Materialism vs Idealism

[Anonymous No.16934032]

Which one is right and why?

[Anonymous No.16934044]

materialism, but not of the marxist kind

[Anonymous No.16934057]

Materialism. Everything is defined and decided by matter. There is nothing outside the sphere of matter.

[Anonymous No.16934059]

False dichotomy

[Anonymous No.16934127]

>>16934032
Well they're both retarded but beards

[Anonymous No.16934132]

>>16934032
Materialists BTFO

[Anonymous No.16934213]

>>16934132
How can I take his philosophy seriously if his entire worldview revolves around being an incel?

[Anonymous No.16934234]

>>16934213
Maybe you can start by reading a textbook on logic to see arguments stand on their own. Then you can reflect on how short shitpost-y essays are different from long philosophical books.

[Anonymous No.16934258]

>>16934213
women need to leave the internet

[Anonymous No.16934266]

>>16934032
Scepticism.

[Anonymous No.16934267]

>>16934258
The funny thing is he wasn't even "incel" by any stretch of the word. He was famously dating a prominent actress.

[Anonymous No.16934318]

>>16934044
Whick kind then friend

[Anonymous No.16934355]

>>16934318
Buenonist philosophical materialism

[Anonymous No.16934374]

>>16934355
absolute scholar

[Anonymous No.16934414]

>>16934032
Thomism.

[Anonymous No.16934440]

>>16934032
Idealism, because that is much more fun.

[Anonymous No.16934445]

>>16934032
>it's either matter or idealism
You have already failed so it does not matter.

[Anonymous No.16934739]

>>16934057
enery ain't matter

[Anonymous No.16934818]

>>16934057
Not to the Standard Model, since quantum mechanics, Matter is no longer a primary substance of physics. Atoms are 99.99999% empty space.

[Anonymous No.16934832]

>>16934057
You have no knowledge of “matter” outside conscious experience. “Matter” is just a concept applied to the objects of phenomenal experience only after being aware of them in the first place

[Anonymous No.16934836]

>>16934032
Neither, non-dualism is the correct answer

[Anonymous No.16934840]

I don't get what "materialism" actually means, do you think there is "physical" stuff? what does that mean? When you break everything down to its lowest levels it can no longer be considered "physical", surely?

[Anonymous No.16934842]

>>16934836
Both idealism and materialism are Monists philosophies not dualists anon...

[Anonymous No.16934854]

>>16934032
Being an idealist today is retarded, so between those, materialism. I personally prefer process philosophy to though. The only valid form of materialism is an aleatory materialism.

[Anonymous No.16934895]

>>16934818
>quantum mechanics
>Atoms are 99.99999% empty space.
I don't think you understand it anon

[Anonymous No.16934900]

>>16934895
Everything I said is factual. Feel free to point out any mistake.

[Anonymous No.16934973]

>>16934842
non-dualism =\= monism

[Anonymous No.16934994]

>>16934057
>There is nothing outside the sphere of matter.

Such a nonsensical remark. Now say there is nothing "outside" the sphere of reality, as though you can know either.

[Anonymous No.16935012]

>>16934900
It's not like you could say a quantum object such as an electron has a certain volume. We don't know what an electron is, we can just calculate the likelihood of it being at some place at a given time and know some properties like its mass, but what is mass even? We would have to know what matter is on a quantum level before we can say that it "fills out" a specific amount of space.

[Anonymous No.16935038]

>>16934840
It only has any meaning inside the confines of a dialectic: things are made of "physical stuff" as opposed to "mental stuff". The problem with this is that if you reject that dialectic, then it becomes meaningless. For example, if you reject the existence of "mental stuff" at all, and say that things like anger or heat or quarks are thus "physical", then it's not really "materialism" anymore, it's just a form of monism.

This also gets mashed together with the pejorative "materialism", wherein you're actually accusing someone of being greedy and obsessed with objects rather than higher principles. But then, you can still totally believe that "mental stuff" exists, and that there is a distinct ontological difference between "anger" and "aardvarks", while being obsessed with petty objects and completely rejecting higher principles, so ONCE AGAIN the curse of "no one actually knows what anyone else is fucking saying" rears its ugly head.

>>16934973
Monism is a form of non-dualism. Anything that isn't dualism is non-dualism. Pluralism is also a form of non-dualism.

[Anonymous No.16935094]

>>16934032
Idealists cannot *easily* explain why we appear to inhabit a shared world whereas materialists cannot *in principle* explain how matter could give rise to consciousness. That, alongside the fine-tuning issue, leads me to believe that a theistic idealism is true.

[Anonymous No.16935123]

>>16935012
Well that's why I mentioned the Standard model, elementary particles do not have an inherent volume or size. And they have wave-particle duality behavior, matter is then governed by electromagnetic waves, matter would be energy in states of vibration, the frequencies of waves. Of course a theory of everything is needed to settle exactly what the complete landscape of our reality is.

[Anonymous No.16935145]

Nufag here. What is materialism and what is idealism? I don't want to start with reading hegel desu

[Anonymous No.16935191]

>>16935145
Materialism holds that matter is all there is and your consciousness is the result (through we don’t quite know how) of electrochemical signalling in your brain.

Idealism rejects the existence of matter as an abstraction. All we know is our conscious experience, and given that we can’t explain how “matter” gives rise to consciousness, perhaps we should reject the concept entirely. The difficulty is avoiding solipsism—explaining why we seem to share the same world—and why our thoughts cannot change the world (unlike dreams, for example).

[Anonymous No.16935233]

>>16934132
Does this mean you have big dick energy if you have a beard?

[Anonymous No.16935235]

>>16934057
third law of thermodynamics says hi

[Anonymous No.16935262]

>>16935191
Thank you anon. But why wouldn't I just accept that the world consists of consciousness and matter, which are both interconnected but not exclusive? I think there's more to consciousness than neurochemistry but that doesn't mean that there is no matter, right?

[Anonymous No.16935278]

>>16934044
>>16934355
Based and granujilla pilled

[Anonymous No.16935312]

>>16935262
That sounds like dualism, which holds that there are two separate substances—mind and matter. The problem there is one of interaction. We know, for example that the way you feel about a medical treatment impacts it’s effectiveness in the body—the placebo effect. Therefore, mind must interact with matter. But how can two entirely separate substances (i.e. substances that have no shared properties) interact?

[Anonymous No.16935316]

>>16935094
process philosophy cuts through both of those problems

[Anonymous No.16935320]

>>16934032
Materialism is bugman philosophy and leads to braindead opinions like Marx and Engels on religion

[Anonymous No.16935358]

>>16935320
Check out Ernst Bloch desu for an interesting interaction between a Marxist and religion.

[Anonymous No.16935359]

>>16935312
I'm no physicist but doesn't quantum physics and the observer effect suggest that consciousness and matter have a deep connection anyway? Why would that be a problem?

[Anonymous No.16935440]

The materialism vs.idealism isn't so much a debate or a conclusion one comes to through intellectual means. It is a distinction between classes of men, those who are capable of inviting ideas and those who are limited to the world of matter. The latter should be considered incomplete beings, closer to machines than they are those of us capable of greater understanding.

>>16934213

[Anonymous No.16935464]

>>16934044
>>16934355
>>16935278
Absolutely based

[Anonymous No.16935477]

>>16935440
>materialism is just...soulless bro. where is the feeling man? it's just like...machines and stuff.
you have an adolescent understanding of materialism

[Anonymous No.16935493]

>>16935440
>It is a distinction between classes of men
This except the other class. Idealism is for bourgeois reactionaries and materialism is for revolutionaries.

[Anonymous No.16935496]

>>16935477
If you only think one world, the material, exists you're a bugman

[Anonymous No.16935495]

>>16935477
>When put under any scrutiny, materialism ultimately leads to an adolescent worldview. But sure, try to tell me how making your peepee feel good is so much more meaningful than. Those spooks us fools chase after.

[Anonymous No.16935501]

>>16935477
Also,, materialist philosophers have literally held a conception of man as a machine since the 18th century. I only presented the way they have been shown to perceive themselves.

[Anonymous No.16935503]

>>16935493
Materialism is when the proletariat does stuff and idealism is when the bourgeoisie does stuff

[Anonymous No.16935534]

>>16935501
>materialist philosophers have literally held a conception of man as a machine since the 18th century. I only presented the way they have been shown to perceive themselves.
No they don't lmao. Materialism is grounded and holds us as biological animals. It doesn't say you're a robot or whatever and doesn't try to explain away aesthetic modes of experience. Idealism is pie in the sky and no one takes it seriously anymore other than non-reader contrarians on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.16935551]

>>16935534
>I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!

[Anonymous No.16935558]

>>16935551
Science is ok

[Anonymous No.16935568]

>>16934032
According to Platon, beards indicate wisdom.

[Anonymous No.16935571]

>>16935316
Not really. Whitehead just thought processes were part mental. In other words, he was panpsychist—which had its own problems.

>>16935359
Quantum mechanics has many interpretations. There are some who think consciousness causes the collapse of the wavefunction, which would seem to imply dualism, but there’s no real explanation for how that might be possible. There are other interpretations arguably compatible with both materialism and idealism.

[Anonymous No.16935574]

>>16935534
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_a_Machine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiring-production
>He's not familiar with the materialist canon

[Anonymous No.16935584]

>>16935534
>Idealism is pie in the sky and no one takes it seriously anymore
True. Critical race theory is taken more seriously than idealism in the academy today. But they know best, right?

[Anonymous No.16935626]

>>16934032
Neutral monism.

[Anonymous No.16935640]

>>16935534
You can't have materialism without idealism

[Anonymous No.16935657]

>>16935571
Sure and it's a respectable position
http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=763

[Anonymous No.16935666]

>>16934032
Depends on how you define "right." I don't see any difference between idealism and materialism. Materialism is just idealism with an atheistic paint. It instead god being the subject, man becomes the subject. Nothing changes because one is still held as sacred.

[Anonymous No.16935716]

>>16935666
what are you talking about retard. idealists aren't theists

[Anonymous No.16935922]

>>16935571
>there’s no real explanation for how that might be possible
But isn't that a question like "what is matter" "what is space" or "what is time"?
Again, I am not educated enough to have a discussion about it but in this video Feynman basically explains why I don't think there is a reason to wonder how dualism is supposed to work - after all we see that it *does* work

[Anonymous No.16935982]

>>16935922
shit I forgot the video
https://youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA

[Anonymous No.16935997]

>>16934440
>Leprechauns and fairies because that is much more fun
>>16934994
>Outside reality
No such thing. By definition, only reality is real.
>>16935312
>the placebo effect. Therefore, mind must interact with matter
Wrong. Psychological reactions are chemical reactions, thus physical (material) reactions.
>>16935440
>Bro trust me, magic and shieet! What? You don't believe in it? Bro you're a machine! You just can't get on my level of thinking!
>>16935496
By your definition of bugman, yes, we are all bugmen. Including you. Especially you.

[Anonymous No.16936024]

>>16935358
ernst bloch is another retarded marxist failing to grasp the essence (or essences) of religion.

