It is often thought that materialism is a
single, unified theory. It should be clear that those who claim to be materialists must have a clear understanding of what, exactly, materialism is.
Materialists claim, for example, that “no opposing theory has even defied materialism” This leads to assume that it is a clear set of axioms that are shared by every other materialist.
But I have seen none (for the materialists in the forum this is); for example, if I claim something they agreed with the instantly claim "thats materialism"... but heck, I'm not a materialist, To be clear,
I don't like any "ism". Besides, I have not yet seen a clear, coherent exposition about what materialism is and what it is not. (yes it is a question)
Yet, some of the materialists in the forum accuses me of playing strawman, exactly, without giving me THEIR definition of materialism. That's why I conducted a small search on google. Lets see some definitions about what materialism is (please tell me which is the correct one):
“They believe physical
matter is the
only ultimate reality. They suppose that everything in the cosmos, including life, can be
explained in terms of interacting matter.”
“Philosophical materialism is the metaphysical view
that there is only one substance in the universe and that substance is physical, empirical or material.”
“Materialism refers to the theory that physical
matter is all there is.”
“Materialism as a philosophy is held by those who maintain that existence is explainable solely in
material terms, with no accounting of spirit or consciousness.”
These are portions of texts that I found with google, not encyclopedia definitions, but lets see the
Encyclopedia Britannica:
“The doctrine that all of reality is
essentially of the nature of
matter.”
Form a
philosophical dictionary:
“In philosophy, the view that the world is entirely
composed of matter.”
From the
Columbia Encyclopedia:
“in philosophy, a widely held system of thought that explains the nature of the world as entirely
dependent on matter, the fundamental and final reality beyond which nothing need be sought.”
From Wikipedia:
“In philosophy, materialism is that form of physicalism which holds that the only
thing that can truly be said to
exist is
matter; that fundamentally, all things are
composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions;
that matter is the only substance.”
So there, it appears as if all of these clearly point to one common thing. Matter as being the nature of reality, its fundamental subtance, the only thing that exists. So, when I state that materialists believe in matter as the “ultimate substance” I believe it is a valid statement.
(Interestingly, now some materialists in the forum are denying this “ultimate substance” claiming that materialism is not about “final substances” and that it is correct, and has never been defeated. (guys/girls it is not a war as far as I can see) but in any case.. what has never being defeated,
exactly?) But nevermind, let's continue:
The next obvious question is to see what matter is (again, I encourage you to illustrate which is the correct one:
From the
dictionary:
“ 1.
Something that
occupies space
and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical substance, or the universe as a whole.
2. Physics.
Something that has
mass and
exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.”
Nope, this doesn't work.
From the
SciTech Encyclopedia:
“A term that traditionally refers to the
substance of which all bodies
consist. Matter in classical mechanics is closely identified with
mass.”
Nope, that doesn't do the trick.
Theasurus:
“ 1. That which occupies space and can be perceived by the senses: materiality, substance. See body/spirit.
2. That from which things
are or can be
made: material, stuff, substance. Idioms: grist for one's mill. See matter.”
Redundant. Ok, lets see what an encyclopedia can say:
Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Material
substance that constitutes the observable universe and,
together with energy, forms the basis of all objective phenomena.”
Ahh interesting... as it energy where not material... (please dont... I didn't say it!!! don't attack the messenger!!!)
Philosophy dictionary:
“That which
occupies space, possessing
size and
shape,
mass,
movability, and
solidity (which may be the same as impenetrability).
Its nature was historically one of the great subjects of philosophy, now largely pursued through the philosophy of physics.”
Interesting. Yes, we all know that the meaning of the word MATTER has changed historically (note that I don't necessarily want us to discuss all the different meanings and how they have changed, but nevertheless it is important to notice it, specially when people (somehow) holds that materialism is a concrete theory, as if has not changed a lot since it was incepted.
As for the properties, this is "occupies space", possess size, mass and etc... well, I believe it is obvious that at some point, none of these are true (at a subatomic level).
Columbia Encyclopedia:
“anything that has
mass and
occupies space.”
Science Dictionary:
“In physics, something that has
mass and is
distinct from energy. (See phases of matter.)”
Wikipedia:
“In chemistry and physics, matter is commonly defined as the
substance of which physical objects
are composed, not counting the contribution of various energy or force-fields,
which are not usually considered to be matter per se (though they may contribute to the mass of objects).
Matter constitutes much of the observable universe, although again, light is not ordinarily considered matter.
Unfortunately, for scientific purposes, "matter" is somewhat loosely defined.”
I have no problems with that statement
Anyway... I could, of course, paste a lot more, but I believe this should be enough. Now, again, it appears that materialism do claim that the universe is
made of matter, as I originally posted in the OP. But enough of google…
I believe it is now clear that
I’m not trying to impose anything “immaterial” to offer a theory different than materialism (whatever it is). It should be clear that
I do not claim that materialism (whatever it is)
is wrong.
All I want is to know why do we need to state that the world “is made of matter” and whats the value of such statement.
