means newness, not more oldness.If we deny humans the ability to create something that doesn't exist, where does Communism come from? Material conditions? That's the argument that "Rocks make history, but not in piles of their own choosing!"
LBird wrote:Emergence.OK, but physicalism incorperates that and is not neccesarily reductive.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#9
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.