[Anonymous No.16936039]

>>16935997
what is matter anon

[Anonymous No.16936044]

>>16935997
>>16935997
where does consciousness come from

[Anonymous No.16936047]

>>16935716
>idealists aren't theists
start with plato

[Anonymous No.16936056]

>>16936044
Big brain.

[Anonymous No.16936059]

>>16936044
of course he will respond from material interactions, but if you want to have some fun, ask him what matter is

[Anonymous No.16936067]

>>16934032
Transcendental Idealism is the only right answer.

[Anonymous No.16936075]

>>16936039
>>16936059
Particles and energy

[Anonymous No.16936089]

>>16936075
What is a particle?

[Anonymous No.16936096]

>>16936075
whats energy

[Anonymous No.16936097]

>>16936075
what are particles and why is energy different from it? what is energy then?

[Anonymous No.16936106]

>>16936089
>In the physical sciences, a particle is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical or chemical properties such as volume, density or mass

[Anonymous No.16936113]

>>16935584
Are you being facetious or what's your take on the post you replied to?

[Anonymous No.16936122]

>>16936044
God, unironically

[Anonymous No.16936123]

>>16936106
so a particle is matter and matter is a particle... interesting can you say anything more or thats it?

[Anonymous No.16936126]

>>16936067
>>16935997
Our perception of the world comes only from what we sense. We don't know the object sending the Data. Time and space are mere forms of our senses we can't say if they exist independent of all perception.

[Anonymous No.16936158]

>>16936106
Well, how do you explain quantum objects like electrons. If they are mere material, why do they (even on their own, they interfere with themselves) behave like waves?

[Anonymous No.16936161]

>>16936123
Matter is anything made up of particles retard. Including one particle as the fundamental form of matter.

[Anonymous No.16936171]

>>16936075
>>16936106
Outdated science, elementary particle such as electrons are not matter. Matter as a primary substance is death ever since quantum mechanics
see >>16935123 >>16934818

[Anonymous No.16936178]

>>16936158
Why wouldn't they? An incomplete understanding of physics doesn't mean magic is real.

[Anonymous No.16936184]

>>16936161
Particles behave like waves in quantum mechanics, this is the wave-particle duality, electromagnetic waves are above matter. All the fundamental forces are above matter.

[Anonymous No.16936199]

>>16936178
Waves are not matter, this means matter is not a primary substance of reality. See the Standard Model.

[Anonymous No.16936202]

>>16936161
so there is nothing but particles? how can each particle be what it is? can't you see how retarded this is?

[Anonymous No.16936229]

>>16936178
I'm not for arguing for "magic", I'm arguing for this >>16936126
trancendental idealism.
>Why wouldn't they? An incomplete understanding of physics
It isn't incomplete it is contradicting. Either something is a particle or a wave, two kind of things with different characteristics. It is literally unimaginable.
And this is the case because we only see redlections mit the things in itselve.

[Anonymous No.16936233]

>>16936202
He follows outdated science, in reality everything is waves and their frequencies, with their force fields. It is not the will of particles.

[Anonymous No.16936237]

>>16934032

[Anonymous No.16936249]

>>16934032
It’s both, the material and ideal are continuous with each other. Only delusional mystics and sub-100 iq atheists will disagree

[Anonymous No.16936261]

>>16936249
Wtf does this even mean

[Anonymous No.16936269]

>>16936233
Ok sure, so let's take waves as the fundament of matter. What's wrong with that?

[Anonymous No.16936270]

>>16935312
that is only a refutation of dualism if the duality is "mind/matter", that needs not be the case, you could have a dualism of "experiencer/experience"

[Anonymous No.16936271]

>>16936233
oh yes, much better. but how would you explain the need for intelligibility?

[Anonymous No.16936286]

>>16934267
He was still spiritually an incel and you know it

[Anonymous No.16936288]

>>16936261
he read the wikipedia page for process and reality and didnt quite grasp it

[Anonymous No.16936294]

>>16936269
Electromagnetism is behind matter, not the other way around, matter is not a primary substance of reality, thus materialism is wrong, literally see the Standard Model.

[Anonymous No.16936297]

>>16936269
Uffff.
Just read about quantum mechanics you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Quantum objects behave like particles in some instances, in other instances they behave like waves. It's contradicting it's literally unimaginable.

[Anonymous No.16936310]

>>16936249
Matter is thought and rationally ordered, otherwise there would be no way to claim any understanding of its particularity that isn't a subjective projection or pure scepticism.

[Anonymous No.16936314]

>>16936297
Are you saying matter isn't real then?

[Anonymous No.16936322]

Why is there a whole generation of 20-somethings that equate 'science' with materialism? When did we come to the point where rejecting materialism and citing the Standard model is supposed to be an underhand method of 'doubting science'?
I feel like certain people who argue in favor of materialism do it in bad faith and outside the scope of philosophy for the sole purpose of defending their political or sociological beliefs. Not so much here though as in real life situations (my early uni years specifically)

[Anonymous No.16936338]

>all the niggerbrains ITT claiming matter is not the single substance of reality and 'refuting materialism'
Call it physicalism then. Disprove that the physical is the only instance of reality

[Anonymous No.16936342]

>>16936322
>Why do words change meaning
Because they can? There's no objective understanding of meaning or language
You're all sophists and psuedos

[Anonymous No.16936345]

>>16936314
What do you mean with "real"? Do you mean "how it is independent of perception"? In this case I'd say, we have no fucking clue, we can't say literally anything about the things in itselve.
Do you define matter as the dense objects, that we can perceive in the world? Yes, they exist.

[Anonymous No.16936359]

>>16936338
The "physical" doesn't rely on matter so yeah. This thread is about materialism specifically, not physicalism.

[Anonymous No.16936360]

>>16936338
Wtf are you even arguing for?

[Anonymous No.16936361]

>>16936338
This. It's what I meant when I said >>16936269. Let's take electromagnetism, or whatever physical reality lies at the fundamental level. Then everything in reality comes and is determined by that.

[Anonymous No.16936368]

>>16936338
>the laws of nature are defined by the science of the laws of nature
What did they mean by this

[Anonymous No.16936380]

>>16936361
Quantum mechanics disproved determinism you fucking brainlet. Quantum objects behave objectively stochastical.

[Anonymous No.16936381]

>>16934132
Only Schop could btfo of materialists based on philosophy and style

[Anonymous No.16936391]

>>16936359
Lmao so you're saying the fundamental distinction between Kant and Marx is that Kant believes in waves as fundamental while Marx thinks particles are fundamental? You realise this is not a physics debate? Materialism in the philosophical sense is the same as "physicalism" >>16936338

[Anonymous No.16936396]

>>16936338
There's several things that disprove physicalism. Neuroplasticity, the hard problem of consciousness and consciousness in general and string theory (higher dimensions). Also what is even "physical" is something disputed too.

[Anonymous No.16936409]

>>16936338
>>16936361
whatever is physical is corporeal, extended. anything extended and corporeal can be divided. therefore no, this is not the fundamental level of reality.

[Anonymous No.16936412]

>>16936391
Is not really, materialism took the assumption that the macroscopic world behaved exactly the same as the microscopic, this is however not true. "Physicalism" is just an updated materialism.

[Anonymous No.16936418]

>>16936391
lol philosophical materialism relies heavily on the idea of Cartesian space which quantum physics has literally disproved (see: Steven Weinberg)

[Anonymous No.16936426]

>>16935922
There any many interpretations of quantum mechanics and of the ones that seem to imply dualism, there are non-dualistic interpretations of them.

For example, this paper would seem to support your argument that the “standard” Copenhagen interpretation would seem to imply dualism (A Quantum-Mechanical Argument for Mind–Body Dualism by Barrett)

But there are idealist interpretations that he hasn’t considered, eg Making Sense of the Mental Universe, by Bernardo Kastrup

>>16935997
>Psychological reactions are chemical reactions, thus physical (material) reactions.
We were talking about dualism.

[Anonymous No.16936432]

>>16936270
That is idealism.

[Anonymous No.16936440]

>>16936426
what do you think of bohm's interpretation?

[Anonymous No.16936441]

>>16936412
What exactly do you believe?

[Anonymous No.16936452]

>>16936368
based retard can't look up words on a dictionary

[Anonymous No.16936457]

>>16936396

It's a little too early to say that the hard problem disprove materialism. It is like figuring out 10% of an incredibly complex puzzle, realizing you don't have the tools to do the 90% remaining, and thus saying it is impossible to achieve.

[Anonymous No.16936462]

>>16936440
>bohm
Very problematic. See https://motls.blogspot.com/2013/07/bohmian-mechanics-ludicrous-caricature.html?m=1

[Anonymous No.16936476]

>>16936457
It is insoluble in principle. That’s why Chalmers called the “hard” problem to differentiate it from “soft” problems which, despite sometimes being increasingly complex, are in principle solvable.

[Anonymous No.16936496]

>>16936441
Neutral monism, everything is One unified Force. We can only perceive so far, our minds are capacitated to experience and feel the Three dimensional and the part electromagnetic spectrum we are able to perceive.

[Anonymous No.16936505]

>>16936476
>It is insoluble in principle.

Lol no it isn't.
Check quantum hologram theory of consciousness (Pribram, not Penrose).

[Anonymous No.16936512]

>>16934032
beard > no beard
idealism > materialism

[Anonymous No.16936516]

>>16934032
We don't even need Quantum mechanics to disprove materialism, Kant did it 200 years ago. We only perceive the reflections of the objects, we know nothing about the objects themselve. So transcendetal materialism. Quantum mechanics only give examples of how the objects aren't what we perceive them as and that our fundamental understanding of them is in itselve contradicting.

[Anonymous No.16936532]

>>16936516
*transcendental idealism

[Anonymous No.16936534]

>>16934818
I haven’t read anything in it but when studying images from electron microscope you can see all that ‘empty space’ in between every single individual atom
My guess is that it’s electromagnetism(since it’s one of the fundamental forces that holds matter together) and the microscope doesn’t pick that up in any visible spectrum so it just appears empty

And how can I prove materialism if all 5 senses are processed and perceived in mind only and this applies to all humans

[Anonymous No.16936559]

>>16936452
>Physics is the natural science that studies matter, its motion and behavior through space and time, and the related entities of energy and force.
>Physics is the natural science
But sure you must be right, physics has nothing to do with the laws of nature

[Anonymous No.16936561]

>>16936516
>Kant
more like Plato, dumbus.

[Anonymous No.16936564]

>>16936534
Finally someone understood. Based Kantian.

[Anonymous No.16936578]

>>16934032
Karl Marx isn't a materialist in my book and why would he be when he studied under Hegel
it's idealistic materialism where dead matter comes alive and leaves the material being
that abstraction then is supposed to be the material world

[Anonymous No.16936581]

>>16936516
Kant mistakes the self-evident reality of consciousness for a self-grounding substance. The circularity of "I think, therefore I am" does not necessarily imply the mind is self-generated, independent of its ground.

