Any materialists or naturalists here?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Any materialists or naturalists here?

Post by Sy Borg »

Consul wrote:
Greta wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

I would. If ghosts are found to be true then there must me a mechanism for them that has not yet been found. If there are other "layers" or "dimensions" of existence then surely they play a role in all of nature as well as known things? Separate domains can still interact, as evidenced by relativistic and quantum scales.
For one who embraces naturalist thought, the metaphysical is treated as roughly synonymous with the "unknown physical" or "speculative physical".
You may draw a distinction between truly supernatural or hyperphysical phenomena and merely "paranatural" or "cryptophysical" phenomena; but my point is that (metaphysical/ontological) naturalism becomes meaningless if the natural is definitionally equated with the real. For example, it is part of naturalism that reality is nothing over and above the concrete world(s) of space and time. So, for instance, it excludes transcendent deities and Platonic abstracta from reality; and if such things are real, naturalism is false. That everything real is natural is a nontrivial and substantive ontological thesis that is not true by definition.
Fair enough, but I would have thought those who embrace naturalism to also embrace science, in which case it would seem logical for a "naturalist" to expand their definitions based on new evidence.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Any materialists or naturalists here?

Post by Spectrum »

Consul wrote:As Jack Smart, one of the champions of 20th-century materialism, writes:

"By 'materialism' I mean the theory that there is nothing in the world over and above those entities which are postulated by physics (or, of course, those entities which will be postulated by future and more adequate physical theories).
Thus I do not hold materialism to be wedded to the billiard-ball physics of the nineteenth century.
The less visualizable particles of modern physics count as matter. Note that energy counts as matter for my purposes: indeed in modern physics energy and matter are not sharply distinguishable. Nor do I hold that materialism implies determinism. If physics is indeterministic on the micro-level, so must be the materialist's theory. I regard materialism as compatible with a wide range of conceptions of the nature of matter and energy. For example, if matter and energy consist of regions of special curvature of absolute space-time, with 'worm-holes' and what not, this is still compatible with materialism: we can still argue that in the last resort the world is made up entirely of the ultimate entities of physics, namely space-time points."


(Smart, J. J. C. "Materialism." 1963. In Essays Metaphysical and Moral: Selected Philosophical Papers, 203-214. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987. p. 203)
A general [non-contradictory] proposition will be acceptable [at least hypothetically] as long as the terms [acceptable] are defined appropriately.

In the above case, Smart extended the definition of 'matter' to keep up with the latest findings of Physics. So his definition of 'materialism' is qualified to his definition of what is matter.

Those who are familiar with how Berkeley thrashed classical Philosophical Materialism would prefer not to associate the term 'matter' with the furthest possible realm of reality re modern Physics.
I believe the term 'Physicalism' is a more encompassing term, i.e. anything Physics [Physicalism] can rationally justify as real.

If one were to use the term 'Philosophical Materialism' currently one will have to define what one meant by 'matter' to ensure one is not referring to the classical definition of 'matter'.
I believe most philosophers are now familiar with "Philosophical Physicalism" and thus most will not pause to ask for clarification of such a term.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Any materialists or naturalists here?

Post by Consul »

Spectrum wrote:In the above case, Smart extended the definition of 'matter' to keep up with the latest findings of Physics. So his definition of 'materialism' is qualified to his definition of what is matter.

Those who are familiar with how Berkeley thrashed classical Philosophical Materialism would prefer not to associate the term 'matter' with the furthest possible realm of reality re modern Physics.
I believe the term 'Physicalism' is a more encompassing term, i.e. anything Physics [Physicalism] can rationally justify as real.

If one were to use the term 'Philosophical Materialism' currently one will have to define what one meant by 'matter' to ensure one is not referring to the classical definition of 'matter'.
I believe most philosophers are now familiar with "Philosophical Physicalism" and thus most will not pause to ask for clarification of such a term.
In the Oxford Dictionary of Physics, it is defined as "the study of the laws that determine the structure of the universe with reference to the matter and energy of which it consists. It is concerned not with chemical changes that occur but with the forces that exist between objects and the interrelationship between matter and energy."

Of course, in the context of physics and physicalism, the basic concepts of matter and energy (and also of space and time) have to be analyzed and clarified.

Following Lewis (see the quotes above!), I see no good reason to prefer "physicalism" to "materialism", especially as it is generally understood in the philosophical community that contemporary materialism so called is the same as physicalism, with contemporary materialism/physicalism being a metaphysical/ontological doctrine rather than a semantic one.
See: Physicalism > Terminology

-- Updated November 4th, 2017, 11:31 am to add the following --
Maxcady10001 wrote:Why are there so few people willing to accept the materialist or naturalist label, even if it's consistent with their world view? Is there some kind of social stigma associated with being a naturalist or a materialist? Why does there have to be more than a natural or material world?
The big problem with using "materialism"/"materialist" outside the academic sphere is that most nonphilosophers equate it with ethical or economic materialism, which is regarded as a despicable attitude (despite the fact that capitalist economies and societies do practice it).

* "a doctrine that the only or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the furtherance of material progress" (Merriam-Webster)

* "a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values" (Oxford)

* "The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life.
"Concern for possessions or material wealth and physical comfort, especially to the exclusion of spiritual or intellectual pursuits." (American Heritage)

* "the attitude of someone who attaches a lot of importance to money and wants to possess a lot of material things." (Collins)

Of course, metaphysical/ontological materialism is totally independent of ethical/economic materialism.

"A quite different sense of the word 'Materialism' should be noted in which it denotes not a metaphysical theory but an ethical attitude. A person is a Materialist in this sense if he is interested mainly in sensuous pleasures and bodily comforts and hence in the material possessions that bring these about. A man might be a Materialist in this ethical and pejorative sense without being a metaphysical Materialist, and conversely. An extreme physicalistic Materialist, for example, might prefer a Beethoven record to a comfortable mattress for his bed; and a person who believes in immaterial spirits might opt for the mattress."

(J. J. C. Smart, "Materialism." In Encyclopaedia Britannica [Ultimate Reference Suite 2005 DVD])

-- Updated November 4th, 2017, 3:52 pm to add the following --
Greta wrote:If ghosts are found to be true then there must me a mechanism for them that has not yet been found. If there are other "layers" or "dimensions" of existence then surely they play a role in all of nature as well as known things? Separate domains can still interact, as evidenced by relativistic and quantum scales.

For one who embraces naturalist thought, the metaphysical is treated as roughly synonymous with the "unknown physical" or "speculative physical".
The problem with so-called ghosts/spirits/spooks/specters as described or depicted in folk mythology (stories, paintings, movies) is that they aren't really nonphysical, immaterial, purely spiritual beings but occult material/physical ones consisting of some "cryptophysical" stuff (e.g. ectoplasm).

"When we picture a ghost to ourselves we indulge in a contradictory mishmash of the immaterial and the corporeal, an entity that can be seen but not touched, that can walk through walls yet can pick things up, that produces sounds from no vocal apparatus, that has a surface but no interior organs. When you reflect on ghosts they make no sense, not as potentially real presences in the world."

(McGinn, Colin. The Mysterious Flame: Conscious Minds in a Material World. New York: Basic Books, 1999. p. 27)

"We commonly think that we, as persons, have both a mental and a bodily dimension—or mental aspects and material aspects. Something like this dualism of personhood, I believe, is common lore shared across most cultures and religious traditions, although it is seldom articulated in the form of an explicit set of doctrines as in modern western philosophy and some developed theologies. It is often part of this 'folk dualism' that we are able to survive bodily deaths, as souls or spirits, and retain all or most of the mental aspects of ourselves, such as memory, the capacity for thought and volition, and traits of character and personality, long after our bodies have crumbled to dust.
Spirits and souls as conceived in popular lore seem not be entirely without physical properties, if only vestigially physical ones, and are not what Descartes and other philosophical dualists would call souls or minds—wholly immaterial and nonphysical substances with no physical properties whatever. For example, souls are commonly said to leave the body when a person dies and rise upward toward heaven, indicating that they are thought to have, and be able to change, locations in physical space. And they can be heard and seen, we are told, by people endowed with special powers and in an especially propitious frame of mind. Souls are sometimes pictured as balls of bright light, causing the air to stir as they glide through space and even emitting faint unearthly sounds. But souls and spirits depicted in stories and literature, and in films, are not the immaterial minds of the serious dualist. These latter souls are wholly immaterial and entirely outside physical space."


(Kim, Jaegwon. Physicalism or Something Near Enough. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005. p. 73)

Cartesian immaterial/spiritual substances (souls/spirits) are totally immaterial/nonphysical, i.e. they don't consist of any ("coarse" or "fine") stuff whatsoever (the concept of an "immaterial/nonphysical stuff" souls are made of is self-contradictory); and they are neither spatially extended nor spatially located. But there is also a non-Cartesian (not strictly Cartesian) concept of them that doesn't include their spatial unlocatedness or extraspatiality. But note that both Cartesian and non-Cartesian immaterial/spiritual substances are spatially unextended, being 0-dimensional and thus having the size of a mathematical point. (To put it mildly, it is very doubtful that such entities could possibly exist.) Also note that 0D souls/spirits/ghosts would be totally imperceptible.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Any materialists or naturalists here?

Post by Spectrum »

Consul wrote:
Spectrum wrote:In the above case, Smart extended the definition of 'matter' to keep up with the latest findings of Physics. So his definition of 'materialism' is qualified to his definition of what is matter.

Those who are familiar with how Berkeley thrashed classical Philosophical Materialism would prefer not to associate the term 'matter' with the furthest possible realm of reality re modern Physics.
I believe the term 'Physicalism' is a more encompassing term, i.e. anything Physics [Physicalism] can rationally justify as real.

If one were to use the term 'Philosophical Materialism' currently one will have to define what one meant by 'matter' to ensure one is not referring to the classical definition of 'matter'.
I believe most philosophers are now familiar with "Philosophical Physicalism" and thus most will not pause to ask for clarification of such a term.
In the Oxford Dictionary of Physics, it is defined as "the study of the laws that determine the structure of the universe with reference to the matter and energy of which it consists. It is concerned not with chemical changes that occur but with the forces that exist between objects and the interrelationship between matter and energy."

Of course, in the context of physics and physicalism, the basic concepts of matter and energy (and also of space and time) have to be analyzed and clarified.

Following Lewis (see the quotes above!), I see no good reason to prefer "physicalism" to "materialism", especially as it is generally understood in the philosophical community that contemporary materialism so called is the same as physicalism, with contemporary materialism/physicalism being a metaphysical/ontological doctrine rather than a semantic one.
See: Physicalism > Terminology
  • "Physics, it is defined as "the study of the laws that determine the structure of the universe with reference to the matter and energy of which it consists."
As you can see from the above 'matter' is a subset of Physics besides 'energy' space, time, and the various subatomic particles. What about that 'spooky' entanglement and other surprises that may turn up in Physics in the future.

'Matter' has the baggage of its classical definition and classical 'materialism' being trashed by Berkeley.

Many would prefer 'Physicalism' to cover for what is beyond classical 'matter' and any other new discoveries from Physics.

Personally, being Philosophical anti-realist [> Kantian], I do not agree with the philosophical principles of 'Materialism' nor 'Physicalism'.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Any materialists or naturalists here?

Post by Sy Borg »

Consul wrote:
Greta wrote:If ghosts are found to be true then there must me a mechanism for them that has not yet been found. If there are other "layers" or "dimensions" of existence then surely they play a role in all of nature as well as known things? Separate domains can still interact, as evidenced by relativistic and quantum scales.

For one who embraces naturalist thought, the metaphysical is treated as roughly synonymous with the "unknown physical" or "speculative physical".
The problem with so-called ghosts/spirits/spooks/specters as described or depicted in folk mythology (stories, paintings, movies) is that they aren't really nonphysical, immaterial, purely spiritual beings but occult material/physical ones consisting of some "cryptophysical" stuff (e.g. ectoplasm).

