Is philosophy necessary or useful for materialists?

[John_Savage]

Here’s what I was thinking:

There’s only the physical things, right? Physical stuff came about through some physical process that started in some unknown (and inconceivable, to me) but physical way. So, philosophy is useless there. Just discovery matters.

All human behavior is caused by some combination of nature and nurture. All genetic coding is because it helped us react to some physical threat. We like music because it produces a pleasant cerebral reaction. Same with everything. We can try to delve into those causes if it’s interesting, but it would be a waste to discuss them in any other way but chemically. Just description matters.

We only exist because our forefathers survived. We continue to live only because we want to. When we die, we will not exist. We needn’t aspire to anything.

Where does philosophy come in except as a subject that stimulates the part of our brain that developed to seek meaning?

Some materialists, like Stephen Hawking, in fact, do say that philosophy doesn’t matter .

telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html

Is this a common sentiment among materialists?

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

If you are asking the question I think you are asking, C.S. Lewis answered it better than I am about to. I remember reading him.

IF we define your “materialist” as someone who believes that all thought is nothing more than a random, spontaneous chemical process that occurs in the brain- a chemical event that has zero connection with reality and doesn’t MEAN anything:

It is my belief that philosophy can say only one thing to a such a person. It is:
“You have nothing useful to say, having admitted that all of your thoughts are meaningless.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Is this a common sentiment among materialists? **

Yes. The materialists I have known are for the most part very difficult to talk to. If your mind cannot rise to a higher level than to reduce all reality to the motion of atoms and their combinations, it would seem you have to block out a lot of everyday reality that assumes otherwise. I know materialists who despise the hymn Amazing Grace, even when the words are absent. They are resisting the natural pull of God. Even the mention of God can arouse hostile vibrations and scorn, or a polite but dead silence.

 

[John_Savage]

The reason I bring it up is that I’m in a discussion on another forum with some atheist friends of mine. When I suggested that philosophy might be irrelevant to a materialist, they were indignant and very hostile. They obviously wanted philosophy to be relevant.

One posted this by Ayn Rand wherein she insists that philosophy is crucial to completely understand reality.

fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/pwni.html

**Is this a common sentiment among materialists? **

Yes. The materialists I have known are for the most part very difficult to talk to. If your mind cannot rise to a higher level than to reduce all reality to the motion of atoms and their combinations, it would seem you have to block out a lot of everyday reality that assumes otherwise. I know materialists who despise the hymn Amazing Grace, even when the words are absent. They are resisting the natural pull of God. Even the mention of God can arouse hostile vibrations and scorn, or a polite but dead silence.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The reason I bring it up is that I’m in a discussion on another forum with some atheist friends of mine. When I suggested that philosophy might be irrelevant to a materialist, they were indignant and very hostile. They obviously wanted philosophy to be relevant.

One posted this by Ayn Rand wherein she insists that philosophy is crucial to completely understand reality.

fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/pwni.html

Give him a copy of " Aquinas " by Edward Feser. Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John

** When I suggested that philosophy might be irrelevant to a materialist, they were indignant and very hostile. They obviously wanted philosophy to be relevant.**

That’s very interesting. But wouldn’t they really defending only philosophy that is materialistic deterministic, and atheistic?

What I meant in my remarks is that most issues in philosophy would have to be somehow related to materialistic and psychological determinism. For example, in the realm of morals, a branch of philosophy, it would be typical of a materialist to argue that our actions are all predetermined by the motion of atoms. Anything that suggests the contrary is not true. Appreciating Amazing Grace, for example, would be out of the question because grace is an illusion.

I could go on and talk about how materialism influences other philosophical outlooks in a “predetermined” way rather than a philosophical way. But art is long and life, particularly mine, is getting very short.

 

[Tyrion]

There’s only the physical things, right?

How incredibly simplistic. There are also attributes, relationships, actions, concepts … all of which are “non-physical”, but of course they cannot exist without the underlying physical framework.

Complex structures cannot be reduced to the components, there are the emering attributes, which need to be investigated and explained on their own rights.

We needn’t aspire to anything.

Another nonsensical proposition. Of course we aspire to have a better, happier, more meaningful life. These aspirations are meaningful for us, precisely we have a limited lifespan. There is a wise old saying: “It is the trip that matters, not the destination” and “the winning is not relevant, what matters is how you play the game”. As a matter of fact, for the believers in “afterlife” it is useless to worry about this existence, except as a “preparation” stage, where there is only one thing that matters, how to “appease” God, how to avoid his wrath.

Some materialists, like Stephen Hawking, in fact, do say that philosophy doesn’t matter .

Philosophy consists of several parts:

1. Metaphysics - what exists?
2. Epistemology - how do we know it?
3. Ethics - how should we behave?

The answers are simple:

1. The physical universe exists, along with its non-physical properties, relationships, attributes, concepts, actions, etc…
2. We know it by making observations, setting up hypotheses, testing them and drawing conculsions.
3. By understanding our nature, by realizing that we are both both individuals and herd animals, by finding a good balance between cooperative and competing behaviors, by using our reason to find basic principles like the “golden rules”.

These are all obvious propositions. So in a sense, philosophy is a dead subject.

For those who are not satisfied with this reality, there is speculation. Speculation is wonderful. People can wonder about “what else can there be”? Is this all there is? Nothing wrong with such questions, as long one has a full stomach, does not have to worry about cold and hunger. Speculation was always a happy pastime of the well-to-do.

The trouble is - as always - the epistemology. How do we find out is our speculations are realisitic, and not just empty musings? The believers cannot offer any objective epistemological methods to find out if their conclusions correspond to reality. They can only offfer “testimonials” of people. There is no objective, repeatable, independent method which could be used by the skepics. That is the problem.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here’s what I was thinking:

There’s only the physical things, right? Physical stuff came about through some physical process that started in some unknown (and inconceivable, to me) but physical way. So, philosophy is useless there. Just discovery matters.

All human behavior is caused by some combination of nature and nurture. All genetic coding is because it helped us react to some physical threat. We like music because it produces a pleasant cerebral reaction. Same with everything. We can try to delve into those causes if it’s interesting, but it would be a waste to discuss them in any other way but chemically. Just description matters.

We only exist because our forefathers survived. We continue to live only because we want to. When we die, we will not exist. We needn’t aspire to anything.

Where does philosophy come in except as a subject that stimulates the part of our brain that developed to seek meaning?

Some materialists, like Stephen Hawking, in fact, do say that philosophy doesn’t matter .

telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html

Is this a common sentiment among materialists?

Rand read Aristotle and made his works availible through her offices. Point that out to this person and encourage him/her to do the same. It can’t hurt and might do some good.

Linus2nd

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m sure given any random person you can find that some of their thoughts could be seen as a form of philosophy. For example, from my computer science background a common concept is that of “abstraction.” It’s never referred to as a philosophical concept, but you’ll find it reference in some philosophical materials. There’s a number of other concepts that could be found to overlap with philosophy. Whether or not one is a “materialist” doesn’t seem to be a factor for whether these concepts are of utility to some one.

 

[John_Savage]

What question can philosophy answer that science can’t?

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

Tyrion, you fascinate me.

“It is the trip that matters, not the destination.”

I am not certain there is any proposition less progressive than this one. Because, as Chesterton rightly pointed out, all progress implies getting closer to some goal. Or in your words, a “destination”.

I think you should try this statement on a long car trip.

“Are we THERE yet???”

“No children. It is the trip that matters. We may never arrive. That’s not what’s important.”

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

Perhaps there are some people who honestly believe that there aren’t any worthy goals or destinations. For the life of me, I can’t see why’d they’d bother taking trips. Or especially, why they’d try to convince others to come along with them! Unless, of course, they don’t want anyone else to get “further” than they themselves have. Remember the Dog in the Manger.

I think this would be a good argument for me if I intended to do anything I want and not worry about the consequences. Who cares if the thrill of driving 110 mph (which I long to do) leads me to jail, a car accident, harming myself of killing others?

Remember this teenagers: “It is the trip that matters.”

In fact, all philosophy- including that false dichotomy between “Truth” and “Falsehood”, doesn’t matter either. What’s important is how you talk. ; )

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

How incredibly simplistic. There are also attributes, relationships, actions, concepts … all of which are “non-physical”, but of course they cannot exist without the underlying physical framework.

Complex structures cannot be reduced to the components, there are the emering attributes, which need to be investigated and explained on their own rights.

Another nonsensical proposition. Of course we aspire to have a better, happier, more meaningful life. These aspirations are meaningful for us, precisely we have a limited lifespan. There is a wise old saying: “It is the trip that matters, not the destination” and “the winning is not relevant, what matters is how you play the game”. As a matter of fact, for the believers in “afterlife” it is useless to worry about this existence, except as a “preparation” stage, where there is only one thing that matters, how to “appease” God, how to avoid his wrath.

Philosophy consists of several parts:

1. Metaphysics - what exists?
2. Epistemology - how do we know it?
3. Ethics - how should we behave?

The answers are simple:

1. The physical universe exists, along with its non-physical properties, relationships, attributes, concepts, actions, etc…
2. We know it by making observations, setting up hypotheses, testing them and drawing conculsions.
3. By understanding our nature, by realizing that we are both both individuals and herd animals, by finding a good balance between cooperative and competing behaviors, by using our reason to find basic principles like the “golden rules”.

These are all obvious propositions. So in a sense, philosophy is a dead subject.

For those who are not satisfied with this reality, there is speculation. Speculation is wonderful. People can wonder about “what else can there be”? Is this all there is? Nothing wrong with such questions, as long one has a full stomach, does not have to worry about cold and hunger. Speculation was always a happy pastime of the well-to-do.

The trouble is - as always - the epistemology. How do we find out is our speculations are realisitic, and not just empty musings? The believers cannot offer any objective epistemological methods to find out if their conclusions correspond to reality. They can only offfer “testimonials” of people. There is no objective, repeatable, independent method which could be used by the skepics. That is the problem.