This is where Whitehead comes in and tries to do justice to "man as part of nature", man as an integral part of a mind-independent reality. He's like a Kantian who is also an anti-Kantian. He believes there is no universe that is not perceived just like Kant (subjects are spatializations/temporalizations of a field or domain that pre-exists them, not spotlights in a noumenal darkness), but unlike Kant, he doesn't believe that the structure of the mind is enough to prove that, somehow, the mind also generates itself. As he puts it, the transcendental facts of cognition are not enough to "authorize" cognition as the author of nature.

The mind is emergent within a larger totality: nature. More to the point, it's an extremely complex output of that field, but again, just one output out of many, human consciousness doesn't have ontological priority over the "prehensive centers" of simpler organisms.

[Anonymous No.16936583]

>>16936561
>hasn't even read Kant

[Anonymous No.16936586]

>>16936578
Hegel wasn't actually considered an idealist in his time.

[Anonymous No.16936595]

>>16936126
Time and space are tied together because time doesn’t exist as a substance, it’s a unit of measurement invented by humans, aging is caused by something else

If you take empty space, place a single object in it how would you tell time? You can’t, can you?

Introduce a second object and set one of them in motion, now you can measure its movement through space and call that time, let’s say every time it goes around the other object we’ll call that a year

There’s waaayyyy more to this, it’s kind of fun but I’m at work and breaks over

[Anonymous No.16936604]

>>16936581
>The circularity of "I think, therefore I am" does not necessarily imply the mind is self-generated, independent of its ground.
Kant never said that the mind is independent/self-generated.
Read it before you write about it. Not secondary literature, not Wilipedia, Kant himself.

[Anonymous No.16936628]

>>16936595
>time doesn’t exist as a substance
Kant never implied that time exists as a substance. It's the form of the inner sense. Also not talking about time as a physical measurement but about our perception of time from which our understanding and the physical measurement dreives from.
Just read Kant

[Anonymous No.16936636]

>>16934032
>Which one is right
Hegel and Fichte

>and why?
Marx uses dialectics wrong
it needs to be a trinity, not merely two opposing forces where one get's replaced by the other
socialism is a crippled version of the christian trinity

[Anonymous No.16936649]

>>16936581
>human consciousness doesn't have ontological priority over the "prehensive centers" of simpler organisms.
intelligibility not only has a priority but is the foundation of both apprehension and constitution of any being. the partaking of man in intellect tells you something about his central place in the grand scheme of phenomenal reality.

[Anonymous No.16936686]

No one should be allowed to read philosophy written before the 1850s under the age of 25. People are too impressionable at that age and are at risk at adopting retarded and backward positions like idealism.

[Anonymous No.16936690]

>>16936686
>has probably read no philosophy at all

[Anonymous No.16936712]

> TFW you solved metaphysics but no one is intelligent enough to read your books.

[Anonymous No.16936763]

>>16936338
How would you respond to Kripke and Chalmers objections, for whom phenomenal consciousness is not reducible under physicalism?

[Anonymous No.16936810]

>>16936763
is that Zizek?

[Anonymous No.16936814]

>>16936810
I like to think that it is in fact Zizek

[Anonymous No.16936820]

>>16934032
To answer your question simply, the answer is dualism. But since you posted the German Idealists and the German Materialists, it's important to understand that their conflict is NOT really as simple as idealism vs. materialism. Their REAL conflict is between a kind of pseudo-monism, where the Absolute exists and is the ultimate reality from which all else stems, and a kind of atomism where little pieces of reality come together to build up everything. Both sides endorse dialectics: they both believed, whether the Absolute and what stems from it or the little atoms of reality, dialectically progress in the shape they take and the forms they develop into. So they're actually in agreement there (and I with them). The question you should ask, regardless of actual materialism/idealism/dualism, is which of the two is right: the monism of the Absolute, or some sort of pluralist atomism. You can sneak mind into both at the start, and be considered an idealist or dualist in either case. And you can also make mind emergent in both, and be considered a materialist. That's why what matters is monism vs. pluralism with these two groups of Germans. I side with pluralism even though I am a dualist on matters of mind/body reduction.

[Anonymous No.16936830]

>>16936763
Hegel is still alive?

[Anonymous No.16936836]

>>16936686
reductive materialism is based on the outdated philosophy of Bacon/Newton. 20th century physics is very idealistic and Kantian (Soviets struggled with their ideologically materialist interpretation of quantum mechanics).

[Anonymous No.16936869]

>>16936512
/thread

[Anonymous No.16936879]

everything is words

[Anonymous No.16936896]

>>16936836
>reductive materialism is based on the outdated philosophy
sure
>20th century physics is very idealistic and Kantian
no it isn't

[Anonymous No.16936942]

>>16936879
Based retard

[Anonymous No.16936953]

>>16934032
If I could convince my enemies to adopt Materialism I would do it, secure in the knowledge that it will ruin their civilization and their lives.

[Anonymous No.16936990]

>>16936896
Idealism doesn't mean that we can't observe "matter" and you can't deny that many of the big 20th century physics figures were hardcore idealists. Explicitly Schrödinger and Heisenberg (who were almost Neoplatonist, with Schrödinger believing that consciousness is one etc.)

[Anonymous No.16937030]

>>16936990
The only viable positions today are aleatory materialism and processism. Those big 20th century physics figures were just building up to processism.

[Anonymous No.16937111]

>>16936990
>almost Neoplatonist, with Schrödinger believing that consciousness is one etc.
Which of platos works should I read if I also think this is plausible?

[Anonymous No.16937118]

>>16936505
>quantum hologram theory of consciousness
Doesn’t solve the problem I’m afraid.

[Anonymous No.16937169]

>>16937030
Are you really going to say that Whitehead is the pinnacle of philosophy who made Kant obsolete?
If you are >>16936581, you misunderstood Kant. Cognition doesn't generate the outside world for him, you are trying to blame him for Cartesian solipsism/Berkeley's idealism which he explicitly rejected.

[Anonymous No.16937175]

>>16935233
Metaphysically speaking, yes.

[Anonymous No.16937179]

>>16937111
Timaeus
Phaedrus
Phaedo

[Anonymous No.16937180]

>materialism
Hard problem of consciousness
>dualism
Hard problem of interaction
>panpsychism
Hard problem of combination
>idealism
Hard problem of... well actually we know from our own dreams and patients with DID that a single mind can produce seemingly separate co-conscious alters. Perhaps we are alters of a larger mind... if so that might explain why the universe appears fine tuned for the existence of life—because the larger mind wanted us to exist. That would mean the larger mind is a moral agent of some kind, intelligent and powerful. Wouldn’t it be simpler to assume the mind is maximally good, knowing and powerful...?

This is how metaphysics proves theism.

[Anonymous No.16937197]

>>16937118

Yes it does.
The simple fact that we have color vision correcting lenses prove Chalmers wrong.

[Anonymous No.16937227]

>>16937197
>The simple fact that we have color vision correcting lenses prove Chalmers wrong.
Lol wut

[Anonymous No.16937232]

>>16934032
if you believe pic realted, you're a materalist.
If you think it's bullshit, you're an idealist

simple as

[Anonymous No.16937249]

>>16937227

> Chalmerfags : "NOOOO you can't have a scientific discourse about my qualiarinos!"
> optometric-industrial complex Chad : "Too late bucko, we've already commodified them!"

[Anonymous No.16937269]

>>16937249
Explain yourself then.

[Anonymous No.16937290]

>>16935191
>and why our thoughts cannot change the world (unlike dreams, for example).
simple, thoughts are not consciousness. thoughts are already abstractions developed in response to the world, so they cannot change the world, however, the world is formed primarily out of awareness. awareness precedes all things

[Anonymous No.16937291]

>>16937169
Whitehead is a Post-Kantian. For Whitehead, the great accomplishment of Kant's Copernican Revolution in philosophy is its conception of an act of experience as a constructive functioning. Whitehead credits Kant with originating philosophical constructivism. Kant denies the possibility (or even the meaningfulness) of knowing things in themselves and points instead to the ways that we are always already constructively involved with whatever it is that we experience or observe. We do not represent, in our minds, a reality that would simply exist out there, by itself, independent of and prior to our experience of it. Nor do we just create the world through our own mental processes or forms of representation. Rather, our experience of the world, of what Whitehead calls stubborn fact external to ourselves, is itself the reflexive process through which the world, including ourselves, gets constituted. For Whitehead, as for Kant, the whole universe consists of elements disclosed in the experiences of subjects and nothing else. As a constructivist, Whitehead is very much a post-Kantian thinker rather than the pre-Kantian throwback that he is sometimes taken to be.
Whitehead signals his indebtedness to Kant at every turn. Like Kant, he performs a delicate balancing act, rejecting the claims of idealism on the one hand, and of scientific positivism on the other. But at the same time, Whitehead criticizes Kant for exhibiting an excess of subjectivity. Kant simply claims too much for thought, or for the mind. He says that our minds actively shape experience, by structuring it according to certain extra-experiential concepts of understanding or Categories. There can be no doubt that all our cognition begins with experience, Kant says. But even though all our cognition starts with experience, that does not mean that all of it arises from experience. For Kant, the Categories of the understanding cannot be derived from experience even though they can only be legitimately applied within experience. In referring the Categories to our spontaneity of cognition, Kant in effect reaffirms the cogito, the Cartesian subject separated from, and unconditioned by, the world that it only observes and thinks from a distance. Though Kant, demolishes any substantive claims for the Cartesian ego, he nonetheless retains that ego in the ghostly, residual form of the transcendental unity of apperception that accompanies every act of cognition. Kant thereby exempts the subject from the (otherwise ubiquitous) sense of experience as a constructive functioning.
Whitehead, like many post-Kantians, rejects this exemption or separation. For constructivism to be complete, the transcendental presuppositions of experience must themselves arise immanently, contingently, and historically from within experience. Even Kant's basic form of intuition, Whitehead says, must be derived from the actual world qua datum, and thus is not pure in Kant's sense of that term.

cont

[Anonymous No.16937311]

>>16937291
Don’t shit up the thread with entire articles.

[Anonymous No.16937314]

Are quantum physics really an argument against idealism? I dont know what an electron is but I am positive that its not consciousness.

[Anonymous No.16937324]

>>16937314
*against materialism

[Anonymous No.16937328]

>>16937291
thanks for the effort post but that sounds a whole lot like Schelling

[Anonymous No.16937337]

>>16934032
All real things are real, dipshit.

[Anonymous No.16937338]

>>16937314
Circular argument.

[Anonymous No.16937346]

>>16937314
No, it isn't. It only seems that way to people who don't know what they are talking about--whether that be physics, philosophy or both.

[Anonymous No.16937397]

>>16937314
it doesn't prove or disprove any of them, but its influencial figures still came from an idealist background (which should be a pretty normal Weltanschauung for scientists growing up in early 20th century Germany, Schopenhauer was pretty huge back then, Schrödinger almost quit physics for philosophy after reading him)

[Anonymous No.16937399]

>>16937169
>>16937291
>>16937328
The transcendental presuppositions of experience must be processes, rather than fixed logical categories. And they cannot be attributed to the spontaneity of a subject that would already be in place. For Kant, Whitehead says, the process whereby there is experience is a process from subjectivity to apparent objectivity. But Whitehead's own philosophy inverts this analysis, and explains the process as proceeding from objectivity to subjectivity. The subject emerges from experience, rather than being presupposed by it. Whitehead thus replaces Kant's transcendental idealism and his doctrine of the objective world as a construct from subjective experience with something more on the order of William James' radical empiricism or of what Deleuze will later call transcendental empiricism.
The important thing for Whitehead about Kantian critique is neither its determination of the limits of reason, nor its deduction of the concepts of understanding, but rather its constructivist account of the conditions of receptivity, or sensibility. That is to say, Whitehead rejects Kant's Transcendental Logic, according to which ordered experience is the result of schematization of modes of thought, concerning causation, substance, quality, quantity. But he largely accepts the Transcendental Aesthetic in which Kant gives his exposition of space and time. This rendering of the rules of sensibility as such is, for Whitehead, a distorted fragment of what should have been Kant's main topic. Kant's great discovery in the Transcendental Aesthetic is that space and time are constructs in opposition to the Newtonian absolute theory of space-time; but also that space and time, as constructs, are acategorical and non-conceptual. Space is an a priori intuition, not a concept, Kant reminds us. Time, similarly, is not a discursive or, as it is called, universal concept; rather, it is a pure form of sensible intuition. This is why time is nothing but the form of inner sense. the formal a priori condition of all appearances generally. Space and time are immanent conditions of sensible intuition: they indicate the ways in which we receive the data that objects provide to us, rather than being logical categories to which the objects providing such data are themselves compelled to conform. Because they are merely forms of reception, space and time are not adequate for cognition. Indeed, Kant says that space and time are sources of cognition, in that nothing can be cognized apart from them. But space and time are not in themselves enough to authorize the active process of cognition.
This point can be stated in another way. Kant starts out with the Humean assumption of a complete atomism of subjective sensations, the radical disconnection of impressions qua data from one another. For Hume adheres to what Whitehead calls the sensationalist principle: the idea that the primary activity in the

cont

[Anonymous No.16937406]

>>16937399
>>16937399
act of experience is the bare subjective entertainment of the datum, devoid of any subjective form of reception. Kant's aim, in the Critique of Pure Reason, is to avoid the skeptical consequences of Hume's position by rejecting this sensationalist principle. He seeks to show how the chaos of mere sensation can be ordered, or its elements connected, in a more stable and satisfactory way than Hume is able to accomplish with his appeal to mere habit. In the Transcendental Logic Kant does this in what Whitehead regards as an overly intellectualistic way. Kant appeals to what Whitehead calls the higher of the human modes of functioning, ignoring the more basic and primordial modes of sensation and perception. That is to say, Kant takes a cognitive approach, rather than an affective one. He also presupposes a dualism of form and matter, according to which materiality, or the sensible (that which can be apprehended by the senses alone), is passive, inert, and intrinsically shapeless, and that it can only be organized by an intelligible form that is imposed upon it from the outside, or from above. In Kant's account, the understanding, with its Categories, imposes a conceptual order upon an otherwise disconnected and featureless flux of individual impressions.

But in the Transcendental Aesthetic Kant does not altogther adhere to this dualism of form and matter. He does indeed say that space and time are the pure forms of perception, and sensation as such is its matter. But his discussion also bears the traces of a different logic. Because time and space are not categories or concepts, they do not relate to their objects in the way that the forms of logical intelligibility (causation, substance, quality, quantity) do. They are not organizing principles actively imprinted upon an otherwise shapeless and disorganized matter. Rather, space and time are themselves effectively passive since they are modes of receptivity rather than spontaneity. Kant says that sensibility or receptivity remains as different as day and night from cognition of the object in itself; rather than being cognitive, sensibility has to do with the appearance of something, and the way we are affected by that something. And this is the crucial point. Even though the thing in itself is cognitively unknowable, nevertheless it affects us. And by conveying and expressing the way we are affected, space and time establish immanent connections among objects, and especially between the object and the subject. These affective connections are already given in the very course of any experience of spatialization and temporalization. In the Transcendental Aesthetic, there is no problem of formlessness, or of disconnected impressions; and therefore there is no need to impose the Categories of understanding from above, in order to give these impressions form, or to yoke them together. As Whitehead puts it, in such a process of feeling the datum includes its own interconnections.

[Anonymous No.16937453]

I would choose idealism because materialism is closed in the 3D dimension so is bad because your thinks exist and something that you can imagine is real.

[Anonymous No.16937489]

>>16937453

Wut.

[Anonymous No.16937533]

>>16936409
The exact opposite belief is how humans discovered and theorized atoms

[Anonymous No.16937549]

>>16936396
I don’t know why hard sci fi is considered low brow when everything you listed has been used in them, extensively might I add

[Anonymous No.16937591]

>>16935666
Man is the subject. Period.
The rest is obfuscation and mysticism.

[Anonymous No.16937626]

>>16936270
t. Deleuze’s (he’ll perish in his BWO at the thought of being compared to dualism) dichotomy between the immanent and transcendent.

[Anonymous No.16937663]

Neutral monist panpsychism

[Anonymous No.16937694]

>>16936270
I don’t know who authored it but to sum up multiple chapters into a small paragraph it was argued there can not be love without a beloved and this is why god created Jesus/humanity in the first place

It’s silly I know but the experiencer/experience thing reminded me of it

[Anonymous No.16937695]

>>16937663
(De)combination problem. Next.

[Anonymous No.16938031]

>>16934032
Materialists by far.
All we got is all we see.

[Anonymous No.16938041]

>>16934032
Obviously some form of Idealism; Heidegger ultimately amounts to the final form of Idealism.