"When we picture a ghost to ourselves we indulge in a contradictory mishmash of the immaterial and the corporeal, an entity that can be seen but not touched, that can walk through walls yet can pick things up, that produces sounds from no vocal apparatus, that has a surface but no interior organs. When you reflect on ghosts they make no sense, not as potentially real presences in the world."
Point taken. As a child it bothered me that ghosts didn't fall through chairs, beds or the ground. I also wondered what they did with themselves when not bothering the living. Such ghosts make about as much sense as alien UFOs seen at night thanks to their coloured air traffic control lights.

Consul quoting wrote:"We commonly think that we, as persons, have both a mental and a bodily dimension—or mental aspects and material aspects. Something like this dualism of personhood, I believe, is common lore shared across most cultures and religious traditions, although it is seldom articulated in the form of an explicit set of doctrines as in modern western philosophy and some developed theologies. It is often part of this 'folk dualism' that we are able to survive bodily deaths, as souls or spirits, and retain all or most of the mental aspects of ourselves, such as memory, the capacity for thought and volition, and traits of character and personality, long after our bodies have crumbled to dust.

...But souls and spirits depicted in stories and literature, and in films, are not the immaterial minds of the serious dualist. These latter souls are wholly immaterial and entirely outside physical space."


(Kim, Jaegwon. Physicalism or Something Near Enough. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005. p. 73)
The irony is for those who attempt to embrace realism is that reality may in fact be dual, making a TOE potentially impossible: sciencealert.com/physicists-show-that-g ... ntum-world. What that means in terms of spirits and the like, if anything, is unclear. Nonetheless, this apparent dual nature of information is interesting, where the quantum realm, by comparison, can (continue to) be thought of as a primarily informational realm, given its dicey physicality.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Any materialists or naturalists here?

Post by Count Lucanor »

I am a materialist, which means I subscribe to this view:

"...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.
" (Wikipedia)

"...the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical...The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don't deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don't seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are either physical or supervene on the physical.

...Physicalism is sometimes known as ‘materialism’. Indeed, on one strand to contemporary usage, the terms ‘physicalism’ and ‘materialism’ are interchangeable.
" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Now, in response to the OP, cannot help but be reminded of Engels's take on the philistine prejudice against the word:

"The fact is that Starcke, although perhaps unconsciously, in this makes an unpardonable concession to the traditional philistine prejudice against the word materialism resulting from its long-continued defamation by the priests. By the word materialism, the philistine understands gluttony, drunkenness, lust of the eye, lust of the flesh, arrogance, cupidity, avarice, covetousness, profit-hunting, and stock-exchange swindling — in short, all the filthy vices in which he himself indulges in private. By the word idealism he understands the belief in virtue, universal philanthropy, and in a general way a “better world”, of which he boasts before others but in which he himself at the utmost believes only so long as he is having the blues or is going through the bankruptcy consequent upon his customary “materialist” excesses. It is then that he sings his favourite song, What is man? — Half beast, half angel." (Frederick Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, 1886)
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Any materialists or naturalists here?

Post by Consul »

Count Lucanor wrote: Now, in response to the OP, cannot help but be reminded of Engels's take on the philistine prejudice against the word:

"The fact is that Starcke, although perhaps unconsciously, in this makes an unpardonable concession to the traditional philistine prejudice against the word materialism resulting from its long-continued defamation by the priests. By the word materialism, the philistine understands gluttony, drunkenness, lust of the eye, lust of the flesh, arrogance, cupidity, avarice, covetousness, profit-hunting, and stock-exchange swindling — in short, all the filthy vices in which he himself indulges in private. By the word idealism he understands the belief in virtue, universal philanthropy, and in a general way a “better world”, of which he boasts before others but in which he himself at the utmost believes only so long as he is having the blues or is going through the bankruptcy consequent upon his customary “materialist” excesses. It is then that he sings his favourite song, What is man? — Half beast, half angel." (Frederick Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, 1886)
Thanks for this quote that I didn't know!
It's very sad that most people are still unaware that a metaphysical materialist can be a perfect idealist in the ethical and aesthetic sense.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Any materialists or naturalists here?

