An argument against materialism

[phil_at_dayboro]

Does it all really matter ?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Does it all really matter ?

No, these arguments are so dumb. People who have nothing to do but argue about things that don’t matter at all. Get a real job, people!

 

[STT]

Does it all really matter ?

Yes, it matters. We are human being and what we accept as truth should be based on reason.

 

[pulsence]

You need to prove that intellect is spiritual. There might be a creature in another part of the universe who is cognitively open to the concept of intellect. The universe is infinite (I have an argument for that).

Two things. First, I do need to prove that the intellect is spiritual. However, that is beyond my ability currently (my class notes are packed away) and not suited for such a medium. Unfortunately my textbook that I used for my class which touched on this subject was written by the professor, so I’m not presently aware of another resource to give to you read. I am sure though that Aquinas and Aristotle have shown this. Second, just because such a creature is possible does mean that such a creature exists. Until you could prove that such a creature does exist it doesn’t matter in argumentation.

I think the only transcendental thing is free will if there is any.

See you are using transcendental at best analogically to how I am. You’re more in a Kantian understanding while I am understanding it Aristotelian. So such discussion of transcendent will be labored and tortured until we can square away what we mean.

There are specific areas in the brain that is responsible for reasoning. There is even a place for self.

This isn’t by itself an issue though. Aquinas understood the fact that we reason to truths (as opposed to just knowing them) as a direct result of us being corporeal beings. That the intellect and organic faculties are linked doesn’t necessarily show that the intellect is organic. This though requires a deeper discussion on the intellect, which I’m not going to be able to do satisfactorily.

We don’t know whether matter has structure or not. The last attempt, string theory and its family, failed to reproduce proper set of particles. So we simply don’t know yet.

This misses the point of what I was getting at. Another way a putting my statement is: what makes the rules of the universe the rules of the universe? And if it is just the universe, then can we really say that anything is different from another thing in the universe or is difference just an illusion?

Does it all really matter ?

No, these arguments are so dumb. People who have nothing to do but argue about things that don’t matter at all. Get a real job, people!

We are in the philosophy sub forum discussing a philosophical topic, why do you both care so strongly that we are talking about this?

Second, this topic underlies our current society and results in, among other things, the madness that the gender issues are currently. If you are actually interested in understanding why material vs immaterial is an important discussion you can private message me so this thread doesn’t get off topic.

Third, even if it is dumb, who cares. We all spend plenty of time doing things that are silly from other peoples perspectives.

Fourth, why the ad hominem “Get a real job”. Should St. Thomas Aquinas have gotten a real job instead of working on his theology and philosophy? Plus if you look, this discussion has been going on over a few days now. It’s not as if we are sitting at our computers all day long.

 

[STT]

No, these arguments are so dumb. People who have nothing to do but argue about things that don’t matter at all. Get a real job, people!

What are you doing in philosophy forum if all these arguments are dumb and they don’t really matter?

 

[STT]

Two things. First, I do need to prove that the intellect is spiritual. However, that is beyond my ability currently (my class notes are packed away) and not suited for such a medium. Unfortunately my textbook that I used for my class which touched on this subject was written by the professor, so I’m not presently aware of another resource to give to you read. I am sure though that Aquinas and Aristotle have shown this. Second, just because such a creature is possible does mean that such a creature exists. Until you could prove that such a creature does exist it doesn’t matter in argumentation.

Well, I am aware that Aquinas believed that intellect is spiritual but I have never had enough time to get through his proof.

See you are using transcendental at best analogically to how I am. You’re more in a Kantian understanding while I am understanding it Aristotelian. So such discussion of transcendent will be labored and tortured until we can square away what we mean.

I see. I believe in spiritual worlds and I think we or those who who live there are cognitively open to their world to some extend or completely.

This isn’t by itself an issue though. Aquinas understood the fact that we reason to truths (as opposed to just knowing them) as a direct result of us being corporeal beings. That the intellect and organic faculties are linked doesn’t necessarily show that the intellect is organic. This though requires a deeper discussion on the intellect, which I’m not going to be able to do satisfactorily.

Ok.

This misses the point of what I was getting at. Another way a putting my statement is: what makes the rules of the universe the rules of the universe?

This is important question. The universe might intrinsically follows laws of nature or there could be a being who hold things accordingly. I however don’t understand how this is related to my comment.

And if it is just the universe, then can we really say that anything is different from another thing in the universe or is difference just an illusion?

I don’t understand your question and how it is related to my comment.

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

I started following this thread because it interests me ,
Many things interest me,
At the end of the day our opinions amount nought as if we were never even here,

 

[pulsence]

This is important question. The universe might intrinsically follows laws of nature or there could be a being who hold things accordingly. I however don’t understand how this is related to my comment.

I don’t understand your question and how it is related to my comment.

It might be helpful to restate where you are at.

My question is this, and is just a modern recasting of the atomist of antiquity, if everything can be explained by matter (that is by the stuff of the universe) by what principle is anything different or becomes something new?

For a time we thought all the stuff of the universe was made of atoms, then we split the atom and found that all atoms were made of electrons, neutrons, and protons. All atoms then aren’t really different, they just have different amounts of those three components. Then we split those components and found they are really just made of more fundamental particles. These particles though are merely energy in particular forms (to greatly over simplify). So seemingly everything boils down to energy. But if that is the case, then is there anything really different? If you are a pile of energy and I am a pile of energy and the network between you and I is a pile of energy then what makes any of the different from each other?

Even further, from our understanding of space, there is no such thing as a true void. There is always energy present in some form everywhere. So seemingly there is only really a single entity in the whole universe which I’ll just call the universe. The universe then is a single being, and not composed of separate beings. We are merely the sentient part of the universe if you will. This train of thought for the classics bloomed in the neo-platonist, principally in Plotinus. Then this thought once more appears in Spinoza by misunderstanding how Being itself causes being in others.

This comes around to what I believe has to do with your comment. Energy itself is material (philosophically speaking). So if we only allow for material causes, then there is no true difference. We only falsely perceive difference. In order to account for difference (and becoming) we need another principle that is not material (or could be said, immaterial). Aristotle’s has two works dealing just with this, the Physics and then Metaphysics.