Actually the problem is that physicalists have not made the case showing why it is more reasonable to abandon the far older theistic tradition (which acknowledges also the existence of an immaterial soul) in favor of your position as per #2 that essentially maintains that the scientific method is sufficient to determine all true or false statement about reality.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Actually the problem is that physicalists have not made the case showing why it is more reasonable to abandon the far older theistic tradition…]

If one wasn’t following the “far older tradition” then abandonment may not be applicable. Kind of like some one that never smoked wouldn’t be said to “quit smoking.” In some environments theology is not part of one’s training and education and was never practiced by an individual to be in a position of potential abandonment.

It’s also not necessary for one to be a “physicalist” to understand and utilize principal’s derived from physical systems. (ex: if some one agrees with Newton’s second law there’s no implication as to whether that person is a physicalist). Whether or not there is anything beyond the physical is left as a matter to be handled by individuals and may be influenced by personal experiences.

 

[Tyrion]

Actually the problem is that physicalists have not made the case showing why it is more reasonable to abandon the far older theistic tradition (which acknowledges also the existence of an immaterial soul) in favor of your position as per #2 that essentially maintains that the scientific method is sufficient to determine all true or false statement about reality.

I wonder, what kind of “case” or “proof” do you have in mind? What does that “theistic” epistemology mean? How do you know - in other words - what kind of evidence can you present for an invisible, untouchable, unmeasurable, unobservable entity as an “immortal soul”? How can one ascertain that every human has an “assigned” guardian angel? How you know that there are demons? Speculation is wonderful, but without an objective, repeatable way to verify them, they are empty musings.

Long story stort: “present your epistemology”!

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

“The scientific method is sufficient to determine all true or false statements about reality.”

But how shall I prove that this is so, by means of the scientific method?

My guess is, Tyrion & Co. wouldn’t say that the scientific method is sufficient to learn about ALL of reality. My guess- Tyrion correct me if I’m wrong- is that he would say that things scientifically proven are the only things that we can certainly know. There might be more to reality than we know- but our knowledge is limited to ONLY what the scientific method can tell us.

Again T., correct me if I’m wrong about what you hold.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

Perhaps it boils down to what authority you accept. Tyrion accepts the authority of the scientific method, and that’s it. Correct?

 

[J_Peterson]

What question can philosophy answer that science can’t?

Those that pertain to existence, causality, and science itself.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

Those that pertain to existence, causality, and science itself.

Also whether there is anything outside science, that could interfere with scientific laws if it wanted to. Science, while a very useful tool (duh), could tell us nothing about that.

And yes, I am borrowing from C.S. Lewis again.

 

[John_Savage]

All of those relationships and actions are physical. Our thinking about them are non-physical only if you consider brain activity non-physical.

We needn’t aspire to anything. What if thinking about philosophy makes you sad? Some philosophers went mad and committed suicide. What if somebody is just a slacker? Are you going to tell them that they have to aspire to something? If aspiring makes you happy, however, go for it.

1. Metaphysics - what exists?

Everything that does. It’s all physical.

1. Epistemology - how do we know it?

You’d use brain science, not philosophy.

1. Ethics - how should we behave?

Do what makes you happy or, if you want yourself or your society to aspire to something else, do that. All of what you think is right or wrong is a combination of nature or nurture.

You can use social science to see what society works best for you. If you than set that as a goal, you’d use social science or psychology or brain science to see how to get there.

How incredibly simplistic. There are also attributes, relationships, actions, concepts … all of which are “non-physical”, but of course they cannot exist without the underlying physical framework.

Complex structures cannot be reduced to the components, there are the emering attributes, which need to be investigated and explained on their own rights.

Another nonsensical proposition. Of course we aspire to have a better, happier, more meaningful life. These aspirations are meaningful for us, precisely we have a limited lifespan. There is a wise old saying: “It is the trip that matters, not the destination” and “the winning is not relevant, what matters is how you play the game”. As a matter of fact, for the believers in “afterlife” it is useless to worry about this existence, except as a “preparation” stage, where there is only one thing that matters, how to “appease” God, how to avoid his wrath.

Philosophy consists of several parts:

1. Metaphysics - what exists?
2. Epistemology - how do we know it?
3. Ethics - how should we behave?

The answers are simple:

1. The physical universe exists, along with its non-physical properties, relationships, attributes, concepts, actions, etc…
2. We know it by making observations, setting up hypotheses, testing them and drawing conculsions.
3. By understanding our nature, by realizing that we are both both individuals and herd animals, by finding a good balance between cooperative and competing behaviors, by using our reason to find basic principles like the “golden rules”.

These are all obvious propositions. So in a sense, philosophy is a dead subject.

For those who are not satisfied with this reality, there is speculation. Speculation is wonderful. People can wonder about “what else can there be”? Is this all there is? Nothing wrong with such questions, as long one has a full stomach, does not have to worry about cold and hunger. Speculation was always a happy pastime of the well-to-do.

The trouble is - as always - the epistemology. How do we find out is our speculations are realisitic, and not just empty musings? The believers cannot offer any objective epistemological methods to find out if their conclusions correspond to reality. They can only offfer “testimonials” of people. There is no objective, repeatable, independent method which could be used by the skepics. That is the problem.