Proud to be a [Philosophical] Materialist

Ruductive or eliminative?

less is more!

more is more!

On a tombstone in Tombstone: Here lies Lester More. Killed by four slugs from a 44. No Les No More.

Materialism is a fools errand.

Quality materialism yes,random buying for the sake of it or to satisfy some kind of unfulfilled need, no.

Material girl, what is quality materialism? What you describe as random buying for.... is exactly what is bad about materialism. False and hollow pleasures.

By quality buying I mean eg buying a portable dvd player,if it solves a problem, like watching a film at night in my room instead of waking up the house by watching tv in the living room then I think its a good reason to buy one.
I like ot buy lots of art equiptment but instead of buying lots of different things I buy the things I definately need instead of the things I really want.

ooo boy, I am looking forward to this one. Watching with interest.
Here we go folks. Is there such a thing as
"Good Quality, Deep Materialism with Meaning & Purpose"
vs.
"Bad Quality Shallow Cheap Meaningless Materialism"?

Isn't it ALL just friggin' Materialism?

What are you talking about?!!

I said MATERIALISM, not CONSUMERISM.

I'm talking about philosophiphophical meterialism, silly. Stuff is made of stuff.

Yes it is. No matter how you look at it it is still just a mindless saturation of fabricated needs.

Looked it up. Big surprise (really). All three definitions are very different.

ma·te·ri·al·ism
1. Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

2. The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life.

3. A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns.


So should we file this thread under Philosophy, Attitude, or Pertinence?
Agrote? Adrian? extra medium? anybody ... anybody ... Bueller?

Aha. Okay, sorry for the misunderstanding. It's number 1. I'm proud to be a number 1!

Well, I'd argue with you but I can't.

Not only do I agree completely, but I'm still trying to get over
the fact that I'm just a molecule.

agrote's thread is clearly entitled philosophical materialist so there shouldnt be any confusion.

I would be a materialist, if I had enough faith. (!)

Can materialism explain the sense of gob-smacking awe and wonder I get when considering the Cosmos?

agrote

Accepting the definition 1. we have two different statements.
First: "physical matter is the only reality".
Second: "everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena".

The first proposition seems to me, formulated as it is, nothing but a metaphysical statement, because we are already "inside" a physical reality. It is as if a fish of the oceanic depths said: water is the only reality.
I would accept it, but with this "nuance":
"Physical matter is the only reality we can perceive and experience".

The second proposition establishes not only an ontological status but also an epistemological one. It is not only a statement about "being" but also about "knowing".

Of course, if we accept the first proposition, the second must also be accepted to avoid contradiction. But, like the first one, the second proposition implies the subject of knowledge: "can be explained" by whom? By us, human beings. And we are already in the middle of the physical reality, being also physical entities. Again, if the fish of my example explained the reality according to it's conditions of experience, that explanation would be valid but only in the case of oceanic depths within the conditions of experience of that fish.

I think that all statements about knowledge that ignore the position of the subject of knowledge, become metaphysical (I mean, beyond all possible experience).

Any proposition about our knowledge must be preceded, in my opinion, by "within the limits and conditions of our possible experience ....".

That doesn't eliminate all problems of materialism in the area of epistemology, as we have seen in the topic about truth. An example: if all our ideas are nothing but electrical and chemical events in the brain, how can we establish that electrical and chemical event A is superior to electrical and chemical event B (A, your idea of materialism against B, JL Nobody mystical idea)?

Yes! Yes, we've got a debate!

Now ... the things outside of our experience ...
If we can't or don't experience them, then what difference do they make?

None!
(by definition anyways)


If physical matter is defined as anything we can materially perceive,
then anything that has an effect on us whatsoever is automatically within that definition.

Good post val

Will have to read it several more times.

But its already clear to me there is more to philosophical debate than fish.

Well to be fair, it was originally just 'materialist' - I edited it later. But anyway, the confusion is over.



I'm not sure. Perhaps the right ideas are the electrical and chemical events that are actually caused by the real things in the world that they are supposed to represent? Or something. I dunno, just an idea. But I'm sure that question could be answered from a materialist point of view - but obviously that's not enough. Maybe I'll look for an answer...

Anyone see this small indy movie called "Dopamine?"

It was trying to answer the question: "Does Love exist, or is it simply chemcals in the brain that are released that cause that feeling?"

Hmmmm...I can go with the chemical idea.

But then, there are 2 separate things sometimes:
1. You simply feel very attracted to that person.
2. You feel "Love" for a person

I can easily see why chemicals would cause #1. But can chemicals account for #2-Love also?

Like the love you have for your mother or something...thats all chemicals?

Could both 1 & 2 just be caused by chemicals?
Are human bodies simply test tubes, and different chemicals are released in us at different times, and this is what accounts for feelings of Love, attraction, fear, hate, happiness, sadness...

Are we simply test tubes full of chemicals?
That seems somehow kind of...sad...well I guess Spock from Star Trek would just say its logical, nothing to be sad about.

a few weeks back when i hit bottom i learned something

there is no love
no kindness
no compassion
only behaviour modified by genes and the environment

and after that, i felt a lot better