Alright Yea Forums, getting really embarrassed of people on this board who don't understand how monism works. Materialism and idealism are forms of philosophical (usually ontological) monism, which means they posit that reality consists of one particular substance and no others (there is pluralism as well, usually dualism a la Descartes). The materialist insists that everything which exists is material. The idealist insists that everything which exists is ideal (usually as thought, dream, ect.). BOTH materialism and idealism go back to as far as philosophy does, both finding expositions in ancient Vedic philosophies, but materialism isn't really defined as a monism until the presocratics (Lucretius, Thales, Democritis, Anaximander, ect.). These materialists, and many others, did not deny thoughts or consiousness, but sought to understand them in their real, that is, material, workings. This means that materialism does not necessarily deny consciousness, and more over, idealism does not necessarily imply consciousness either (the negation of the conscious self as being a mere appearance in another's dream is one of the oldest forms of idealism). Finally, materialism does not take a stand on the idea of epistemology. It does not necessarily imply that everything can be known or understood (not by humans for sure), and it does not necessarily imply that free will does not exist (emergent consciousness is one of the most palatable theories of mind, and totally compatible with materialism and free will). Idealism is the same, depending on the interpretation it can allow absolute knowledge or limit you to total illusion. The truth is, even if you know that someone is a materialist or an idealis, without an explication of that persons beliefs regarding matters of epistemology, morality, mind, ect. you really know absolutely nothing about their position at all. There is really nothing about one that cannot apply to the other in the right circumstances. Hopefully this post helps because I know people don't read books on Yea Forums, but I'm posting a reading list anyways
Reading list:
The Greeks: Plato - Timaeus - i Anaxagoras - Fragments - i Lucretius - De rerum natura - m Democritus - Fragments - m
The rest: Hegel - Phenomenology of Spirit - i Kant - Critique of Pure Reason - i Taylor - Philosophical Arguments - i Feuerbach - The Essence of Christianity - m La Mettrie - The Human Machine - m Zizek - Less than Nothing - m
Terrible thread, dialectical materialism was created by marx it can’t primordially define other philosophies, other philosophies define IT
Jaxson Phillips
Matter is a concept, an idea, too. Materialism is idealism.
Sebastian Williams
Idealism and materialism are also terms used in other disciplines with different (but similar) claims, so if you see it used "incorrectly" here it may just be the jargon of another literature.
Michael Smith
lol
Alexander Peterson
Woah...
Jordan Phillips
what disciplines?
Brody Ortiz
>but materialism isn't really defined as a monism until the presocratics (Lucretius, Thales, Democritis, Anaximander, ect.) >Lucretius was a pre-Socratic
You seriously need to neck yourself.
Brody Harris
except materialism works irl, like, the thing you are grabbing with your hand?you know right now, the "cellphone" thing to write your autistic shit? Yeah, "exists" because some people thought idelism was fucking useless and materialism was the real deal, WHOA, amazing isn't it!!?
Mason Morales
somebody needs to write a philosophy for retards book without all the fluff so pea brains like me can understand it
William Evans
Is there any practical difference between idealism (everything is real-seeming ideal) and materialism (everything is real)?
Nathaniel Nguyen
>The materialist insists that everything which exists is material. That's eliminative materialism, retard.
Jace Jenkins
I just wish everything was in plaintext. I want to learn perspectives not sift through a bunch of bullshit broken english.
Carter Evans
Zizek thinks the material isn't really real, but Hegel thought the ideal really was real, not just seeming to be so. It's not as simple as that. Eliminative materialism denies consciousness, dreams, ect. as being real because there is no clear materialistic cause that we have been able to find, this is the materialism of Denett et al.
Matthew Sanchez
>everything that exist is material Sounds really dumb.
Samuel Jones
The opposite of idealism is realism retard Realism believes in an objective world outside of the human intellect Materialism believes only the physical world exists
>Realism overlooks the fact that the so-called being of these real things is absolutely nothing else than their being represented, or if it be insisted, that only the immediate presence in the consciousness of the Subject can be called being represented; or, if one insists in calling only that which is in the immediate present of the subject's consciousness an actual representation, then it is just an ability to be represented potentially. The realist forgets that the Object ceases to be Object apart from its reference to the Subject, and that if we take away that reference, or think it away, we at once do away with all objective existence.
>When [Leibniz] wanted to determine more closely the essence of these things existing objectively in themselves, he found himself obliged to declare the Objects in themselves to be Subjects (monads), and by doing so he furnished the most striking proof of the inability of our consciousness, in as far as it is merely cognitive, to find within the limits of the intellect i.e. of the apparatus by means of which we represent the world anything beyond Subject and Object; the representer and the represented. Therefore, if we abstract from the objectivity of an Object, or in other words, from its being represented, if we annul it in its quality as an Object, yet still wish to retain something, we can meet with nothing but the Subject. Conversely, if we desire to abstract from the subjectivity of the Subject, yet to have something over, the contrary takes place, and this leads to Materialism.
The whole idea of materialism is based on the presumption that a map (a concept, an abstraction, 'matter') is the territory (the world), which is false. There's no 'matter,' it's a mere verbal representation made by humans, but there's an objective world which is independent of our interpretations out it. Believing that everything is *a given concept* is an ignorant kind of idealism.
Asher Nelson
Not that user but I see materialism used to mean consumerism and idealism used to mean navel gazing hippy shit all the time
Ian Baker
refer to imam ghazali "incoherence of philosophers"
Based and illiteratepilled I didn't come to /lil/ to read
Levi Ortiz
Pseuds don't realize less is more, they go on pseud rambles that exposes them time and time again.
Adam Hall
OP unless you are a solipsist or a true nihilist you can't believe in dualism unless you reject all your senses and only partake in pure metaphysical masturbation. There is no matter dualism, it's almost impossible. If you are no a physicist you can read Sean Carroll's 'The Big Picture' for a layman's explanation why.
There are pretty much no prominent cognitive scientists who believer in matter dualism anymore, now they argue for philosophical zombies.
Luis Russell
I like him because he's a leftist who actually offer legit criticisms to current leftist ideology.
He's against political correctnes and many other dangerous leftist ideas.
Leftism can lead to improvements in society, like the fight for better working conditions during the 19th and 20th century. Now it is purely a regressive and dangerous ideology, if more people were like Zizek there would be hope.
Mason Lewis
Wait, was Based Plato a god-denying communist libtard tranny? The same guy who debunked leftism first with The Republic?
Gabriel Cruz
You're not describing materialism, you're describing something that resembles scientific positivism or empiricism.
Logan Morgan
>You're not describing materialism The first sentence is about 'matter' as the fundamental substance. The second one is explaining how 'matter' is an abstraction, a human thought product. >scientific positivism or empiricism. Not mutually exclusive.
fuck your hegelian bullshit true materialist tradition is spinozan
Hunter Johnson
this is not what materialism means. You're trying to ascribe some empiricist nature to the base concept of a tangible and physical world and the connections and consequences of said connections it presents.
>less is more user I don't even think it's a thousand words, short stories are longer than that post
Camden Gray
*Searle blocks your path*
Christopher Gray
Spinoza was not a materialist, he believed in a monist substance with infinite attributes (God)
Brayden Cook
Both of you are cringe
Ryder Gray
>Leftism can lead to improvements in society, like the fight for better working conditions during the 19th and 20th century. Now it is purely a regressive and dangerous ideology, Cultural leftism today is Capitalism Vanguard. Americans have a mental block about this fact. They are clearly behind western europa regarding the understanding of what is cultural leftism.
