Materialism and Idealism
(Infidel Guy forum had a huge heated thread on this topic, it was closed to i made my own).
ME
Hi, I thought I'd start my own thread, as the old one got a little bogged down. I happened to be studying this topic from the historical perspective and wanted to see if anyone agreed with my conclusions.
Basically western civilisation has been fashioned by two essentially opposing philosophies, the idealism of Plato, and the materialism of Epicurus. As far as I'm concerned Epicurus has been totally vindicated my science and history, while Platonic and Aristotelian thought has let down humanity far too many times. Now I won't bother arguing against dualism, or idealism, or bother listing the proofs or arguments for materialism, the likes of Dawkins and Carrier have done more than enough to convince anyone remotely rational. (Its the weakness of idealism’s arguments rather than the strength of materialism’s that convinced me). But I'd like to state that in essence idealism gave us modern religion, materialism gave us science, the two most important factors on humanity. Regardless of whether you think of either as a force for good or evil, I felt the "credit" for their creation needed to be traced back to their source.
By assuming idealism was correct we had a dark age and the philosophical justification for xtianity. By assuming materialism (or methodological naturalism) was correct we got all fields of science. I could point out the failure of religion to prove itself is a reflection of idealism shortcomings, and the success of science in everything from astronomy to neuroscience shows there is nothing the materialism need be embarrassed about. Lucretius himself would be welcome in any science lab today. Can the same be said for Plato, or Aristotle? Even Newton with all his religious piety had to admit to their irrelevance. When has idealism ever triumphed? A million victories a day are made for materialism, and it is absurd to regard idealism as anything more than a philosophical curiosity of the past, reduced to mere habit or wishful thinking today.
Some may say materialism is a self fulfilling prophesy, you assume there’s a material cause, and you then find it, but that shows the presupposition is justified. It would be falsified if we consistently failed to find answers, but even in the subject of the mind we hit no barrier to the growth of our understanding. Idealism some may see deals with less provable things, but what kind of paradigm or faith bases itself on unproven speculation? Must we be obligated to hear them out as equals and not just another faith? Anyway, what I wish to get across is the connection between the works of Plato, and xtianity.
As a Christiological mythicist I found debunking the so-called evidence for a historical Jesus incredibly easy, as there was so little of it, and all bad. But piecing together what he was proves far harder than showing what he wasn’t. I am convinced however that he owes his creation far more to Plato than the Old testament, there is a crude idealism in the OT, a fallen from idyllic nature, but only in certain passages. The Metaphysic of Paul is greek, not Jewish. Jesus requires the necessity of an intermediary, one of the earliest central doctrines, this in turn is based on a removed god, this is Aristotle’s, not the Hebrew’s deity. Philo clearly thought he could meld Greek rationalism with his mythical beliefs, a bad combination, but it resulted in the child called Logos, the precursor to Paul’s Christ. That is why xtians are so embarrassed by the OT god’s barbarity, it is really Aristotle’s god they worship, a perfect all good being, an ideal, and it is idealism, and a capacity to ignore the reality that keeps the faith going. No matter what horrors it causes, or how many cracks appear, the ideal remains alive, such an attitude is irresponsible and inconsiderate, and we owe Plato and his ilk for it. Ironically such idealism effected materialistic philosophises such as communism, but then that was just a secular apostolic church.
I see Idealism as a curse, materialism as the cure. Ethics have to be based on reality, not dreams. Worldviews on facts not fantasies. And science can try to function on idealism, but we’d soon see the end of all progress. We cannot even dilute idealism with materialism as that tends to create an even worse monster, hence the pragmatic but utopian pie in the sky of Nazism. Any thoughts?
The Responses...
todangst
| Quote: |
As far as I'm concerned Epicurus has been totally vindicated my science and history, while Platonic and Aristotelian thought has let down humanity far too many times. Now I won't bother arguing against dualism, or idealism, or bother listing the proofs or arguments for materialism, the likes of Dawkins and Carrier have done more than enough to convince anyone remotely rational.
|
Well, I think we would be better off to say that their arguments are convincing, period.
I think these 3 questions point to the problems in immaterialism:
1) Can you show that anything exists other than matter or energy? What are its "properties" - i.e. is it something natural?
2) How does something that is neither matter nor energy interact with our natural world? Consider this Descartes "pineal gland problem"
3) How do you avoid violating the principle of conservation of energy? If no physical energy or mass is associated with "immaterial things", then there is a serious problem: a fundamental principle of physics is that any change in any physical entity is an acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy - but if these things have no matter or energy, where does the energy come from? what you have here is something akin to the impossibilty of perpetual motion - energy from nowhere.
Consider this "Dennet's problem" although it's not original to him.
| Quote: |
But I'd like to state that in essence idealism gave us modern religion, materialism gave us science, the two most important factors on humanity. Regardless of whether you think of either as a force for good or evil, I felt the "credit" for their creation needed to be traced back to their source.
|
Interesting point. Plato is friend to the theologian, Epicurus the friend to the scientist.
| Quote: |
Lucretius himself would be welcome in any science lab today. Can the same be said for Plato, or Aristotle? Even Newton with all his religious piety had to admit to their irrelevance. When has idealism ever triumphed? A million victories a day are made for materialism, and it is absurd to regard idealism as anything more than a philosophical curiosity of the past, reduced to mere habit or wishful thinking today.
|
Yes, there is a great asymmetry here, as far as real results. I like what Dennet says about the idea of 'immateriality": in essence, to hold that ideas are immaterial is basically "giving up" as far as actually trying to know something about the brain.
| Quote: |
| I see Idealism as a curse, materialism as the cure. Ethics have to be based on reality, not dreams. Worldviews on facts not fantasies. And science can try to function on idealism, but we’d soon see the end of all progress. We cannot even dilute idealism with materialism as that tends to create an even worse monster, hence the pragmatic but utopian pie in the sky of Nazism. Any thoughts? |
Excellent post, you seem well versed in the classic philosophers. Thanks for posting.
(strongatheist writes a good post, I repond, quoting verbatum)
ME
Strongatheist, thanks for the thorough post, the time I have for forums is extremely limited these days but I had to respond. I’ve not been on this forums for over a year and am unaware the regular posters positions, I had to read yours over several times before I grasped whether or not you agreed with me.
| Quote: |
| When you say that sciences disproved idealism and elevated materialism to stardom, it isn't just about proving a philosophical school vs. another philosophical school. It is about proving what is really "true." |
Yes, I would say it is both, maybe materialism got lucky, and it could have quite easily been Aristotle and Plato who were right, but the point is that they weren’t, and I think this needs to be acknowledged by more then just scientists. For example religion is blissfully unaware just how much of its philosophical foundations are up in smoke.
| Quote: |
| It is as if Materialism is crying out "Idealism is from me." |
Well technically that is correct, as there are material explanation for all idealistic, spiritual and supernatural concepts. It may debunk the supernatural but the spiritual just has to be re-understood as emotions and psychology, rather than mystical and otherworldly, it still has a future in this modified form. (Look at Robert M. Price) But to be fare idealism was an interesting product of human imagination and longing, it just happened to be wrong, and at times harmful. It is the moral problems with it I wish to draw attention to, this is not a materialist crowing over our victories, we need to recognise that humanity is better off without idealism in it’s more religious forms.
| Quote: |
| I always question the origin not just the detail. |
That is precisely the attitude I have to studying god, can we be a product of him, or his he the product of us? Is he behind the cosmos or do we project him onto it? In the UK “God” is often made as abstract as possible, but that doesn’t change the fact that were are still largely talking about a modern version of a bronze age Semitic war god, as probable as Zeus or Odin.
| Quote: |
| Ask where did Idealism come from? Was it based on a "national" or "global" phenomenon? If so, how can I tell what I'm feeling or seeing or thinking of is a dream, fantasy revelation or hallucination? |
I left that kind of introspection far behind long ago, solipsism and the rest is a waste of time, and largely self-refuting. Idealism is a product of human desires, but as a philosophy is Athenian, and it is that particular version I am criticising as I blame it for fostering modern religion.
| Quote: |
| To say that sciences proved materialism is to say that the "self" is combination of consciousness, memories, and our physical brain. No room, for an idealistic existence to flex its muscles upon our existence. |
There is room, but as usual in the gaps of our knowledge, I prefer a world view based on what we know, not what we don’t.
| Quote: |
| Let's put the nomering process for a while. Our existence is purely physical, what humanity experiences day and night is purely physical. Even when physicist tried to explain some strange phenomenons like near-death experience, hallucinations,..etc they were all explained using "lab" theoritical models. No one uses a "jelo" world to explain a "jelo" phenomenon. There always has to be a solid ground to stand upon. |
And that’s how it should be.
| Quote: |
| Actually, I have to disagree with you on this. For one reason only, religion is the main reason why idealism was introduced in the first place. |
In a sense originally, Plato’s ideas were influenced by contemporary beliefs, but modern religion is the product of Plato. It is the glue the connects ancient faiths to modern ones. Platonic idealism is as much a result of the speculations of philosophers as Athenian religion. I was not denying that pagan faiths went into xtian theology, but my particular angle is to emphasise the philosophical background to Paul’s theology as well as that of most of the NT writers. I think it had a much more propound effect that most people realise. Without knowledge of idealism it is hard to understand what Jesus was originally.
| Quote: |
| Actually Idealism needs a "god" to illustrate the ontology between the material and the immaterial. |
But such a god is derived from philosophical speculation; the god of Plato and Aristotle is perfect, remote etc, nothing like Zeus or the contemporary deities. It is this perfect god xtians, deists and philosophers worship, not the more obviously fictional Hebrew deity, who is much more a character in a book, like Odin or Zeus. This is the reason xtians so easily dismiss such pagan gods, and fail to see the similarities with their god, as there is a difference. Made less clear by the fluke of hisotry which meant they kept the OT god as superficaly the father to their jesus.
| Quote: |
| Right now they're trying to explain that within the realm of the unknown physics. For example, we don't see many smaller particles or components of the atom like the "quarkes" but we know they're there from the effect they leave on their surrounding environments. |
Yes, and xtians try to take advantage of this, trying to swap the more abstract idealistic deity they think they don’t worship for the bible one, to bolster their faith.
| Quote: |
| Actually this is a shortcoming on their side, for one reason, they assume we shape "materiality" and define it. Wrong, we are just "receivers" and "analyzers". The above argument applies only to Idealism. Where you presuppose the cause and you set out looking for it, and you will or will not find since you've presupposed it in the first place. Example for that. GOD. People presuppose GOD, and want to remodel the world to conform with their presupposition. |
Exactly! It all boils down to the difference between the subjective and objective paradigms, you must look without presumption, or you will see want to expect regardless of whether what you expect is actually there. Hence the materialistic presupposition of science, we understand that, theists don’t hence ID.
OK, I will.
| Quote: |
| This takes us back to the idea of "question the origin." For example. That notion called "GOD". What is that notion exactly? is it a relic notion left from earlier civilization that humanity can't break loose from? |
Yes.
| Quote: |
| I mean really what is "GOD"? What does a "deity" do? |
Nothing, it is a projection, and we are the projector. Theists would have us search for god “out there” when, like in Plato’s cave or a cinema we need to look behind us, not ahead to find the question that Atheism is the answer to. I’ve always found it annoying when they make ”god” as abstract as possible, when we are really talking about a bronze-age Semitic war god, no more in need of explanation than is cousin Baal, or father El Elyon. It is an accident of history that this deity, not Zeus or Loki survived in our part of the world, as the focus of various religions. But aside from cultural bias, there is no reason we take him seriously. An abstracted Zeus is no less a myth.
| Quote: |
| You don't just question the result, question the cause. What does the term "GOD" mean. You might say an absolute being we learned about from religion. But neither christianity, judaism, nor islam were the first to introduce this notion. |
Except in this current form. We are talking about a modernised version of this particular deity, some may mean a more mystical, new-age, intellectual, hypothetical deity, but we all know who most will be thinking of. As to whether a god could exist this is a very different question in most regards.
| Quote: |
| That notion has been around for thousands of years before these religions existed. And it hasn't changed that much. |
I think it has, there is a trend to think we have always felt the presence of an abstract “father” or “universe force”, but most early “gods” were spirits or ancestors, (and still are in the surviving primitive cultures) rarely did they have the usual modern attributes of omnipotence, omniscience etc. The bible god certainly is no different to a thousand others, nor more evolved than the earliest deities. The abstract version is definitely a product of Greek thought, not a “god gene” which I think is barking up the completely wrong tree. If such a thing is more than just basic anthropomorphication, and inherent primal yearning, explain secular countries? I say demographics, not DNA, or naurology.
| Quote: |
| It seems as if each "belief" retains its "heavenly" belief in a way or another. So inorder to know what religion or 'idealism' is all about, you have to trace to where that word GOD or deity leads to. |
I think there is a primitive yearning being idealism, but most of its formulas and details are from the philosophical school. Yes the term ideal or idealism could be used to denote a more general mentality, but when I use the term, and in this context in particular it is the Greek school I’m referring to. I’m a pragmatic philosopher, not a positivist, and rarely indulge in the wider speculations, as you do.
| Quote: |
| Think of it this way, you hear the word GOD for the first time. |
It is just a word, what it denotes depends on the listener. I’ve dealt with the various uses of it here. I doubt you can honestly use it to denote a primal concept, there are gods, spirits, etc, “God” is the singular for the judeo-xtian verision, sometimes more abstract, but i see no mystery or questions to be answered here.
| Quote: |
| I found this article called "the truth", the section titled "Truth in Greek Speculation" relates on how the hellinistec thoughs regarding the Logos and the Arche were incorporated into the Christian theology about jesus. |
I’ve been working this angle a great deal, and I agree with the part dealing with this subject, the rest of the article is excellent as well. I could never fathom were all the xtian theology regarding Christ’s death and resurrection came from, (it’s even largely absent from the gospels) as the Jewish messiah concept was totally different, and the NT is so entirely derivative that it could not have been originally the result of early xtian thought, so I was gland to find the source eventually. It is good to find others agree with the close ties between xtianity and platonic thought. And the article provokes another interesting point, in its description of sophistry, using language to tyrannically impose a “truth” into reality. This is the method of the xtian apologist, and I find it ironic given Plato’s opposition to the Sophics that their techniques are being used to defend his metaphysics.
| Quote: |
| There's one problem with the old testament, |
Just one?
| Quote: |
| but let me ask you first this question. How do you read the bible? Do you read it as an ancient document that reflects the atmosphere in which it was written? |
Yes.
| Quote: |
| or do you read it like most christians, jews, and muslims read it a "divine" revelation |
Are you kidding? It clearly being the first type of book disproves the second claim.
| Quote: |
| If you read it as a "relic" or a historical document, you will notice that it is an epic written in the form of a "binding myth" so as to reflect the political atmosphere in which the ancient Hebrew nation lived. Therefore, the GOD character is written in a "convenient" way so as to affirm or deny the 'divinity' or reenforce their "unity" in face of constant dangers. |
Of course. And used to justify land grant claims, lend authority to certain institutions, and laws. The godless bits are things like ethnocentric myths, (Eseu and Jacob), moral tales, and apolagetic spin, (Job).
| Quote: |
| But if you read it as "how the divine turned against his people because they stopped worshipping him" then you'll be faced by what is more serious than the barbarity of the yahweh. You'll be reading in that "simplistic" way about GOD, people turned against him, and then he turned against them and "hid his face" and ...etc stuff like that. And it will be like a bad story, that needs a good end..represented in jesus |
An ending that contradicts all the theology that preceded it.
| Quote: |
| By the way, many people, especially the gnostic christians who lived during the early centuries of christianity in Syria, and Egypt, suffered schizophrenia because of this same reason. To the point where they declared the deity of the OT to be a very bad deity and that of the NT is a good one. |
Also the Marcions held this view, which is far more morally and theologically consistent, given Jesus’ failure to fulfil the messianic criteria. One minute god is genociding everyone, the next he’s dying for us, if the god had been Aristotle’s maybe this would work, (though you’d still have a deity requiring the sacrifice) but the typical Jesus obsessed xtians cannot deal wiht the OT god, and we atheists find it funny when they try to.
| Quote: |
| But as a surprising turn of events they thought of jesus, as a hebrew prophet, not the son of god, because they know that would not fit the profile of yahweh, no matter how he looked. |
Some did consider him the son of god, just not the OT god, who they made him a corrupter god, same as in Zoroastrian mythology.
| Quote: |
| Even they wrote some bibles, |
They were actually the first to do so, the NT gospels we have are in response to them. John was even one of there’s re-adapted.
| Quote: |
| If you need a good book on the "historicity" vs. "mythology" of jesus read Thomas L. Thompson's book, "The Messiah Myth: The Near-Eastern Roots of Jesus and David. |
I’ve got at least 20 books to go through, hopefully I’ll get a load at Xmas, ironically.
| Quote: |
| Actually Idealism is not a curse more than its a reflection of the human weakness and inability to comprehend its existence. |
Why not both? I mean the specific philosophy that inspired xtinity and stunted moral and scientific growth for a millennium that constitutes a curse in my opinion. We will always have idealism in a general sense, its definitely part of the human condition, but the platonic metaphysic is dead, and we are better of for it.
| Quote: |
| I think of it as an "escape route" from a harsh reality, and above all harsh nature. |
We nonetheless need top stay in the real world when fashioning ethics, societies, paradigms, or we will end up hurting people. Escapism is for the cinema, but we need to leave when the films over. I must not be used as the basis for a permanent world-view.
| Quote: |
| Many think if religions are gone all of sudden the world will collapse, maybe some will, yet the most, will survive, humanity has survived worse. |
Like religion.
Anyway it is the illusion that the world cannot live without religion that keeps it going, the UK is proof this is not the case.
Chaoslord2004
Science only studies the material universe. Everything science studies is ether the study of matter and energy, or the forces that effect matter and energy.
Name one immaterial thing science studies?
(It then digenerates into a slagging match like the first thread, materialists losing patients with dualists who resort to sophistry).
ME
Could you please try not to turn this thread into a slagging match like the last one? That’s why I created this new thread, there are specific aspects of the issue I wish to discuss and outline. Dualism has already been dealt with enough on the last one, and I'm not answering the same copy and pasted questions that are simply irrelevant.
I’m after constructive debate, and see no reason to defend my position, anymore than I have to defend my atheism, it is the one making the claim that has to substantiate. Materialism like atheism simply rests on the ground floor of reality, any more floors need planning permission, I do not give it. Clog this up and I’ll privately invite the more mature posters to another forum to continue there.
I will however do 1 post..
| Quote: |
Chaoslord2004
Science only studies the material universe. Everything science studies is ether the study of matter and energy, or the forces that effect matter and energy.
Name one immaterial thing science studies? |
Exactly, doesn’t that suggest there’s nothing to study? Surely science could expand it’s mandate and study immateriality, if there was any such thing? There is a reason science is materialistic, you assume it is due to a dogmatic attitude, or limitation in it’s abilities, I’d say its due to experience, and continual vindication of the method. Philosophical speculation, with no grounding in anything else is precisely the kind of nonsense I try to avoid, and has dogged philosophy since day one. Science is our greatest triumph, dualism is one of the millstones we need to loose if we’re to take our true place in the world, as guardians of thought and ethics.
I’m prepared to listen to any good Dualistic argument, ones like this I will from now on ignore. Science studies phenomena, and assumes there is a material cause for them, and when it looks for one it finds one. If it didn’t and was unable to explain anything materially, then dualism would have a victory, tentatively. This never happens. If Dualism was right, there would be things dualistic theories could explain, that material ones couldn’t, yet all duality has is hypothesis that are used plug gaps in our scientific knowledge, assuming as theists do that they cannot be filled my a purely material explanation, but they always are eventually. Maybe some current gaps will never be filled, but I’d not bet on it, given the track record so far. And even if they aren't, that does not make Duality's theories correct, that is the same false dichotomy employed by creationists. How often has reality turned out to be beyond our imagination? Sometimes no side is right. It's not impossible that you may be right in that situation, but you put to much weight merely on the fact that you have a theory, like a thiest who thinks that simply having an explanation, (even if it's abserd, "god did it" etc) is better somehow to not having one, even if admitting that is by far more honest. (And the path to knowlage).
Duality, like theism regularly concedes little defeats, but ignores them afterwards, so as to continue the war. Since Galileo it has been one retreat after another, now you give us the mind, what is left? I’m sure Duality is alive and well in philosophical circles, but that is always the last place any idea dies, and I will ignore it till it has anything worth my notice. This is just my personal position, continue to argue the toss with others who care. I am a pragmatist, and proud of it, if it does not directly benefit humanity it is no philosophy.
(So much for that thread)
|\ HOMEPAGE /|