Re: What is Materialism (was Re: A Lament)

Keith Plummer (keithp@starnetinc.com)
Tue, 10 Jun 1997 11:49:32 -0500

>Brian D Harper wrote:
>>
>[cut quote of my previous post]
>>
> Yes, I think some definition of terms is in order. I was a little
> surprised at the beginning of this thread to see an almost
> automatic association between atheism and materialism as if
> an atheist were somehow compelled to be a materialist.
>
Since I was using materialism and naturalism synonymously, I reasoned
that an atheist, since he/she denies the existence of the supernatural,
would have not other alternative than to adopt naturalism.
>
> I was also of the opinion that materialism was defunct anyway, killed
> by modern science. This all depends on how one defines the
> terms. I think a lot of your conclusions definitely hold for
> materialism but that you err in equating materialism with
> naturalism.
>
I'm sure there is debate over whether materialism is equivalent to
materialism. According to William Halverson in "A Concise Introduction
>to Philosophy" (Fourth Edition):

"Naturalism asserts, first, that the primary constituents of reality are
material entities. By this I do not mean that only material entities
exist; I am not denying the reality -the real existence - of such things
as hopes, plans, behavior, language, logical inferences, and so on.
What I am asserting, however, is that anything that is real is, in the
last analysis, explicable as a material entity or as a form or function
or action of a material entity...The "ultimate realities," according to
naturalism, are not the alleged objects of the inquiries of theologians;
they are the entities that are the objects of investigation by chemists,
physicists, and other scientists. To put the matter very simply:
materialism is true." (p. 424)
>
>[cut Sir James Jeans quote]
>
> It seems to me that this description coincides pretty well with
> yours. It also seems that the various conclusions that you have
> derived are correct with materialism defined in this way. For
> example, there seems little point for a materialist to speak of
> moral obligations. The argument that materialism cannot be
> falsified seems erroneous though since, according to my understanding,
> the view is no longer scientificaly tenable.
>
I don't think it's erroneous at all. Regardless of what one chooses to
label it, the belief that the natural/material world is all that exists
is still not a conclusion capable of scientific verification but rather,
a philosophical precommitment that one may bring to his/her scientific
inquiry. That was the point I was trying to make.

> So, perhaps some of the "controversy" in this thread arises from
> terminology. Russell has stated that he's a materialist, but I
> kind of doubt that this is what he means by materialism.

Perhaps we should ask Russell to explain what he means by the term.

> Also, materialism and naturalism are clearly not one and the same.
>
>Please see above
>
>[cut..]
>
>
> Brian Harper
> Associate Professor
> Applied Mechanics
> The Ohio State University
>
> "Quantum physicist and Jungian analyst, when dropped from
> a great height, fall at the same rate of speed, their
> descent unaffected by speech or creed" -- David Berlinski

Keith Plummer
Just Little Ol' Me ;-)