Materialism vs idealism

[Anonymous No.22667224]

Is mind primary and matter secondary, or is matter primary and mind secondary?

[Anonymous No.22667239]

Who the fuck cares man? You think Chad cares about this shit? Pussy primary titties secondary that's the reality man accept it. All this nerd shit will get you nowhere.

[Anonymous No.22667256]

it depends

[Anonymous No.22667264]

I am far, however, from treating with indifference what I call here 'question of form', and, just as I will never take as a type of social man the consummate industrialist, or the most skillful merchant in his part, and I will put above them, but certainly to a incomparable height, either the priest, or the warrior, the artist, the administrator, or what is today called the man of the world, and who was called in the time of Louis XIV the honest man; just as, likewise, I would always prefer, in the order of elite men, St. Bernard to Papin or Watt, Bossuet to Jacques Cœur, Louvois, Turenne, Arioste or Corneille to all financial illustrations, I do not call active civilization, first-order civilization, the one that is content to vegetate obscurely, giving its sectarians only satisfactions in the end too incomplete and too humble, confining their desires to a narrow sphere, and spinning in this spiral of limited improvements what China has brought to full completion. Or, as long as a group of peoples is reduced, for any mixture, to the yellow element combined with the white, it does not accept in the qualities, abilities, either mixed or new, that this hymen procreates, nothing that attracts it into the necessary stream of the feminine element, and to seek the divination of what is transcendentally useful to cultivate what enjoyments pure imagination reflects on a society.

[Anonymous No.22667268]

>>22667224
What do primary and secondary mean? Help a brother out here.

[Anonymous No.22667329]

Rational discourse presupposes idealism, as rationality is concerned with our perception of the world, but not with the world itself. It could be the case that materialism is true and that reason is inherently flawed, but that's beyond the point, as reason cannot refute itself.

Therefore idealism is necessarily true and there is no hard problem of consciousness whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.22667344]

marx was a materialist who thought matter primary. Troons and alphabet people believe mind is primary to the extent that they won't accept the material reality of their genitals.

This is one of many reasons why its silly to view these people as "marxists", "cultural marxists" or even "leftists" really

[Anonymous No.22667385]

>>22667344
Idealism doesn't deny material reality, it only challenges its ontological status.

[Anonymous No.22667394]

>>22667268
Materialists believe that atoms are more real than thoughts; Idealists believe that thoughts are more real than atoms.

[Anonymous No.22667402]

>>22667394
That doesn't help, because 'more real' is no more intuitive than 'primary'. Surely something either exists or doesn't. How can there be degrees of realness?

[Anonymous No.22667456]

>muh brain is female
Is still available to the tranny materialist and I think a common position.

[Anonymous No.22667461]

>>22667456
>>22667344

[Anonymous No.22667476]

>>22667402
Ontology is the study of what it means for a thing to "be" or "exist". There are three kinds of ontologies: Flat, hierarchical, and polycategorical. A flat ontology, like you are proposing, argues that all things exist (broadly speaking) exist in the same manner, meaning that thoughts are just as real as taxes which are just as real as atoms. Baruch Spinoza and Gilles Deluze are two philosophers who held flat ontologies. A hierarchical ontology proposes that there are degrees of realness, moving away from the less real towards the more real, such that you get something like atoms>thoughts>taxes. Plato and Aquinas are two examples of hierarchical ontologists. Polycategoricalists believe not all objects are real in the same manner (they are in different categories) but that not all things are necessarily in a hierarchy with eachother. Aristotle and EJ Lowe are two examples of polycategorical ontologists.

19th-century theories of the mind lead to two ontological theories: that there are two kinds of stuff, matter and mind, and that one is more real than the other. Materialists thus believe that matter is more real than mind, and idealists believe that mind is more real than matter, by which we mean they believe in a very flat yet still hierarchical ontology with one thing taking priority over the other.

[Anonymous No.22667491]

>>22667344
>>22667456
>>22667461
the actual critique commonly made by trans marxists, if you care, is against people endowing genitals, or brains even, with a metaphysical essence that isn't materially there. the argument is against metaphysical concepts of maleness and femaleness that are then supposed to be instantiated in these material symbols, and that then determine how people ought to act, look, be treated, etc. it's very similar to how marx critiques commodity fetishism: he's not saying that commodities don't exist; he's saying the metaphysical powers and values we attribute to them are mystified expressions of human social relations. this is all so basic, and gleanable from even a right-wing exposition of queer or marxist thought, that i can't believe you were ever so smug as to think your ill-informed initial misunderstandings were the end of the matter.

[Anonymous No.22667497]

>>22667224
Both are secondary.

[Anonymous No.22667524]

>>22667476
I appreciate the sketching out of different positions, but this is all seems like finding new synonyms for 'primary' and 'secondary'. How specifically are taxes less real than atoms? What is the difference between them, for those with hierarchical ontologies, and how do people know which end of the spectrum to call primary? That's what I'm asking. Saying 'taxes are secondary because they're less real' would just be tautological.

[Anonymous No.22667538]

>>22667402
Not that anon, but I guess that these definitions might be useful:
>Materialists believe that the mind is an instance of matter.
>Idealists believe that matter is an instance of the mind.

[Anonymous No.22667546]

>>22667491
>gender don't real
>but if you don't use my pronouns I'll do whatever I can to ruin your life
So - open, unabashed, sociopathy then?

[Anonymous No.22667556]

>>22667491
I'm sure the intellectual tranny marxists who you're talking about do exist online somewhere but you have to understand the average tranny marxist, much like the average marxist, is an npc responding entirely to their social environment and espousing both trannyism and marxism as fashion items neither of which they've ever thought deeply or coherently about in their entire lives.

[Anonymous No.22667559]

>>22667524
>How specifically are taxes less real than atoms?
If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand

[Anonymous No.22667612]

>>22667559
You seem to misunderstand the basic activity of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22667750]

>>22667224
/lit/ is going to hate me for this, but this question is unironically answered by science. If mind was the source of matter, that is where discoveries in science would lead us. We would find that psychological theories yield insights into physics. But they don't. Instead the reverse is true: physics informs neuroscience, which informs psychology.
>inb4 misunderstanding quantum physics

Furthermore, we know human consciousness came into existence through a physical process: biological evolution. Does that support the idea consciousness is an inherent part of the reality? I think it goes against it and supports the idea that we're basically biological organisms that evolved intelligence as a survival tool. Not to mention the totally lifeless universe that existed for billions of years. The only minds we know exist, came into existence very recently on a single planet. Who can be bold enough to say that something like them is at the foundation of everything without overwhelming evidence?

[Anonymous No.22667806]

>>22667750
>inb4 misunderstanding quantum physics
>he writes in the hopes the simply stating "opposing evidence is like uhhh stupid or something lol just ignore that like lol that's so cringe" excuses him from having to address opposing evidence

[Anonymous No.22668001]

>>22667476
so flat is "empiricist" hierarchical is "rationalist". how can you say something is less real, yet not i a hierarchy?

[Anonymous No.22668560]

>>22668001
And 100 years ago, everyone “knew” that the world was flat. >:D

[Anonymous No.22668570]

>>22667750
you dont even know what it is about the laws of physics and energy that allows consciousness to be possible in the first place
>muh dead lifeless universe
might as well kys

[Anonymous No.22668593]

>>22667224
My main gripe is that I think it's incredibly hard to balance the two. You cannot lean into one without invalidating the other too much. In the end, I cannot reject this world in front of me more than the idea so I'd rather go that way. The calmness I get from successive meditation is too much, it's like I'm killing myself.

[Anonymous No.22668621]

>>22667344
Was Plato a tranny too, by your estimation?

[Anonymous No.22668659]

>>22667750
>>/lit/ is going to hate me for this, but this question is unironically answered by science. If mind was the source of matter, that is where discoveries in science would lead us. We would find that psychological theories yield insights into physics.
Of course the same ''people'' who ''love science'' keep saying there are ''laws'' of ''nature'' and yet those ''people'' never found matter being "laws", ie those ''laws'' are not material and those ''people'' haven't been found anywhere in the universe. So how do those non-material "laws" act on matter?

[Anonymous No.22668722]

the fact that damaging someones brain can effect their personality is somewhat damning, but you could argue that the material body is like a machine though which the ideal is expressed and damaging the machine means things are not expressed properly

[Anonymous No.22668812]

>>22667224
Neither. Dualism is correct.

[Anonymous No.22668816]

>>22668560
The world is flat.

[Anonymous No.22668982]

>>22667224
Nice metaphysical dilemma you have there
It would be a shame if somebody
Mind = Matter

[Anonymous No.22668985]

>>22667224
Since I read that new Sapolsky this metaphysics shit seems like such a waste of time honestly.

[Anonymous No.22669025]

Matter has a very percise definition. It is exhaustively defined by properties such as mass, charge, spin, momentum, amplitude, etc. That is what matter is. Numbers. Quantities. Quantities are incommensurate with the qualities of experience, such as the beauty of a nice view or the smell of coffee in the morning. Moreover, numbers are an abstraction of mind. The idea that an abstraction of mind could somehow give rise to mind is ridiculous. These two points alone debunks materialism.

[Anonymous No.22669125]

It is fundamentally unknowable to us, and as such will forever remain a mystery
The only thing you can rely on is your sense perception, "it seems" like there is an objective world out there, and so I'm just going to assume that it's true, because it's the most plausible explanation, if that is true, then it also follows that the mind is a physical thing and therefore has physical limitations, however we obviously fundamentally have to interpret things through our subjective experience, and since we most likely didn't develop to "see the world for what it really is", I think it's safe to assume that we are in fact incapable of percieving the "real world", instead what we percieve is a simplified version of "the real world", that is dumbed down enough that we are able to navigate through it, hence mind is more real than matter

[Anonymous No.22669150]

False dichotomy

[Philosopher king of /lit/ and /sci/ !MeEqnEqMrc No.22669171]

Dualism is the only acceptable answer. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.22670537]

This thread was moved to >>>/his/15815443