"What you may not realise is that...."

malf

malf

Member
"... most of us proponents used to be materialists/physicalists."

There are clearly some strengths to physicalism, hence its initial appeal to so many. However, it strikes me that one must have a very rigid, inflexible, completist view of materialism, not to mention a limited imagination of its possibilities and potential, to reject it outright because the model is unable to explain everything neatly, and now.

And further not only to reject it but, for many, to do so with such vitriol and contempt.

And then to replace it with something poorly defined, ephemeral, and still apparently unable to explain everything neatly, and now.
 
Last edited:
"Us proponents" eh?

eta: I removed the image b/c it was giving people headaches. It can be found here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sciborg_S_Patel said:
"Us proponents" eh?

cO6oAqv.gif
Click to expand...

That graphic give anyone else a headache?

I'm just repeating an often used refrain... If it doesn't apply to you please ignore :)
 
I meant I don't think signifier "proponent" applies to you.

Guessing this is another one of your impression threads where you put on the mask of a proponent?

I suppose if people want to engage this game, it's up to them. I'll just put some popcorn on and watch from the sidelines.
 
malf said:
"... most of us proponents used to be materialists/physicalists."

There are clearly some strengths to physicalism, hence its initial appeal to so many. However, it strikes me that one must have a very rigid, inflexible, completist view of materialism, not to mention a limited imagination of its possibilities and potential, to reject it outright because the model is unable to explain everything neatly, and now.

And further not only to reject it but, for many, to do so with such vitriol and contempt.

And then to replace it with something poorly defined, ephemeral, and still apparently unable to explain everything neatly, and now.
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on your brand of 'physicalism', and whether or not you decide it's compatible with your brand of 'quantum mechanics'? I generally find that people adopt brands for both which I find difficult to subscribe to.

For me at present, it appears that physics has been reduced to the 'probabilistic' prediction of of future observations based on past observations... the key word to stress here being 'probabilistic'.
 
Last edited:
malf said:
"... most of us proponents used to be materialists/physicalists."

There are clearly some strengths to physicalism, hence its initial appeal to so many. However, it strikes me that one must have a very rigid, inflexible, completist view of materialism, not to mention a limited imagination of its possibilities and potential, to reject it outright because the model is unable to explain everything neatly, and now.

And further not only to reject it but, for many, to do so with such vitriol and contempt.
Click to expand...
I think it's the same vitriol and contempt you see from atheists who grew up in a fundamentalist religion. It's realizing your mind has been trapped in a box of belief. Once outside that box, many will show contempt for those who led them into the trap. But that feeling also fades with time.

And then to replace it with something poorly defined, ephemeral, and still apparently unable to explain everything neatly, and now.
Click to expand...
I haven't replaced it with anything but open-minded exploration. No need to explain everything neatly. I just accept that humans, limited by our 5 senses, are probably vastly incapable of explaining everything neatly. But it's fun to try.

Simply put, I am incredibly curious about many things that don't fit into the existing materialist model. Why would I subscribe to any philosophy that places limitations on my exploration?
 
Last edited:
Sciborg has over the last few months been trumpeting this refrain that materialism and materialists leads to moral decay and practiced immorality, unethical and greedy behavior. As someone sciborg would label a materialist I'm certain I am not immoral, unethical and greedy. Since I am one example I am absolutely certain I am not the only example. Sci tries to create a simple narrative about a species that has many reasons for doing good and bad for reasons that have nothing to do with either materialism or immaterialism.
 
MysticG said:
I think it's the same vitriol and contempt you see from atheists who grew up in a fundamentalist religion. It's realizing your mind has been trapped in a box of belief. Once outside that box, many will show contempt for those who led them into the trap. But that feeling also fades with time.
Click to expand...

I think it's more basic and general than that. It is simple US vs. THEM tribalistic instincts. Sure it shows up in the context you describe. But it equally shows up in other ways such as vitriol against fans of other sports teams, political parties, whether you call soft drinks "soda" or "pop" and countless other ways.

I don't think its possible to completely eradicate such feelings. All we can do is try to be mindful of them and prompt us to ask ourselves whether that gut emotion is interfering with our assessment of the other.

Simply put, I am incredibly curious about many things that don't fit into the existing materialist model. Why would I subscribe to any philosophy that places limitations on my exploration?
Click to expand...

Frankly, I'm not sure why anyone would want to sign onto any philosophical statement that includes the premise: "all that exists includes..." The labels are useful to quickly communicate to someone roughly what one believes but there should always be the caveat that it's based solely on what we know at the time.

I guess one could say that that should be implied, but the way people tend to use these terms when referring to others they seem to at least imply that they they don't think the other leaves open room to shift.

I also think that by going the step of declaring that "I am an ___ist" one makes it harder on oneself to be more open to change, particularly because it serves to reinforce the US part, making one even more resistent and vitriolic towards THEM!
 
steve001 said:
Sciborg has over the last few months been trumpeting this refrain that materialism and materialists leads to moral decay and practiced immorality, unethical and greedy behavior. As someone sciborg would label a materialist I'm certain I am not immoral, unethical and greedy. Since I am one example I am absolutely certain I am not the only example. Sci tries to create a simple narrative about a species that has many reasons for doing good and bad for reasons that have nothing to do with either materialism or immaterialism.
Click to expand...

I told Malf I wouldn't derail his thread, so it seems a bit unfair to raise the specter of my cursed name?

I think Dominic has 2-3 threads already dedicated to showing how stupid/paranoid/uneducated/deluded/etc I am.
 
Arouet said:
I think it's more basic and general than that. It is simple US vs. THEM tribalistic instincts. Sure it shows up in the context you describe. But it equally shows up in other ways such as vitriol against fans of other sports teams, political parties, whether you call soft drinks "soda" or "pop" and countless other ways.

I don't think its possible to completely eradicate such feelings. All we can do is try to be mindful of them and prompt us to ask ourselves whether that gut emotion is interfering with our assessment of the other.

Frankly, I'm not sure why anyone would want to sign onto any philosophical statement that includes the premise: "all that exists includes..." The labels are useful to quickly communicate to someone roughly what one believes but there should always be the caveat that it's based solely on what we know at the time.

I guess one could say that that should be implied, but the way people tend to use these terms when referring to others they seem to at least imply that they they don't think the other leaves open room to shift.
Click to expand...
I generally agree with everything you wrote here, and the bolded part is almost a word-for-word copy of something that I wrote, then deleted from my first post.

I also think that by going the step of declaring that "I am an ___ist" one makes it harder on oneself to be more open to change, particularly because it serves to reinforce the US part, making one even more resistent and vitriolic towards THEM!
Click to expand...

Yes, I've found it best to avoid statements like that - to say "I am an ___ist" is to add ___ist to part of your identity. In general, I think people already tend to integrate too much conceptual baggage into their identity. Perhaps that is the real issue - not the position itself, but taking a position so strongly that it becomes part of your identity. This fits with the other things you mentioned too (political party, sports teams, etc). If someone takes their political party as part of their identity, then the opposing political party is threatening the very core of their beliefs, which can lead to violence, war, etc.
 
malf said:
"... most of us proponents used to be materialists/physicalists."

There are clearly some strengths to physicalism, hence its initial appeal to so many. However, it strikes me that one must have a very rigid, inflexible, completist view of materialism, not to mention a limited imagination of its possibilities and potential, to reject it outright because the model is unable to explain everything neatly, and now.

And further not only to reject it but, for many, to do so with such vitriol and contempt.

And then to replace it with something poorly defined, ephemeral, and still apparently unable to explain everything neatly, and now.
Click to expand...

Most philosophies are useful for a time....until they become outdated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top