idealism or materialism?

[Red Scare]

I am curious about whether people are idealists or materialists, I think there will be more materialists, but I am not sure.

You could make the argument that materialism can easily be centered around capitalism, because of the essence of material and that can be associated with the greed and hoarding of material things (money) You can also say materialism is for the left because of the left's usual stand against religion or spiritualism. You could make the argument for idealism and say that idealism believes that human beings can exist peacefully and share in a communist way. I am no expert on either subject, so please correct me if I am wrong. :)

[JazzRemington]

Materialism is at least observable. What the Idealists say MAY be true, but it's not observable so one cannot be completely certain it happens.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Scare, I think you are confusing two senses of the word 'materialism'.

1) The desire for material possessions as an end in itself.

2) The philosophical doctrine that the material world predates and preceeds the ideal/'mental' realm.

There is a third sense of this word, which I prefer; but I will go into that another time.

Most comrades here are meterialists in the second sense, I reckon.

[McCaine]

Materialist, but I don't think it's been a meaningful distinction in philosophy for over a hundred years.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

McCaine, are you kidding?

Not only have we seen of late the Australian materialists (central state and central process), we have a host of US materialists to contend with.

[Red Scare]

yeah, but locke was a materialist (philosophical) and he was a capitalist, I also understand that marx was a historical materialist which is not the same thing as a philosophical one

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, Locke was far too confused for anyone to able to say what he was.

[McCaine]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 11:25 am
McCaine, are you kidding?

Not only have we seen of late the Australian materialists (central state and central process), we have a host of US materialists to contend with.
Like who? Well let me rephrase perhaps: I don't think arguing over materialism vs idealism is very meaningful in most cases. I endorse historical materialism in the sense that I agree that people must eat before they are philosophers, and that therefore the one has analytical and practical priority over the other. That's about it though.

I very much agree with Rorty that philosophy is cultural politics, and I think we should recognize it as such.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

McCaine:


Like who?

JJC Smart, DM Armstrong, Ullin Place (one of my teachers, by the way).

In the US, the Churchlands, Daniel Dennett, to name but three.

More of the same, here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Contemporary-Mater...811746&sr=1-280 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Contemporary-Materialism-Paul-K-Moser/dp/0415108632/ref=sr_1_280/202-1650452-8413456?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190811746&sr=1-280)

Synopsis of this book (published in 1995):


Contemporary Materialism brings together the best recent work on materialism from many of our leading contemporary philosophers. This is the first comprehensive reader on the subject. The majority of philosophers and scientists today hold the view that all phenomena are physical, as a result materialism or 'physicalism' is now the dominant ontology in a wide range of fields. Surprisingly no single book, until now, has collected the key investigations into materialism, to reflect the impact it has had on current thinking in metaphysics, philosophy of mind and the theory of value. The classic papers in this collection chart contemporary problems, positions and themes in materialism. At the invitation of the editors, many of the papers have been specially up-dated for this collection: follow-on pieces written by the contributors enable them to appraise the original paper and assess developments since the work was first published. The book's selections are largely non-technical and accessible to advanced undergraduates. The editors have provided a useful general introduction, outlining and contextualising this central system of thought, as well as a topical bibliography. Contemporary Materialism will be vital reading for anyone concerned to discover the ideas underlying contemporary philosophy. David Armstrong, University of Sydney; Jerry Fodor, Rutgers University, New Jersey; Tim Crane, University College, London; D. H. Mellor, Univeristy of Cambridge; J.J.C. Smart...

And Rorty, for all his strengths, sold-out on his Wittgensteinian heritage.

[McCaine]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 01:05 pm
McCaine:


Like who?

JJC Smart, DM Armstrong, Ullin Place (one of my teachers, by the way).

In the US, the Churchlands, Daniel Dennett, to name but three.

More of the same, here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Contemporary-Mater...811746&sr=1-280 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Contemporary-Materialism-Paul-K-Moser/dp/0415108632/ref=sr_1_280/202-1650452-8413456?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190811746&sr=1-280)

Synopsis of this book (published in 1995):


Contemporary Materialism brings together the best recent work on materialism from many of our leading contemporary philosophers. This is the first comprehensive reader on the subject. The majority of philosophers and scientists today hold the view that all phenomena are physical, as a result materialism or 'physicalism' is now the dominant ontology in a wide range of fields. Surprisingly no single book, until now, has collected the key investigations into materialism, to reflect the impact it has had on current thinking in metaphysics, philosophy of mind and the theory of value. The classic papers in this collection chart contemporary problems, positions and themes in materialism. At the invitation of the editors, many of the papers have been specially up-dated for this collection: follow-on pieces written by the contributors enable them to appraise the original paper and assess developments since the work was first published. The book's selections are largely non-technical and accessible to advanced undergraduates. The editors have provided a useful general introduction, outlining and contextualising this central system of thought, as well as a topical bibliography. Contemporary Materialism will be vital reading for anyone concerned to discover the ideas underlying contemporary philosophy. David Armstrong, University of Sydney; Jerry Fodor, Rutgers University, New Jersey; Tim Crane, University College, London; D. H. Mellor, Univeristy of Cambridge; J.J.C. Smart...

And Rorty, for all his strengths, sold-out on his Wittgensteinian heritage.
Oh you mean Smart and Dennett and the like. Well I cordially dislike philosophy of mind and I refuse to see any point in any of it. To my mind it's precisely the product of degenerate philosophy produced by the "analytic" tradition: a lot of useless scholasticism and arguing about terms. I've gotten good grades in my phil of mind and phil of language classes, but as far as I'm concerned, never again.


And Rorty, for all his strengths, sold-out on his Wittgensteinian heritage. That depends which Wittgenstein you mean. The early Wittgenstein, yes. But I think that's justified. The late Wittgenstein, no.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

McCaine:


Oh you mean Smart and Dennett and the like. Well I cordially dislike philosophy of mind and I refuse to see any point in any of it. To my mind it's precisely the product of degenerate philosophy produced by the "analytic" tradition: a lot of useless scholasticism and arguing about terms. I've gotten good grades in my phil of mind and phil of language classes, but as far as I'm concerned, never again.

Well, they are materialists in general, not just about the 'mind-body' problem.


That depends which Wittgenstein you mean. The early Wittgenstein, yes. But I think that's justified. The late Wittgenstein, no.

Both, in fact.

[awayish]

taking 'material' and 'ideal' at face value, although intelligible, is not conducive to analysis. the more interesting question is, what are the significant characteristics these concepts, and how this affects analysis done in them. in other words, materialism etc are like chromes, while the substantive claims do not rest on the words taken at face value.

talking about materialism and idealism in social theory, the relevant aspect is causal analysis and prediction etc. most of the time, statements are neither ideal nor material, and i dont think it is productive to bash these frameworks, as long as they work.

mind physicalism is not hard to accept if one takes empirical description and idealistic description as incommensurable, although the former is of interest to research.

is materialism correct, absolutely. it is the way to go, because it pays attention to logic. however the role of idealism is not 'nonsense,' just 'unproductive.'

[Red Rebel]

Materialist. The mental realm is subject to the material realm.

[La Comédie Noire]

Well, Locke was far too confused for anyone to able to say what he was.

I think what he observed came into conflict with his class status. I don't think he ever sorted out his own internal struggle.

I'm Materialist. :)

[awayish]

what is the logic of class status?

[La Comédie Noire]

Well he was Burgeoise. He recognized private property was the root of human oppression yet at the sametime he was expounding the values of natural human rights to private property.
what he observed came into conflict with what he was told.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by Comrade Floyd+September 28, 2007 02:28 pm--> (Comrade Floyd @ September 28, 2007 02:28 pm)Well he was Burgeoise. He recognized private property was the root of human oppression yet at the sametime he was expounding the values of natural human rights to private property.
what he observed came into conflict with what he was told.[/b]
I'm not sure about that. Locke expressed the idea that what one could expend his labor on, was legitimate property.


John [email protected] Second Treatise of Civil Government, chapter 5
Whatsoever then he removes from out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.
[...]
As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property.

[awayish]

That's a good point. I do think he was way too focused on 'property' and treated the whole thing as natural, but then again, this is common to all classes.