/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12252744]

When discussing literature and philosophy on this board, why do so many posters incorrectly dismiss materialism? What exactly is it that you've read which has caused you to fall into error? We're collections of atoms floating through space arranged in such-and-such a way. No, your "gotcha" about qualia or souls or whatever nonsense paradox you think is one but really isn't, doesn't count. Get over yourselves.

[Anonymous No.12252765]

materialism can't account for the phenomena of intentionality, neither can it account for the reflexivity of its own statements, or the ideal reality of something like color

"we're made of stuff" is a complete and utter triviality

[Anonymous No.12252767]

I guess we didn't have a choice, it's all pre-determined by science™ right!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Anonymous No.12252870]

>>12252744

>“If, as must be done in this instance, the word atom be taken in its true sense of “ indivisible,” a sense which modern physicists no longer give to it, it may be said that an atom, since it cannot have parts, must also be without area ; now the sum of lements devoid of area can never form an area ; if atoms fulfil their own definition, it is then impossible for them to make up bodies. To this well-known and more-over decisive chain of reasoning, another may also be added, employed by Śaṅkarācārya in order to refute atomism 1 : two things can come into contact with one another either by a part of themselves or by the whole ; for atoms, devoid as they are of parts, the first hypothesis is inadmissible ; thus only the second hypothesis remains, which amounts to saying that the aggregation of two atoms can only be realized by their coincidence purely and simply, whence it clearly follows that two atoms when joined occupy no more space than a single atom and so forth indefinitely: so, as before, atoms, whatever their number, will never form a body. Thus atomism represents nothing but sheer impossibility, as we pointed out when explaining the sense in which heterodoxy is to be understood

[Anonymous No.12252887]

>>12252870
>a sense which modern physicists no longer give to it
Why did he feel the need to say anything he said after this statement

[Anonymous No.12252900]

i've found feuerbach crystallizes the topic well even though you're just shitposting.

[Anonymous No.12252954]

>>12252900

I most certainly am not shitposting. The FPWP is a great example of this nonsense: "but the colooors, duuude. The intrinsic color-ness of color can't merely be physical, maan." Hogwash. Although, it would be useful if you could post exactly what you have in mind, so that it can be dispatched and so that your thought process can be corrected.

[Anonymous No.12252966]

>claim to be scientist
>"I will now explore nature and classify it"
>go out exploring nature
>find a rock
>find a tree
>find some dirt
>"Everything is hard, and some of it is heavier. Maybe the nature of all things is hardness. I will call it matter. All I have found so far is matter."
>find some water
>find partible plants
>"I see. Some things are not hard, but flowing and yielding, or divisible. Is this still matter, or some new second thing? On closer observation, dirt, trees, and rocks are also partible and yielding. Perhaps all things are matter differently organized?"
>reflect on the medium of air
>"Matter can even be invisible to my eyes, because it is too small or too diffuse. So far all I have found is matter: matter can be hard, or yield, or be partible and even be recombined. But it is passive and inert. It is predictable and obeys laws."
>find animals
>finds other people also investigating the world
>"Is this more matter? It is partible and divisible, but it reacts to me, as if it is doing to me what I was previously doing to matter. And now that I reflect on myself, I find that I am something different from the matter too."
>Good scientist: "I wonder what this 'thing' is that 'I' am, and that other animals 'are', distinct from the matter that adheres to them or that is their vessel? Now that I think of it, what are the 'laws' obeyed by matter? Are they also made of matter, or of some other 'thing'? That doesn't seem to make sense.. This is difficult for me to think about, having mostly encountered matter. I will have to expand the domain of my inquiry and refrain from knee-jerk assumptions."
>Materialist: "GRUG LOVE MATTER. GRUG THINK EVERYTHING IS MATTER! GRUG LIKE IT WHEN MATTER DOES WHAT MATTER DOES, MOVE IN SAME DIRECTION IT MOVE FROM BEFORE. GRUG BET EVERYTHING IS MATTER, GRUG BET LAWS GOVERNING MATTER IS ALSO JUST MORE MATTER! GRUG SMASH ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH GRUG ABOUT MATTER. GRUG SOLVE ALL UNIVERSE PROBLEMS IN THIS WAY"

[Anonymous No.12252967]

>>12252954
Just like you so expertly dispatched qualia?

[Anonymous No.12252982]

>unironic materialists
You don't even know what you mean when you say the things you say

[Anonymous No.12252998]

>>12252967

Atoms and chemicals and so on, all the way down. Urea was artificially synthesized. Did you know that before I told you?

>herp-te-terp-de-derp-de-dum vitalism and qualia aren't the same things don't do that

They are substantively the same thing: nonsense, eventually replaced by sense, via investigation (science).

[Anonymous No.12253009]

“What do you think about materialism?”

“I fucking hate how consumer culture is now it’s so shallow and empty, now excuse me I have some Christmas shopping to do”

Every fucking time.

