Materialism

At any rate, idealism in philosophy, is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial.

Everything in this sense is an idea.

 

yeah materialism is based on evidence while idealism is based on faith ,

can you think of something that is wrong with materialism in regards with maybe religion, politics or lifestyle?

 

As I defined idealism above, it is not based on faith but a practical assessment of our relational circumstance with reality.

Bottom line animus, (mind), animates animal.

The most glaring example of the fallacy of materialism when assessing humanity, personally as well as publicly,
is using a persons physical appearance as the metric on which we should base our assessments. Perhaps their weight, height, or complexion?

 

For me there's nothing wrong with materialism, it is how people interpret it and how they respond to it with their actions that makes it either right or wrong

 

How people interpret it predicts how they respond.

A has been stated, everything is an idea, even your decision on materialism.

Their is no right and wrong in material so in what sense are you materialistic or believe in materialism?

 

Ahh it's driving me nuts XD,
In the sense that I believe that there is no heaven or hell, soul etc.
And they say and you also said it that materialism has no right and wrong.
Meaning it's like it's ok in materialism to steal, rob, and other bad stuff :O ,

 

It is wrong when it takes precedence over relationships.

It is right when it is a genuine interest, and not just a trophy.

 

Why would I pick one side??

 

Hmm. And yet the psychotic experiences his delusion, as does the dreamer. Both cases presuppose knowledge.

 

I don't know what you mean that both cases presuppose knowledge.

 

Mind bending considerations.

I mean material cannot be right or wrong, it is interpretation of fact that makes it right or wrong.

Materialistic motives can make it okay to steal and rob and other bad stuff and it is idealistic considerations that set the parameters of right and wrong.

Not to drive you nuts.

 

Let's say a psychotic person imagines he sees a green alien in front of him. For this experience he needs to know what an alien is, what it looks like in his estimation and probably some fear of aliens to bring it about in the first place. He has obtained all of this from outside of him by reading or talking to others so it's shared knowledge, but it isn't justifiable nor true. Yet his experience is no different from ours.

 

That is why I say perception of itself, is not knowledge.

 

I would point out to r4n8e that in a purely material sense, heaven, hell, and soul all exist. They exist as word symbols denoting experiential conjugation, otherwise I would have no idea what he is talking about.

 

How would you explain the illusions of the psychotic person?

 

As a shadow of the creative aspect of mind.

The abstract nature of our conceptions allows us to speculate to the point of causing new manifestations to arise. It is our gift of adaptability. However there are rules like hot flows toward cold. So, while we may imagine impossible things, impossible things remain impossible

 

Thanks for the insights guys ^___^

 

I think I can weigh in on this question to some degree. I will tell you what I think are the benefits of "materialism," and what I consider to be its drawbacks.

To begin with the positive, materialism attempts to be honest with itself, to abide by the scientific method, and not posit metaphysical causes and effects. It is an attempt to explain things based on the smallest number of principles necessary (the principle of parsimony or "Occam's Razor"), which must be the essence of any honest method. One does not assume metaphysical causes where physical causes provide the same explanatory power. As an example: what would you say about a person who reads Mein Kampf and, having discovered a statement that seems to contradict Hitler's major positions, attempts to explain it by assuming that there is an "anti-Nazi" thread running through his work? If we are dealing with just one statement, or even several, you would probably say that he's jumping to an extreme conclusion: there is probably a way of explaining these statements while still assuming that Hitler is a Nazi. The essence of the matter is that one avoids multiplying contradictions: one puts in the extra work to explain things on the basis of principles which are already necessary and in use. It is only if these principles fail utterly -- have no explanatory power in this situation -- that one must consider adopting more. In this sense materialism is methodical, which is to say (relatively) honest, and this can only be a good thing. In our times one does not merely err in assuming extraneous causes, one lies: one reinterprets experience and thinks selectively in order to bring it off.

The drawback, to make a controversial argument, (and what a drawback it is!), is that materialism is another form of idealism. I don't expect most of you to understand this or agree with me, but it most certainly is. The essence of the matter is that "materialists" mistake the origin and nature of physical models of the universe. It has not been realized that physics is simply an interpretation and exegesis of reality, and certainly not reality itself. A "particle," for instance, is a theoretical construct, a model for understanding, for making things thinkable to human beings. It is the greatest of errors -- perhaps a modern form of comfort as well -- to suppose that the images in physics textbooks are images of "reality." On the contrary, they are simply theoretical models. I am furthest from denying the value and explanatory power of these models, as I explained above: if one wishes to get to the moon, one does best to think in terms of physical models. Philosophically, however, it must be remembered that they are models. Reality is not "summed up" by modelling the quark, just as it was not summed up by Aristotle's physics. There is always an instinct to go "deeper," "smaller," to break reality down to its constituent elements and call this real. In the end, we are doing nothing but asserting the reality of a theoretical model, a system of ideas. Why should this not be called idealism?

 

The problem is, I don't see much creativity there. Anything I imagine or thing up seems to come from a background of the knowledge I already have or a transformation of it. My imagination is different now from when I was 12 years old. This would be more in accordance with materialism - what comes out must have entered first. If I could simply create new manifestations my imagination would be much wilder than it is.

 

I think thedope was pointing out the creative aspect in this assimilation and transformation of experience: we rearrange our experiences into imaginary constructs that suit us. Some go further than others. Insane people -- schizophrenics for instance -- do not usually experience entirely new and abstract things. For instance, religious hallucinations are extremely predominant, and they always come from the person's religious background. Christian schizophrenics rarely have Hindu hallucinations; when they do, it would almost certainly come from some exposure to the Hindu traditions which had been very moving for them in one way or another. Christians have Christian hallucinations, Hindus have Hindu hallucinations. Do you see what I mean?