Materialism is and always will be stupid, and a moral WRONG.

[Anonymous No.16938047]

>>16934032
>Wagner liked both Hegel and Feuerbach
>Schopenhauer and Fichte
>the German state and Socialism
Is that why Wagner only has a semi-beard around his neck? Neither idealist or materialist.

[Anonymous No.16938051]

>>16936712
Highly underrated post

[Anonymous No.16938053]

>>16936712
>Is for me (Heidegger)?

[Anonymous No.16938210]

>>16936286
>voluntarily engage in sexual acts
>literally the opposite of "involuntarily celibate"
>"dude he was totally sPiRiTUaLy an Incel"

you have to be 18 to post here.
no rule against being retarded tho. fuck off and/or straighten your helmet

[Anonymous No.16938289]

>>16934057
t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.16938361]

Metaphysical voluntarism

[Anonymous No.16939109]

>>16934266
t. II century Stirner

[Anonymous No.16939176]

>>16935094
consciousness is a buzzword that refers to a bunch of different things at once. It's as silly as saying
>how can materialism explain that lizard moving even though it hasn't been acted upon! materialists btfo!

[Anonymous No.16940068]

>>16934044
Found the female

[Anonymous No.16941082]

>>16939176
It’s quite simple. While we may find an explanation for information processing, discrimination, attention, control of the body and so on, which could all be described as conscious phenomena; materialism cannot account for the fact that we are having an experience at all — that there is something it is like to be us. We could conceivably do all that we do without our subjective inner life.

[Anonymous No.16941086]

>>16934032
Unquestionably idealism. It's not even a discussion.

[Anonymous No.16941117]

>>16934032
Try not eating for as long as you can and you will know
>>16934044
Try not working for as long as you can and come back to us about that

[Anonymous No.16941280]

>>16941117
Ok, I’m hungry and poor. What have I proved?

[Anonymous No.16941303]

>>16934032
Are you retarded? They don't exclude one another. Why is there 200 replies?

[Anonymous No.16941380]

>>16934044
Marx is not purely materialist, contrary to the pseudo intellectual believe. Read the thesis on Feuerbach. For Marx, the divine and secular are one. It's only man who detached the divine from the world. in an abstraction.

[Anonymous No.16941456]

>>16934132
>NOOOOOOOO YOU CANT HAVE A BEARD IT MAKES YOU LOOK PLEASING TO WOMEN, THATS INDECENT

[Anonymous No.16941473]

>>16934032
Ideal materialism, otherwise known as material idealism.

[Anonymous No.16941685]

>>16937533
so? you are proving my point

[Anonymous No.16941700]

>>16941380
>detached the divine from the world
>all things were created by god, everything is supported by him, all things are eide in god's mind, all things are arranged in intelligent paradigms, creation reflects the divine, they not only represent things unseen (like they own ideas, their very nature) but are infused with these unseen divine ideas having thus a perfect correspondence, etc.etcetc......
sure

[Anonymous No.16943455]

>>16934032
(Objective/absolute) Idealism is correct. There is no dichotomy between thought and reality, otherwise knowledge is impossible.

[Anonymous No.16943882]

>>16941082
those things you described are your experience. The "something it is like" is the conglomeration of the various perceptions the brain is capable of. Nothing more. You make decisions before you even realize you've made them based on previous experience and genetic predisposition. This doesn't require magic to explain, it requires humility.

[Anonymous No.16944073]

Property dualism > identity theory > substance dualism >>> phenomenalism

[Anonymous No.16944130]

>>16941086
>>16941117
>>16941380
t. uncivilized *nglos and burguers who haven't read Don Gustavo

[Anonymous No.16944849]

>>16937180
Idealism never escaped from solipsism, it just learned to ignore it.

[Anonymous No.16944945]

>>16937291
>cont
kant*

[Anonymous No.16944971]

>>16934057
Prove it fag
>inb4 dude look matter is everywhere lmao

[Anonymous No.16945055]

>>16941380
Marx's thought evolved with time though.

[Anonymous No.16945072]

The materialism vs.idealism isn't so much a debate or a conclusion one comes to through intellectual means. It is a distinction between classes of men, those who are capable of rational thought and those who focus on edification help them reaffirm their preexisting biases. The later find it nessecary to invent all sorts of linguistic and quasi mystic tricks to cope with their own finite nature as a part of a finite world.

[Anonymous No.16945098]

>>16935235
The third law of thermodynamics literally refers to the physical movements of material objects what do you mean by this?

[Anonymous No.16945128]

>>16937399
>>16937406
ok, please tell me if I am even close to understanding this correctly: Whitehead disagrees that our view of the world is a creation of raw unstructured sense data and the categories, instead saying that it is merely a process of being affected by the direct experiencing of sense data as it is given purely in time and space? If so, what then? what is the final judgement of our subjective experience, is it all just stuff happening without any claim to any sort of reality beyond the fact that it is all caused directly by reality? is there any true intelligibility to phenomena at all or is it all just events caused by the connection to other things?
I am shaky even in my understanding of Kant so please be gentle.

[Anonymous No.16945138]

>>16943882
>something it is like
The whole point about the “hard problem” is that you still won’t have an explanation for something-it-is-likeness even after you understand the neurological mechanisms for all cognitive functions. Those functions could conceivably exist without a conscious inner life—the p-zombie.

[Anonymous No.16945761]

>>16944130
El Gustavo Bueno es el Gustavo Muerto.

[Anonymous No.16946070]

>>16934032
Theologism

[Anonymous No.16946572]

>>16934059
>t. dualist

[Anonymous No.16946756]

>>16935640
This