[Anonymous No.12253019]

>>12252767
Holy shit are you implying because science is usually funded by corporate interests or that it’s comnected to mine in any sense that it’s invalid.

Holy kek Batman.

[Anonymous No.12253051]

>>12252998
>all the way down
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.12253646]

>>12252954
Unfortunately, the Hard Problem has more to do with the question of how there is an order of appearances to be reduced to matter in the first place, and how to account for inexplicable emergence of the former from the latter, which I promise you you can't actually meaningfully articulate

[Anonymous No.12253777]

>>12253646

Your latter performative is a happy one, but not for the reason that you thought it was when you wrote it.

[Anonymous No.12253851]

Actually; we are more like space flowing through collections of atoms, cuckboy.

[Anonymous No.12253854]

>>12253777
non-argument

[Anonymous No.12253866]

>>12253851
**Flowing IN 'collections' of 'atoms' that are also flowing**

[Anonymous No.12253874]

>>12252744
There is no point in being a materialist

[Anonymous No.12253881]

>>12252765
>ideal reality of color
Is this a retard I see before me?

[Anonymous No.12253887]

>>12252870
Pseudomathematical nonsense.

>Since it cannot have parts it must be without an area

Er...

[Anonymous No.12253895]

It triggers theists. Please only reply if you’re a non-theist as I actually want to hear your point of view. Others need not apply.

[Anonymous No.12253904]

>>12253881
an alien species that has never seen redness asks you to show it what this "redness" thing is, what do you do?

[Anonymous No.12253986]

>>12252744
>all there is substance
*chuckles in Whiteheadian*

[Anonymous No.12254000]

>>12253904
Point at a few red objects and tell them it's the thing these objects have in common

[Anonymous No.12254008]

>>12252744
All you made were unsubstantiated claims. You rest on faith as much as anyone else. Get over yourself.

[Anonymous No.12254010]

>>12253904
Show it to the aliens

Fucking faggot

[Anonymous No.12254030]

>>12252744
I bet an american wrote this.
Go worship the almighty dollar.

[Anonymous No.12254034]

>>12254010
>>12254000
then there is something about redness that is only communicable through the experience/quale of red and not just a physical description of the wavelengths we phenomenally interpret as red

[Anonymous No.12254043]

>>12254034
Heh. You might as well talk about the cupness of an empty cup, and the emptiness that precedes it.

[Anonymous No.12254053]

>>12254034
No there isn't - this whole argument has been done to death but is simply a problem of language and nothing more

[Anonymous No.12254054]

>>12253887
That line is from a book where he was talking about the atomism theory of the ancient Greeks and Indians being incorrect, I posted it as a joke because when OP said we are all just atoms in space it sounded like he was a biological materialist reductionist lazily arguing for atomism which is not even what most physicists believe.

[Anonymous No.12254063]

>>12254043
given that you (or the other anons) admit I can't communicate x-ness without pointing to it, I might as well, right?

>>12254053
I posted an argument, you fell for it because you don't even understand your position well enough to not make my point for me. Now, you post an argument, or shut up.

[Anonymous No.12254077]

>>12253854

>is spooked by fictive problems that aren't actually problems, but only confused masturbations

[Anonymous No.12254086]

>>12254063
Yeah, the emptiness of the cup.
I think you'll find, the "emptiness" is right here.
>*taps your forehead*

[Anonymous No.12254090]

>>12254063
It's a problem of language - our language is incapable of communicating colour in a meaningful distinguishing way, but that is to the fault of the way in which we construct language, and not proof of the 'quale' of red. I'd expand on this but I fear you'd fall at the first hurdle.

[Anonymous No.12254101]

>>12254086
based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.12254104]

Unironically what is matter?

[Anonymous No.12254137]

>>12254090
Literal scientist of the gaps argument here, the fact that you think redness can be linguistically communicated at all says everything about you and your ilk

Why would it be a problem of language, anon? So is there some hypothetical future language that isn't also a language?

Either you communicate redness by pointing to it, or you communicate it by describing it: not in this, or in any other world, will description ever be equivalent to demonstration, while somehow remaining description. You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>12254086
inane redditisms

>>12254077
how do appearances emerge from substance?

[Anonymous No.12254169]

>>12254137
Read C. L. Hardin's 'Color for Philosophers'. Basically you're wrong but it would be too long-winded and nauseating to explain why here. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of colour as it relates to the world and to the individual.

[Anonymous No.12254232]

>>12254169
if you can't explain or condense his argument, you didn't understand it, I'm interested in what you have to say but no, I don't have the time or the patience to read an entire book on this topic when pretty much every anti-qualiafag I've ever read betrays a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of what's at stake

[Anonymous No.12254252]

>>12254232
>if you can't explain or condense his argument, you didn't understand it
Tell that to a physics major