Materialism

So guys philosophically speaking, about materialism, your opinion:

a. What is wrong with it?

b. What is right with it?

 

a. There's not really any materialism in philosophy.

b. Perhaps you could give your idea on what's right with it?

 

I think there's nothing wrong with it until it gets excessive and/or taken for granted.

 

Specifically what kinds of things are wrong with it when it's taken for granted?

 

I'm no expert in those kinds of stuff, but really Materialism is related to philosophy -__-
In philosophy, materialism is kind of a belief in which matter is all that exists in this world. (no spirits, god etc.) just pure matter.

 

"just pure matter."


But on a subatomic level, matter is mostly space... What fills the space?

 

What fills the space,actually I don't know, energy? or pehaps nothing?

I prefer we should focus on pros and cons of materialism

 

I don't think anything can be wrong with your definition of materialism, just with people's perceived thoughts on it.

 

When you put it that way it sounds spiritual. Why a belief? Science tells us matter exists, the question is whether something else exists in addition to it. If the answer is 'no' or the question is rejected due to lack of evidence of anything metaphysical, no belief is required.

 

I have to admit I did not ment materialism as a philosophy but as the striving for and focus on material stuff. Of which it is pretty plain to see what it can do wrong when taken for granted or done in excess I guess. But my bad, didn't even thought of it as a philosophy.

 

Everbody wants the CREAM in the fast lane..
Drownin in they dreams in they champagine
Dont go sellin your soul just to have fame...
Cuz in the end it don't mean a damn thang

 

Plato defined knowledge as justified true belief.

There is a definition of metaphysical meaning of essential nature, meaning beyond the transience of form. There is the non-specific equivalent of matter called energy.

 

To regard material as source is not wrong but it is a misapprehension. Matter is the transient result of energetic processes.

To describe a human being for example, as a state of matter, does not take into account his abstract qualities.

 

Plato's a bit out of date. You can have knowledge of a disproven theory, false facts. Psychotic people can have knowledge of things that don't exist. You can't say they don't have such knowledge just because it's not justified. It's true enough for them.

 

Plato may be out of date but I am on time and my statement is knowledge is, being shared. It is not knowledge if it cannot be shared. A psychotic's delusion is not shared or consequently justified.

 

So guys what do you think is better to cling on Materialism or Idealism?
For me I choose Materialism simply because the explanation of the overall existence is based on facts and evidences

 

If you cling, it escapes you.

 

I dont get it XD sorry

 

Why would you cling to something unless it were not staying still?

 

ah scratch that cling word XD, I'll just rather ask which side would you be? Materialism or Idealism (philosophically) and why?