• 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.

There are no material objects

JoeBentley said:
That really does seem to be the idea a lot of people have.

"I asked a bunch of indecipherable gibberish questions and no one could answer them! I must be a genius!"
Click to expand...

Did you know that punshhh once accused me of posting gibberish? When challenged he promised to post some examples of my gibberish. None have been forthcoming. Following the mystical tradition, he has never admitted that he was wrong. Yea,the mystics are truly gutless.
 
Resume said:
Bare assertion. Bad position for a philosopher I would think.
Click to expand...

True, thanks for pointing it out. The arguments are there, I have argued extensively in the JREF against every kind of woo, including materialism. I have started many threads, and received lots of input, and yes, maybe I'm just stating this (apparently) out of nowhere.

Oh, and I'm not a philosopher, I just like to think, and yes, I like philosophical inquiry, specially about epistemology, and analytic philosophy, I also find philosophy of science very appealing.
 
punshhh said:
You don't know how my mind works, I don't recall you cottoning on to much I have said. Unless you are referring to the chemical reactions in my brain as a basis for my thinking patterns. The patterns and arguments I am using are crafted to engage folk on this forum and bear little resemblance to how my thinking occurs in my own head.

Anyway how many truths are there, one?

I merely suggested two or perhaps three depending on context. In context they have different meanings.
Click to expand...

So it looks pretty foolish when reduced to "X=X," does it?
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
True, thanks for pointing it out. The arguments are there, I have argued extensively in the JREF against every kind of woo, including materialism. I have started many threads, and received lots of input, and yes, maybe I'm just stating this (apparently) out of nowhere.

Oh, and I'm not a philosopher, I just like to think, and yes, I like philosophical inquiry, specially about epistemology, and analytic philosophy, I also find philosophy of science very appealing.
Click to expand...

Materialism is the very antithesis of woo.
 
dafydd said:
Materialism is the very antithesis of woo.
Click to expand...

Yes, for naive materialists, that's indeed what they believe. I have news for you, education, critical thinking and skepticism are the antidote for woo, not a poor ontological assumption.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Yes, for naive materialists, that's indeed what they believe. I have news for you, education, critical thinking and skepticism are the antidote for woo, not a poor ontological assumption.
Click to expand...

I think dafydd meant that science is opposed to woo, and science is based on materialism.
 
Twiler said:
I think dafydd meant that science is opposed to woo, and science is based on materialism.
Click to expand...

Wrong again! Science is based on Naturalism. Materialists are a remain from the pretended duality "matter-spirit" which comes from religion. Is like atheism, it only exists because of god believers.

Science is a bag of tools, and philosophical mechanisms, not a world view on its own.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Wrong again! Science is based on Naturalism. Materialists are a remain from the pretended duality "matter-spirit" which comes from religion. Is like atheism, it only exists because of god believers.

Science is a bag of tools, and philosophical mechanisms, not a world view on its own.
Click to expand...

I think people embrace materialism because they don't believe in cartesian dualism (i.e. they don't believe in non-material entities), not because they do believe in cartesian dualism.

What do you think the difference between naturalism and materialism is?
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Yes, for naive materialists, that's indeed what they believe. I have news for you, education, critical thinking and skepticism are the antidote for woo, not a poor ontological assumption.
Click to expand...

You keep using that word but I don't think it means quite what you think it means:

Ontology, in analytic philosophy, concerns the determining of whether some categories of being are fundamental and asks in what sense the items in those categories can be said to "be". It is the inquiry into being in so much as it is being, or into beings insofar as they exist—and not insofar as, for instance, particular facts obtained about them or particular properties related to them.


Are you saying he made a poor assumption about beginnings? If so maybe you could point out the exact ones he made rather than throwing around your favorite buzz words.
 
tsig said:
You keep using that word but I don't think it means quite what you think it means:

.
Click to expand...

He doesn't. And he just makes statements, he never explains anything, In my own simple way I will say that woo deals with non-existent subjects such as the paranormal, gods, ley lines, pyramid energy, telepathy, telekinesis, alien abductions and the whole rag-bag of delusional beliefs. Materialism deals with reality. Now we will count down to BZN's self-satisfied wordy put down.
 
Last edited:
Twiler said:
I think people embrace materialism because they don't believe in cartesian dualism (i.e. they don't believe in non-material entities), not because they do believe in cartesian dualism.

What do you think the difference between naturalism and materialism is?
Click to expand...

They don't like dualism and so embracing one of its poles makes it vanish? On the contrary, it perpetuates the myth. As long as there are materialists there will be immaterialists, it is as simple as that.

Regarding Naturalism, from Wikipedia:

"Naturalism commonly refers to the philosophical belief that the natural universe is a closed system and that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that either nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe.[1] Followers of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws and that the goal of science is to discover and publish them systematically."
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
They don't like dualism and so embracing one of its poles makes it vanish? On the contrary, it perpetuates the myth. As long as there are materialists there will be immaterialists, it is as simple as that.
Click to expand...

Why?

Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Regarding Naturalism, from Wikipedia:

"Naturalism commonly refers to the philosophical belief that the natural universe is a closed system and that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that either nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe.[1] Followers of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws and that the goal of science is to discover and publish them systematically."
Click to expand...

So you don't think the natural universe is made solely of material entities?
 
tsig said:
You keep using that word but I don't think it means quite what you think it means:

Ontology, in analytic philosophy, concerns the determining of whether some categories of being are fundamental and asks in what sense the items in those categories can be said to "be". It is the inquiry into being in so much as it is being, or into beings insofar as they exist—and not insofar as, for instance, particular facts obtained about them or particular properties related to them.


Are you saying he made a poor assumption about beginnings? If so maybe you could point out the exact ones he made rather than throwing around your favorite buzz words.
Click to expand...

"favorite buzz words" LOL :D Well, I use words that are easily defined using a dictionary, nothing really fancy if you ask me. Now, ontology has a different meaning in analytic philosophy, but I'm sticking (for the purpose of the thread) to the first definition:

"Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality as such, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences."
 
As long as there are materialists there will be immaterialists, it is as simple as that.
Click to expand...

Education might take care of that. Please list some of the immaterial things that the universe contains.
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
He doesn't. And he just makes statements, he never explains anything, In my own simple way I will say that woo deals with non-existent subjects such as the paranormal, gods, ley lines, pyramid energy, telepathy, telekinesis, alien abductions and the whole rag-bag of delusional beliefs. Materialism deals with reality. Now we will count down to BZN's self-satisfied wordy put down.
Click to expand...

I have given you arguments and you ignore them. Want a good read? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3425375#post3425375
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom