/lit/ - Literature

>>19265211
If you want to read something that really challenges materialism, try "Why Materialism is Baloney" by Bernardo Kastrup. I mean, the title speaks for itself. Kastrup has a background in computer science, working in prestigious places like CERN before turning to metaphysics. Having such a scientific background helps his case IMO, because the success of science is what lent materialism credulity in the first place.

It will probably come as no surprise that I lean towards idealism myself, and I'll give you a quick thought of my own on materialism. I think the core assumption of materialism arises from a conflation between science and metaphysics: it's undeniable that the scientific method has enabled us to describe the natural world in great detail, but it doesn't actually tell us what reality is. We can describe everything we see in terms of particles, forces, etc. but that description is a notional model of reality. Materialism is the confusion between the model, and the thing which it models.

Personally, the book that influenced me the most is "Saving the Appearances" by Owen Barfield. He explicitly claims that his book is not about metaphysics... and it's not (it's about the "evolution of consciousness" in a phenomenological sense) but it still ends up challenging materialism by putting some of its core tenets into question. Barfield is a highly underrated thinker IMO.

this book explains perfectly why the world is in fact our own creation

>>15985097
I wouldn't call it superior in general, but it's a way of looking at things that deserves a bit more respect that dismissing it as mere superstition. The rational-scientific way of looking at things is incredibly useful, but it's not universally applicable and shouldn't be held as the ultimate method of gaining knowledge: not everything is best understood through the scientific method, and IMO the human psyche is so complex and malleable that myth and symbolism can sometimes actually do a better job at describing its workings, as long as you speak that particular language.
I'll spare you an endless story about how the veneration of the scientific method has become ideological and it has made us forget that a notional model of reality shouldn't be mistaken for reality itself... but I think science and rationality are pretty overrated when it comes to understanding the human psyche.

We can prove that something is "physically existent" by:
1. experiencing it ourselves through sensation and perception;
2. getting confirmation from other people that they share a similar experience;
3. applying some sort of measurement.
Any proof beyond that is both impossible and pointless. What does it even mean for something to "really exist"? You can't refute the fact that we experience life and its supposedly physical aspects, and when we know through the medium of language that other people share this experience then the ultimate source of reality is irrelevant because either way we up in this bitch.
Read Barfield. It won't answer your question, but it may help you realize that it's a silly question.

read Owen Barfield

I love Barfield's perspective in Saving the Appearances. The alienation that resulted from technological advancement is a central theme in this book. IMO it's a severely underrated book—perhaps because of its interdisciplinary and somewhat spiritual approach—but his take on how human consciousness evolved over time and how we gradually got detached from the outer world is IMO fucking brilliant.

There is no consensus on what consciousness even is, so you could read anything from a reductionist approach such as Consciousness Explained by Dennett, to outlandish metaphysical speculation like Biocentrism by Lanza. Personally I like Saving the Appearances by Barfield.

>>11221424
It's not just retarded. To erect the products of our subjective interpretation as truths that exist independently of ourselves is really just another form of religious idolatry. Pic related is largely about this topic.