All the world is matter, yes, outside of your mental state and society structures. Ah, I don’t think popular religions claim god to be material force, or you could see it/he/she
Religion used to be a big deal. If you consider history from thr perspective of a helenistic person. They would accept non-matwtial causes for effects they see. So divine interventions, or spiritual forces.
You being happy is not matter. It is connected to underlying material reality (hormones, neurochemicals, some neurons firing up), but it is not a matter, it’s a state.
Capitalism is not matter - remove all humans from the world, where is capitalism?
You conception of dog is not matter, you can see and tell something is a dog, yet, without humans there is no concept of a dog as such
so basically, you make the distinction between the world(is matter), and human perception(isn't matter). However, we know that thoughts influence our actions. Since we are part of the world, we are matter, and something that isn't matter(our thoughts) is affecting matter. Is this still materialism?
Well, I'm mostly concerned with materialism, here specifically Im taking issue with the distinction between matter and non-matter. How does one make a meaningful distinction, and what are the implications? I see too often materialism just descend into vulgar scientism, but surely theres more to it.
In material conception matter is primary. Human consciousness, a subjective, is perceiving the world not as it is, we see reflection of the world in our senses/perceptions in our mind. Subjective idealism, for example, supposes that all this reflections are a real world, which has certain consequences.
Your actions are done by your material body, material output of your actions, you can’t will yourself to change material world, there is no telekinesis basically.
In material conception matter is primary. Human consciousness, a subjective, is perceiving the world not as it is, we see reflection of the world in our senses/perceptions in our mind. Subjective idealism, for example, supposes that all this reflections are a real world, which has certain consequences.
This sounds a lot like Kant's transcendental idealism to me. If that is the case, how can subjectivity interact with the material world? Is this really materialism, if it asserts that subjectivity can't truly grasp the material world?
but what is matter? isn't all of the world matter? if I believe god is real, they are matter too?
All the world is matter, yes, outside of your mental state and society structures. Ah, I don’t think popular religions claim god to be material force, or you could see it/he/she
what is an example of something that isn't matter?
Religion used to be a big deal. If you consider history from thr perspective of a helenistic person. They would accept non-matwtial causes for effects they see. So divine interventions, or spiritual forces.
deleted by creator
You being happy is not matter. It is connected to underlying material reality (hormones, neurochemicals, some neurons firing up), but it is not a matter, it’s a state.
Capitalism is not matter - remove all humans from the world, where is capitalism?
You conception of dog is not matter, you can see and tell something is a dog, yet, without humans there is no concept of a dog as such
happy is a description of my state. therefore, it is describing matter.
by your logic, all words are merely conceptions that don't exist without humans, so are they not matter now?
Yes, they aren’t, and no its not. Happy as in the exact state of neurons I described is material reality, happy as in your state is not.
Matter exists objectively, words don’t.
so basically, you make the distinction between the world(is matter), and human perception(isn't matter). However, we know that thoughts influence our actions. Since we are part of the world, we are matter, and something that isn't matter(our thoughts) is affecting matter. Is this still materialism?
deleted by creator
Well, I'm mostly concerned with materialism, here specifically Im taking issue with the distinction between matter and non-matter. How does one make a meaningful distinction, and what are the implications? I see too often materialism just descend into vulgar scientism, but surely theres more to it.
In material conception matter is primary. Human consciousness, a subjective, is perceiving the world not as it is, we see reflection of the world in our senses/perceptions in our mind. Subjective idealism, for example, supposes that all this reflections are a real world, which has certain consequences.
Your actions are done by your material body, material output of your actions, you can’t will yourself to change material world, there is no telekinesis basically.
This sounds a lot like Kant's transcendental idealism to me. If that is the case, how can subjectivity interact with the material world? Is this really materialism, if it asserts that subjectivity can't truly grasp the material world?
Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space
Don’t do my gal photon like that