Materialism

[Drace]

What is materialism? And how is it connected to a political system?

[LostFilmmaker13]

materialism is preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values.

imo, materialism and capitalism goes hand in hand

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LF13 is of course explaining the everyday meaning of this word, not the philosophical meaning, nor how Marxists understand it.

Philosophically, these days materialism is more or less synonymous with naturalism and physicalism: that is, that the world can be explained by purely natural and physical processes, there being no need to appeal to anything 'spiritual' to account for reality. Materialism just adds the extra gloss that all these processes are material in some way (that is, they are made out of the sort of stuff you see around you, plus the material objects physicists tell us exist).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

For Marxists, the term means much more. Traditionally it agrees with the above, but adds a historical and developmental dimension. For most Marxists, matter preceeds mind, and it does so in several ways. Mind evolved out of matter, and mind is dependent on matter in complex ways, both currently and historically.

This introduces two new features of Marxist Materialism: Historical and Dialectical Materialism. Now, these were discuseed recently in a thread in Learning (to which I refer you):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-someone-explain-t89450/index.html

[trivas7]

Philosophically materialism is the doctrine that the world exists independently of minds. I.e., matter is the object of subjective knowledge.

All political systems are based on a worldview and man's place in it. Materialism arose out of a critical view of religious ideology.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas, what the dickens is 'subjective knowledge'?

[#FF0000]

Trivas, what the dickens is 'subjective knowledge'?

Perception.

Trivas is saying that matter is what we base our perceptions on.

[Vendetta]

Trivas, what the dickens is 'subjective knowledge'?

Objective: 100 men were killed.
Subjective: 100 counterrevolutionaries/freedom fighters were killed. (choose whichever one best fits how you perceive, as Rorschach said, the situation).

At least, that's what I think he's getting at.

[trivas7]

Trivas, what the dickens is 'subjective knowledge'?
Um, the knowledge possessed by the knowing subject. As opposed to objects which are known.

[Fuser]

What is "reality"?
What is "material/matter"?
What does "material reality" mean?
Are the terms "material" and "mental" mutually exclusive?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Um, the knowledge possessed by the knowing subject. As opposed to objects which are known.

1) Why call it 'subjective' then? If it's knowledge, then it isn't subjective. If it is subjective, it can't be knowledge (just opinion, or belief).

2) Objects cannot be 'known' -- unless you think they are like friends and acquaintances. No one knows things like rocks, tea cups or planets. When was the last time you listed among your friends and acquaintances things like tea bags, garden gnomes or post boxes?

[Silly questions to ask of a dialectician, I admit....:lol:]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fuser:


What is "reality"?
What is "material/matter"?
What does "material reality" mean?
Are the terms "material" and "mental" mutually exclusive?

When I use the word "reality" I use it as shorthand for the natural world.

Rather than ask 'What is "material/matter"?' it is better to ask for examples of material objects, I think, since we have so many different ways of describing the constitutiion of things.

Again, speaking for myself, "material reality" is just an emphatic use of the word "reality", in order to emphasise the fact that all that exists is material.


Are the terms "material" and "mental" mutually exclusive?

Depends who you are talking to. Again, speaking personally, I do not like to use the word 'mental' (except when talking about psychological disorders, or mental arithmetic, and such like), since it is a throw-back to mytical ideas about the 'soul'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rorschach and RSOA, thanks for that, but I am well aware what people seem to think they mean by the use of 'subjective'.

My question to Trivas was in fact aimed at putting him on the spot, since he has a habit of coming out with such gnomic pronouncements which he plainly hasn't thought much about.

[Fuser]

all that exists is material.

In other words, it means that all the objects of the natural world are composed of matter ... right? That is why I was asking, "What is matter?" And what does it mean for something that exists to be "material"?

[trivas7]

Trivas:



1) Why call it 'subjective' then? If it's knowledge, then it isn't subjective. If it is subjective, it can't be knowledge (just opinion, or belief).
All knowledge is subjective. It resides in the subject.


2) Objects cannot be 'known' -- unless you think they are like friends and acquaintances. No one knows things like rocks, tea cups or planets. When was the last time you listed among your friends and acquaintances things like tea bags, garden gnomes or post boxes?

Of course objects can be known. Matter is the object of knowledge. I, for one, acknowlege my teabag cozy a friend.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


All knowledge is subjective

How do you know this? Or is it another of those things you say, which you cannot defend?


It resides in the subject.

1) How do you know where 'it' resides?

2) Even if you were right, that would no more imply knowledge was 'subjective' than it would imply that people are houses if they reside in them.