Post by Atreyu »

Count Lucanor wrote:I am a materialist, which means I subscribe to this view:

"...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.
" (Wikipedia)
Interesting. Because I could also call myself a "materialist", however, I strongly disagree with the above assertion.

When I say I am a "materialist", I mean that I accept the general idea that there is some kind of matter/material behind all phenomenon. So, in my view, there is matter involved in psychic processes like thought and awareness. And if "spirits" exist, they would also be composed of some kind of matter.

However, I wouldn't call matter "fundamental", nor would I say you can explain consciousness solely via material interactions, and I certainly wouldn't say that matter gives rise to consciousness, nor determines it. I would also oppose calling matter "the ultimate origin".

In my view conscious forces must take precedence over mechanical forces in explaining any "ultimate causation". The Universe is a conscious entity before it is just a "bunch of stuff"...
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Any materialists or naturalists here?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Atreyu wrote:
Count Lucanor wrote:I am a materialist, which means I subscribe to this view:

"...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.
" (Wikipedia)
Interesting. Because I could also call myself a "materialist", however, I strongly disagree with the above assertion.

When I say I am a "materialist", I mean that I accept the general idea that there is some kind of matter/material behind all phenomenon. So, in my view, there is matter involved in psychic processes like thought and awareness. And if "spirits" exist, they would also be composed of some kind of matter.

However, I wouldn't call matter "fundamental", nor would I say you can explain consciousness solely via material interactions, and I certainly wouldn't say that matter gives rise to consciousness, nor determines it. I would also oppose calling matter "the ultimate origin".

In my view conscious forces must take precedence over mechanical forces in explaining any "ultimate causation". The Universe is a conscious entity before it is just a "bunch of stuff"...
So it looks like you are actually an idealist, or a dualist, which is the same. Materialism is monistic, while idealism can be either monistic or dualistic.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Any materialists or naturalists here?

Post by Spectrum »

Count Lucanor wrote:So it looks like you are actually an idealist, or a dualist, which is the same. Materialism is monistic, while idealism can be either monistic or dualistic.
There are various definition of materialism-Physicalism versus Idealism.

Generally, it is

1. Materialism = Physicalism - matter - physical_elements
2. Idealism = ideas, mind-only - non-matter - physical_element

Philosophically, both are ultimately monistic because they believe it is either Materialism -Physicalism or Idealism ONLY that exists.

From ultimately monistic both Materialism -Physicalism and Idealism are dualistic when they are divided to two variables and this is very contextual.

In Materialism -Physicalism, there is dualism when the "I" is separated from "matter/physical" i.e. independent from human conditions or consciousness.

In Idealism, there is duality as in subjective idealism where the ultimate idea is from a God while humans are subordinate to God.

I don't agree with all of the above, i.e. ultimate Materialism -Physicalism or Idealism.
I believe reality is an spontaneous emergent reality and in this case I am Kantian, i.e. being an empirical realist [materialist/physicalist] but at the same time in complementarity I am a transcendental idealist.

Those who claim to be ultimate materialists/physicalists are actually empirical idealists and transcendental realists. So when one think they are a realist, the fact is they are actually an idealist.
Empirical idealist sustain reality only in the mind [sense data] for whatever is really real is independent and beyond what the mind can comprehend.
Realists [so claimed] tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
This mean that reality that is approximated is at best mental [thus idealism] but what is really real will never be actualized. Question is, is there something that is really real out there to be approximated in the first place? [meno's paradox].
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Any materialists or naturalists here?

Post by Consul »

Atreyu wrote:…And if "spirits" exist, they would also be composed of some kind of matter.
…in which case they would be some kind of bodies.

"The idea of an immaterial substance, as it is defined by metaphysicians, is intirely a modern thing, and is still unknown to the vulgar. The original, and still prevailing idea concerning a soul or a spirit, is that of a kind of attenuated aerial substance, of a more subtle nature than gross bodies, which have weight, and make a sensible resistance when they are pushed against, or struck at."

(Priestley, Joseph. Disquisitions Relating to Matter and Spirit. 2nd ed. London: J. Johnson, 1782. p. 72)

He is right, intramaterialistic substance dualism, according to which there are both "gross", "coarse", "thick" material substances or bodies and "fine", "subtle", "aerial", "ethereal", "thin" ones, is much older than Descartes' extramaterialistic substance dualism, according to which souls/spirits aren't material substances or bodies of any kind but totally immaterial ones (that don't even exist anywhere in space/spacetime).

Correspondingly, we find the concept of a "spiritual body" in occult metaphysics, which is certainly a contradiction in terms if "spiritual" means "immaterial"; so if that phrase is to be non-self-contradictory, it can only mean something like "thinly material". But, of course, the problem is still that the mysterious "thin stuff" of which spiritual bodies are said to consist is alien to scientific physics. Why? Arguably because there are no such things! Occult metaphysics is nonsense and its posits such as spiritual bodies are metaphysical fictions.

"The Body in Occult Thought:

...To those who were touched by the occult philosophy it seemed clear that man also had two bodies, a material and a spiritual one: ‘Within the human body is another body of approximately the same size and shape, but made of a subtler and less illusory material.’ The spiritual body, like the mystic’s transcendental self, belonged to a world of authenticity and freedom. It was the body of our original creation, and it had literally become encrusted over by a grossly material body since the Fall. Thus, according to Cabalist teachings, the ‘garments of skin’ given to Adam and Eve at the Fall (Genesis 3:21) referred not to items of clothing, but to the Protoplasts’ material bodies. Through the material body man experienced himself as conditioned; at best as a special sort of object in a world of other objects.

This mystical physiology depends on a distinction between corporeal and material being. Even spirits, Samuel Pordage informs us, ‘have bodies which are distinct from them, but not as our gross bodies, subject to our outward senses, but to our inward [ones]’. ‘As a fire must have substance if it is to burn’, according to Jacob Boehme, ‘so likewise the magical fire of the soul has flesh, blood and water.’ Similarly William Law stated that ‘Every creaturely Spirit must have its own Body, and cannot be without it.’ George Cheyne also accepted this doctrine: ‘all finite created Spirits have, and must have material Vehicles, of Purity and Fineness in Proportion to their natural and moral Powers conjunctly, not only to limit and direct their Energy and Efficiency, but to commerciate with other Animals, and inanimat[e] created Natures’. Friedrich Oetinger also believed in the corporeality of spirit, and regarded corporeality as ‘God’s end’ in creating the world."

(pp. 56-7)

"The spiritual body is the link between the soul and the material body. The alchemist Thomas Norton asserted that ‘the subtle, pure, and immortal soul can never dwell with the gross body, except the [vital, natural and animal] spirits act as media between them’. The spirit ‘joins the body and soul together by partaking of the nature of both’. As Agrippa noted, if body and soul were to be united, there is ‘need of a more excellent medium, viz. such a one that may be as it were no body, but as it were a soul, or as it were no soul, but as it were a body’. The soul is in fact ‘joined by competent means to this gross body’. It is first ‘involved in a celestial and aerial body’, through which it becomes ‘infused into the middle part of the heart...and from thence it is diffused through all the parts of the body’. This mediating substance is ‘the Spirit of the World, viz. that which we call the quintessence’. The fourteenth-century alchemist John Dastin attempted some sort of obstetric precision on this subject by following traditional teaching on the animation of the child in the womb:

Indeed, when the fetus has been conceived in the woman’s womb, within a period of forty days all its members are formed and it receives from the four elements and the woman’s whole body a single fine, pure, noble vapor similar to nature in a celestial way which is called spirit. As soon as that spirit is formed, the soul descends quickly at God’s command to the infant’s body by means of the great fineness of the spirit."

(pp. 63-4)

(Gibbons, B. J. Spirituality and the Occult: From the Renaissance to the Modern Age. London: Routledge, 2001.)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Kathyd
Posts: 59
Joined: June 21st, 2017, 3:43 pm

Re: Any materialists or naturalists here?

Post by Kathyd »

My view is simply that the matter composing a so called "spirit" would be something akin to what science calls "dark matter".

