• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The "ultimate substance"

Bodhi Dharma Zen

Advaitin
Bodhi Dharma Zen
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
3,926
Apparently all people have a precise idea of what constitutes "the final subtance" that the universe is "made of". Some believe that it is mind (idealists), some believe that it is god (pantheists) some others believe that it is matter (materialists). Extreme oversimplifications of course.

I will argue against the need of this "ultimate subtance" as I believe that the question about what the universe is "made of" is absurd. Lets take for example, materialism (as it is the theory of choice for most forum members).

What is "Material"? Most of you will argue that it is precisely "the final substance" we are talking about. The "stuff" that the universe is made of. Now, for starters, even the wording seems medieval to me (but this is not an argument), and in the end I believe it is essentially a void concept.

What is "matter" after all?

(I even doubt that all the materialists in the forum happen to share the exact and same definition, but of course I would love to see some of the answers). So, again, what is "matter"?


___

As for myself, whatever it is (that "final constituent"), what matters is that it has some properties, we can observe, test and describe such properties (to an extent) and I believe this where we need to stop.

Maybe some of you would not feel so outraged if I simply state that I'm an "energist"? (and I'm sure physicists would have zero problems with it as, at least from last century, matter and energy are interchangeable) But... let me insist. I consider the exercise to be futile.

Why is it futile, you might ask. Because... it doesn't add anything of value to the descriptions about facts.

I have stated constantly that, for me, quarks are ways of description, not "things".

Maybe those of you who are materialists would say that quarks are "made of matter", and thats your choice. I honestly don't see the point.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Apparently all people have a precise idea of what constitutes "the final subtance" that the universe is "made of". Some believe that it is mind (idealists), some believe that it is god (pantheists) some others believe that it is matter (materialists). Extreme oversimplifications of course..........
Click to expand...

It is energy: There is nothing else.
 
Last edited:
Not sure I'm following the question...

Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
As for myself, whatever it is (that "final constituent"), what matters is that it has some properties, we can observe, test and describe such properties (to an extent) and I believe this where we need to stop.
Click to expand...
Are you under the impression that the science of physics really goes anywhere beyond doing these things?
 
Upchurch said:
Not sure I'm following the question
Click to expand...

The question is for hardcore materialists who do speak as if this "ultimate substance" was the goal of scientific endeavors. At every opportunity they state that "everything is material", that "there are no immaterial things", that the mind "is made of matter" and such kind of statements.
 
Last edited:
strawman.jpg






(fyi: http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/index.htm explicitly gives permission to hotlink to the images on that page)
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Come one Joe, as a hardcore materialist, I believe you should talk about why do we need matter at all.
Click to expand...

"Hardcore"? :rolleyes: I'm hardcore about being practical, and little else. Things behave as though they are made of stuff. And, as far as we can tell, nothing behaves in a way inconsistent with the materialist viewpoint. Every way we interact with the world consistently appears to result from physical interaction. All theories that claim non-materialism are completely useless from a practical standpoint.

There's nothing in that position that represents a claim of knowledge of absolute truth, a "final constituent", or an "ultimate substance". If you assert otherwise, your assertion will be a lie.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Apparently all people have a precise idea of what constitutes "the final subtance" that the universe is "made of". Some believe that it is mind (idealists), some believe that it is god (pantheists) some others believe that it is matter (materialists). Extreme oversimplifications of course.

I will argue against the need of this "ultimate subtance" as I believe that the question about what the universe is "made of" is absurd. Lets take for example, materialism (as it is the theory of choice for most forum members).

What is "Material"? Most of you will argue that it is precisely "the final substance" we are talking about. The "stuff" that the universe is made of. Now, for starters, even the wording seems medieval to me (but this is not an argument), and in the end I believe it is essentially a void concept.

What is "matter" after all?
Click to expand...

Lets just say that its "stuff" and call it a day, shall we?
 
JoeEllison said:
There's nothing in that position that represents a claim of knowledge of absolute truth, a "final constituent", or an "ultimate substance". If you assert otherwise, your assertion will be a lie.
Click to expand...

In what position? I see people talking in a very relaxed way about lot of things. BTW, I do not assert it. I used common expressions of materialists in this forum. Note that they are not mine, so it is not a strawman. I want to see why some of you state such expressions.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
In what position? I see people talking in a very relaxed way about lot of things. BTW, I do not assert it. I used common expressions of materialists in this forum. Note that they are not mine, so it is not a strawman. I want to see why some of you state such expressions.
Click to expand...

So you attack strawmen, you don't know what "strawman" means, and you've admitted to dishonest rhetorical "tricks"... is this a continuation of that intentional dishonesty, or are you simply ignorant in this case?
 
JoeEllison said:
So you attack strawmen, you don't know what "strawman" means, and you've admitted to dishonest rhetorical "tricks"... is this a continuation of that intentional dishonesty, or are you simply ignorant in this case?
Click to expand...

Huh? :confused:

First I didn't admit "dishonest tricks" I stated that it was on purpose to see the reactions. It is different.

From Wiki:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
Click to expand...

I'm not misrepresenting as I'm quoting actual posts, and asking. Call me an ignorant in the case. What's the point (and the meaning) of saying "the mind is made of matter"?
 
What difference does it make what word we use for it?

'Stuff' is as good as any other. We could call it Bwana on alternate Fridays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom