PDA

View Full Version : Materialism Versus Idealism


Hanna
Wednesday, July 8th, 2009, 09:10 PM
Could you highlights your thoughts on Materialism and Idealism? Are you against both of these? Or you would consider yourself a proponent of one of these?

As for me, Materialism make more sense since we're living in a practical world, although both of them oppose each other.

Nagelfar
Monday, July 13th, 2009, 03:32 AM
IMO the materialism stance is a plane of idealism. Materialism is the plane of common values and interactions, it is like mathematics, it makes sense as a closed system to itself and always will, but is only useful for utilitarian ends.... as a philosophic view? Only idealism makes sense: though everything may have a correlating projection that we take as a matter or material, everything exists only as it manifests to the mind... we couldn't perceive of a brain giving impulses or holding a representation of our own thoughts or of intoxication from a substance if it weren't for our "immaterial" mind dispensing those values and defining them for us in the first...

The objects of thought themselves, ideas and abstract concepts, are as good as material as well, they are objects, when I think of idealism I think in the process, as process philosophy, the act of thinking, not thought so conceived. So not only are static concepts material but the 'external physical' world as well, which wouldn't exist at all if it weren't for the mind to us coming at us first. If it were argued that the "immaterial mind" is rooted in a physical brain, well, this is still an expression of the mind in the first, and it is always a jump, a leap, an assumption and a presupposition, and never can be verified as the mind is always coming before first, transcending this, without and apart from this at no time touching it...

So while it is a very "mathematical" assumption to "believe materialism" and is good for conveying every aspect of truth as they fit together like puzzle pieces and everything correlates within the material according to it's own language, even to others as a system of ideas, a plane of relation, of commonality; materialism is nothing more and never philosophical. It is the philosophy of reduction against philosophy, aka positivism, and exists only to give credence to common sense.

Common sense is never and can never be the "love of wisdom" (aka lit. "Philosophy"), wisdom which is by definition rare, exclusive, and apart from common sense. All such vulgar positivism and materialism, are aspects of philosophy only as philosophy is applied to mundane things, as philosophy can be, but only in branches. The true erudite wisdom, the core of philosophy, of never giving into presuppositions, must accept idealism. As we can never reach beyond that into a concrete form of materialism without assumption, no matter how viable, it is only viable because it is a common basis of conveyance.