Science already readily admits that most of the matter of the Universe is unknown (dark matter). Why could not some of this unknown matter be the constituent substance of entities not ordinarily perceivable, such as "spirits"?

After all, "spirits" would simply be entities unknown to modern science. Just like dark matter is matter unknown to modern science. So why could not unknown entities be composed of unknown matter? In fact, could it be otherwise? If an entity actually exists, but its existence is ordinarily unknowable, then naturally the matter of which it is composed must also be unknowable.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Any materialists or naturalists here?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Spectrum wrote:
Count Lucanor wrote:So it looks like you are actually an idealist, or a dualist, which is the same. Materialism is monistic, while idealism can be either monistic or dualistic.
There are various definition of materialism-Physicalism versus Idealism.

Generally, it is

1. Materialism = Physicalism - matter - physical_elements
2. Idealism = ideas, mind-only - non-matter - physical_element

Philosophically, both are ultimately monistic because they believe it is either Materialism -Physicalism or Idealism ONLY that exists.

From ultimately monistic both Materialism -Physicalism and Idealism are dualistic when they are divided to two variables and this is very contextual.

In Materialism -Physicalism, there is dualism when the "I" is separated from "matter/physical" i.e. independent from human conditions or consciousness.

In Idealism, there is duality as in subjective idealism where the ultimate idea is from a God while humans are subordinate to God.

I don't agree with all of the above, i.e. ultimate Materialism -Physicalism or Idealism.
I believe reality is an spontaneous emergent reality and in this case I am Kantian, i.e. being an empirical realist [materialist/physicalist] but at the same time in complementarity I am a transcendental idealist.

Those who claim to be ultimate materialists/physicalists are actually empirical idealists and transcendental realists. So when one think they are a realist, the fact is they are actually an idealist.
Empirical idealist sustain reality only in the mind [sense data] for whatever is really real is independent and beyond what the mind can comprehend.
Realists [so claimed] tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
This mean that reality that is approximated is at best mental [thus idealism] but what is really real will never be actualized. Question is, is there something that is really real out there to be approximated in the first place? [meno's paradox].
The distinction between materialism and idealism boils down to what the ontological nature of reality is. It's less an epistemological issue and more about the world as substance, its existence, and that's what dualism entails in relation to monism: either substance (ontic) dualism or substance monism. Materialism can only be monistic, not to be confused then with epistemological dualism. A view of materialism as also an idealism will be an evident contradictio in adjecto.

Idealism can be either monistic (as it may be obvious), as well as dualistic when it gives room to the existence of an immaterial reality, a substance in itself, adjacent to the material world. Such are the idealisms of Plato and Descartes, as well as of most religions.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Any materialists or naturalists here?

Post by Consul »

Kathyd wrote:My view is simply that the matter composing a so called "spirit" would be something akin to what science calls "dark matter".

Science already readily admits that most of the matter of the Universe is unknown (dark matter). Why could not some of this unknown matter be the constituent substance of entities not ordinarily perceivable, such as "spirits"?

After all, "spirits" would simply be entities unknown to modern science. Just like dark matter is matter unknown to modern science. So why could not unknown entities be composed of unknown matter? In fact, could it be otherwise? If an entity actually exists, but its existence is ordinarily unknowable, then naturally the matter of which it is composed must also be unknowable.
The physicists know little but not nothing about dark matter. There is indirect observational evidence for its existence, whereas there is no scientific evidence whatsoever for the existence of some occultistic/spiritistic "ghost-stuff" such as ectoplasm: "a supernatural viscous substance that is supposed to exude from the body of a medium during a spiritualistic trance and form the material for the manifestation of spirits." (Oxford Dict.)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Any materialists or naturalists here?

Post by Chili »

Consul wrote: The physicists know little but not nothing about dark matter. There is indirect observational evidence for its existence, whereas there is no scientific evidence whatsoever for the existence of some occultistic/spiritistic "ghost-stuff" such as ectoplasm: "a supernatural viscous substance that is supposed to exude from the body of a medium during a spiritualistic trance and form the material for the manifestation of spirits." (Oxford Dict.)
The question not asked often enough regarding scientific proof: what would be different *without* the very existence of X?
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021