Of course objects can be known.

You are just repeating yourself. You need to address my argument (for a change!).

Do you for instance know things like tables and chairs? Which objects do you know? [Silly question, as we will soon see.]


Matter is the object of knowledge

This no more implies that we know objects than it implies we know exercise if the object of a walk is exercise, or than it implies we know Mars if the object of a space expediction is Mars.


I, for one, acknowlege my teabag cozy a friend

This is in fact prima facie evidence that you are barking mad.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fuser:


"What is matter?" And what does it mean for something that exists to be "material"?

If you are asking a scientific question, you had better ask a scientist. If, however, you are asking a question about ordinary understanding, then, as I intimated, it is better to ask about particular examples of material objects, for we have countless ways of depicting the constution of the world around us.

So, for example, if you want to know what it means for something to be "material" in an ordinary sense, it means that it is a fabric, ingredient or factor of some sort.

If you want to know what it means to be a particular sort of substance, then you will have to be more specific.

In the meantime, here is an illuminating article on the subject:

http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/docs/Substance.pdf

[Fuser]

Although I haven't read it completely but the article appears to be really interesting, Rosa. It has captured my attention and I'm going to read it carefully.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ok, but recall, this author is developing a modern-day Aristotelian account (not one with which I necessarily agree), which contains a few technical terms, like 'count noun' and 'mass noun'. You can find what most of these mean over at Wikipedia, in this case here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_noun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun

If there are any others you do not understand, or which you can't find help with on-line, just let me know.

[Hit The North]

All knowledge is subjective. It resides in the subject.



Actually knowledge is shared between individuals and is therefore inter-subjective. In fact, knowledge is social.

[trivas7]

Actually knowledge is shared between individuals and is therefore inter-subjective. In fact, knowledge is social.
How so? IMO information, the physical representation of knowledge is social, but knowlege, the state of knowing, is limited to the individual, no? Human beings are not the Borg.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas, as I thought, you have no reply to my post.

No surprise there then.

BTB is far closer to the truth here.

Trivas is confusing 'the state of knowledge' (whatever that is!) with knowledge, which is about as clever as confusing vision with whatever is seen.

[trivas7]

Trivas is confusing 'the state of knowledge' (whatever that is!) with knowledge, which is about as clever as confusing vision with whatever is seen.
Nope. You don't even quote me correctly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


You don't even quote me correctly.

Apologies, so here is the correct quotation:


but knowlege, the state of knowing, is limited to the individual, no?

In which case, my point becomes:

Trivas is confusing 'the state of knowing' (whatever that is!) with knowledge, which is about as clever as confusing vision (or the 'state of seeing') with whatever is seen.

I have no doubt that you will ignore this too.:rolleyes:

[trivas7]

Trivas is confusing 'the state of knowing' (whatever that is!) with knowledge, which is about as clever as confusing vision (or the 'state of seeing') with whatever is seen.

Distinguish the state or act of knowing from knowledge.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Distinguish the state or act of knowing from knowledge.

Since I do not know what "the state or act of knowing" is, I can't really help rescuse you from your state of confusion, sorry.

Perhaps if you told us what these obscure phrases you like to invent mean, one of us humans might be able to assist you.

But, you are good at asking questions (albeit meaningless ones); how about answering a few of mine?

[trivas7]

Since I do not know what "the state or act of knowing" is, I can't really help rescuse you from your state of confusion, sorry.

Then your comment that I am "confusing 'the state of knowing' (whatever that is!) with knowledge" has no justification. There is no metaphysical difference between the state of knowing and knowledge AFAIK.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Then your comment that I am "confusing 'the state of knowing' (whatever that is!) with knowledge" has no justification. There is no metaphysical difference between the state of knowing and knowledge AFAIK.

Not so. It is quite acceptable to point out that someone has confused a figment of their own imagination with something that is quite straight-forward, as you have plainly done here.

I note you cannot actually tell us what you mean by this odd idea you simply invented.

Once more: no change there!:lol:

[trivas7]

Not so. It is quite acceptable to point out that someone has confused a figment of their own imagination with something that is quite straight-forward, as you have plainly done here.

You cannot distinguish the state of knowing from knowledge itself, I see. Then it is you who confuses knowledge with a figment of someone's imagination.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


You cannot distinguish the state of knowing from knowledge itself, I see. Then it is you who confuses knowledge with a figment of someone's imagination.

Are you mad!? It's your invention. So, unless and until you tell us what you mean, not even you can tell these two apart.

You might as well have asked us to distinguish the adhedral triangle from an isosceles triangle.