The January Philosophy Book of the Month 2019 is The Runaway Species. Discuss The Runaway Species now.

The February Philosophy Book of the Month is The Fourth Age by Byron Reese (Nominated by RJG.) Discuss The Fourth Age now.

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?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
User avatar
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: December 23rd, 2017, 9:04 pm

Re: Any materialists or naturalists here?

Post by jeffersin » December 23rd, 2017, 9:14 pm

Atreyu wrote:
November 6th, 2017, 8:14 pm
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"...
Your views here are inconsistent. If materialism entails the idea that there is always some kind of matter behind any given phenomenon, then psychic phenomenon will have matter behind it. Yet you deny that matter is fundamental, either metaphysically or epistemically. No materialist would say, "conscious forces take precedence over mechanical forces in explaining any 'ultimate causation'," unless you held something like Margaret Cavendish's panpsychism. But in her view, conscious stuff is wholly material; but unlike other materialists, like Thomas Hobbes, she doesn't think matter is mechanical.

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 7643
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Any materialists or naturalists here?

Post by Greta » December 23rd, 2017, 9:36 pm

Ironically we routinely deal with the non-physical, aka the informational. Hardware and software, things and their changing configuration over time. It appears that information and energy are intrinsically entwined; with each intimately impacting upon the other.

Is there is "stuff" that is not related to this play between form and state? Maybe in another universe, although it seems that if the multiverse is true, then different universes could conceivably impact on one another.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2975
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Any materialists or naturalists here?

Post by Burning ghost » December 26th, 2017, 1:33 am

"Any materialists or naturalists here?"


I love to buy new clothes whenever I have money ... but I never wear them ;)
AKA badgerjelly

Post Reply