I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

punshhh said:
Scientism masquerading as philosophy again.
Click to expand...
Still wrong.

You do realise, do you not, that we can all agree on the role the physical body plays in housing and enabling conscious experience (I am not in disagreement with the explanations given by science). This understanding doesn't unfortunately address the issue here, the issue of ontologies.

You see, the physical world that we are aware of and all its workings would be identical in the two scenarios.
Click to expand...
No. Wrong.

The physical world is material. It is not impossible for the physical world to appear to be material under idealism, but there is absolutely no reason why this would be so. There is absolutely no reason why there would be a physical world under idealism at all. There is absolutely no reason under idealism for there to be anything.

All the idealist can do is make excuses, and infinitum and ad nauseam.

There is an impenetrable gulf between the two sides in this debate, which is described and understood by philosophical analysis.
Click to expand...
Yes. The materialists are right and the idealists are wrong.
 
PixyMisa said:
The physical world is material. It is not impossible for the physical world to appear to be material under idealism, but there is absolutely no reason why this would be so. There is absolutely no reason why there would be a physical world under idealism at all. There is absolutely no reason under idealism for there to be anything.
Click to expand...

What is the reason for there to be anything under materialism? Wait... it's God, isn't it?
 
marplots said:
What is the reason for there to be anything under materialism?
Click to expand...

Ah, but there's a subtle difference, there. Under idealism, all there is is mind, so one is justified in asking why the world appears as it does, entirely independant of mind. A material/physical world will look the way it is because it's independant of mind. Whether the laws of physics were set randomly doesn't matter.

As for why it exists at all, my hypothesis is that non-existence is simply impossible.
 
Belz... said:
Ah, but there's a subtle difference, there. Under idealism, all there is is mind, so one is justified in asking why the world appears as it does, entirely independant of mind. A material/physical world will look the way it is because it's independant of mind. Whether the laws of physics were set randomly doesn't matter.

As for why it exists at all, my hypothesis is that non-existence is simply impossible.
Click to expand...

Asking why anything exists presupposes there must be a "why" to begin with. It assumes there must be a reason for the existence of the universe but there's no reason to suppose that.
 
tsig said:
Asking why anything exists presupposes there must be a "why" to begin with. It assumes there must be a reason for the existence of the universe but there's no reason to suppose that.
Click to expand...

Does the same non-explanation apply locally too? In other words, if there is no reason to think a "why" is needed for the universe at large, is there a reason to think we need a "why" for anything subset?

Could I get away with saying, "Consciousness just is" and be done with it?
 
marplots said:
Does the same non-explanation apply locally too? In other words, if there is no reason to think a "why" is needed for the universe at large, is there a reason to think we need a "why" for anything subset?
Click to expand...

We don't need a why for anything except intentional actions. For other things, we need mechanisms. I do believe that was tsig's point.
 
marplots said:
Does the same non-explanation apply locally too? In other words, if there is no reason to think a "why" is needed for the universe at large, is there a reason to think we need a "why" for anything subset?

Could I get away with saying, "Consciousness just is" and be done with it?
Click to expand...

I like this!

My posts just are.

Almost sounds profound til you realize there's no depth to it.
 
Belz... said:
We don't need a why for anything except intentional actions. For other things, we need mechanisms. I do believe that was tsig's point.
Click to expand...

Yes, the presumption of agency is deep woven in the human mind.
 
What are you talking about ? We know something exists. We call this interacting stuff "matter". There is literally no reason to assume any extra stuff.

Perhaps you'll be the first person in history to provide one ?
 
Belz... said:
What are you talking about ? We know something exists. We call this interacting stuff "matter". There is literally no reason to assume any extra stuff.

Perhaps you'll be the first person in history to provide one ?
Click to expand...

you are saying matter just is . . . there's no shame in that
 
LarryS said:
you are saying matter just is . . . there's no shame in that
Click to expand...

No, there isn't. Not knowing why there is matter in no way invalidates materialism.

Materialism continues to fit the facts as we observe them. Idealism continues to fall at every hurdle.

That's the end of it.
 
Last edited:
Nonpareil said:
No, there isn't. Not knowing why there is matter in no way invalidates materialism.

Materialism continues to fit the facts as we observe them. Idealism continues to fall at every hurdle.

That's the end of it.
Click to expand...

You guys are totally nuts - but there's no shame in that.
 
LarryS said:
you are saying matter just is . . . there's no shame in that
Click to expand...

No. We appear to be in a place filled with stuff. We call the place "the universe" and the stuff "matter."

Materialism accepts that the stuff is stuff.
Idealism proposes some outside force against all evidence and without even a clear concept or definition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom