The problem of self under materialism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 861
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: The problem of self under materialism

Post by seeds » Fri Oct 21, 2016 10:25 pm

Dalek Prime wrote: What's wrong with deism?
Hi Dalek Prime,

I actually like Deism from the perspective that it doesn’t merely assume (as does hardcore materialism) that the unthinkable order of the universe is simply a product of serendipitous processes.

I understand that what I am about to say will not resonate well with you.

However, in my own “Panentheistic/Berkeleyanish” take on reality, I see the universe as being contained within - and constructed from - the mental fabric of a higher Being’s mind.

In which case, I find it exceedingly illogical to think that this Being would create something as amazing as this universe within the sovereign and subjective confines of its very own personal consciousness and then simply “abandon it” as is suggested in Deism.

For one thing, HOW would you abandon an aspect of your very own personal being?

And more importantly, WHY would you abandon it?

In other words, why would you not want to be involved in some way with your own creation as suggested in Theism?

We just need to weed-out and expel Theism’s absurd notions as to what God’s involvement in the universe actually entails.
_______

osgart
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Re: The problem of self under materialism

Post by osgart » Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:18 am

the materialist refers to object, and material always in explanation of self. This is inane reasoning that doesn't come close to explaining love, and thought.

no one has proved that love and thought is the product of chemistry, or substance. it only looks that way to them.

it's like explaining the meaning of a book by studying the ink, and solely focusing on the ink alone.

User avatar
waechter418
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 12:19 am
Location: Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: The problem of self under materialism

Post by waechter418 » Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:33 pm

osgart wrote:
Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:18 am
the materialist refers to object, and material always in explanation of self. This is inane reasoning that doesn't come close to explaining love, and thought.
.....nor music, poetry, dance, haute cuisine, blue movie, football, morals, religions, surrealism............

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 672
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: The problem of self under materialism

Post by Conde Lucanor » Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:27 pm

osgart wrote:
Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:18 am
the materialist refers to object, and material always in explanation of self. This is inane reasoning that doesn't come close to explaining love, and thought.

no one has proved that love and thought is the product of chemistry, or substance. it only looks that way to them.

it's like explaining the meaning of a book by studying the ink, and solely focusing on the ink alone.
Actually, only materialism has explained feelings and emotions. Idealism dwells in a distant realm of the abstract that never touches ground and has no practical application for the real lives of real people.

Gloominary
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: The problem of self under materialism

Post by Gloominary » Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:01 pm

Is everything matter, are energy, space and time matter?
If everything's matter, than saying everything is matter would be kind of like like saying existence, stuff and things are existence, stuff and things: nondescript.

When I touch you, I can't feel what you're feeling.
When I touch an apple, I can't feel what it's feeling either.
even thou I can't feel what you feel, I assume you're feeling something like what I feel when you touch me, but we assume the apple can't feel anything, but perhaps it can, just differently, albeit in a less sophisticated sort of way.
I can't feel what it's like to be you, but I can imagine, I can't feel what it's like to be an apple, but we assume it doesn't feel like anything.
While an apple is different than me, it's not entirely different, and so to say it doesn't feel at all is perhaps a bit of a stretch, it probably just feels less, or differently.
everything may have like an experience of being itself and being with other entities, however primitive.

Also, while people are made of cells, and cells atoms, still cells are doing something quite different than what atoms are doing, and people are doing something quite different than what atoms are doing, so they've become entities in their own right.

What is an atom, is it the same sort of thing as a brick, a lump of matter?
Are bricks themselves uncomplicated entities, or are they dynamic processes, capable of organizing themselves molecularly into sophisticated structures, and responding to their environment?
Why paint the cosmos with such a broad brush, lumping it all under one heading in metaphysics when we normally reserve this heading, matter, for only some things?
What are atoms themselves made up of, are they truly simple?
Or are they made up of all sorts of entities, some of them perhaps conscious like we are, or some, if we could shrink ourselves small enough to perceptibly interact with them, may be so different they can't be easily encompassed by any of our existing labels: matter, life, mind...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests