# Question regarding materialism **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 29, 2016, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-materialism/764438 "2016-08-29T22:40:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![davidmich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@davidmich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidmich)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-materialism/764438/1 "2016-08-29T22:40:58Z")
Hi Perhaps I misread the wikipedia article, but I can’t seems to find the three forms of materialism referred to in the quotation below. I look forward to your feedback. > **[Materialism](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HeogDL1v9BQJ:https:%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMaterialism%2B&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ph)** > > Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness a... “Kant argued against all three forms of materialism, subjective idealism (which he contrasts with his “transcendental idealism” and dualism.” ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-materialism/764438/2 "2016-08-30T01:29:08Z")
The sentence is badly constructed and not entirely clear, but I don’t think Kant is saying that there are three forms of materialsm. Rather, Kant identifies three positions - materialism, idealism and dualism - and the writer of the sentence treats them as three forms of [I’m not sure what]. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-materialism/764438/3 "2016-08-30T02:01:08Z")
The writer is saying that Kant argued against all three [unnamed] forms of materialism, and also against (subjective) idealism and dualism – which is interesting, as most philosophers have argued for one of these against the others. ---
**Author:** ![davidmich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@davidmich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidmich)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-materialism/764438/4 "2016-08-30T05:20:21Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > The sentence is badly constructed and not entirely clear, but I don’t think Kant is saying that there are three forms of materialsm. Rather, Kant identifies three positions - materialism, idealism and dualism - and the writer of the sentence treats them as three forms of [I’m not sure what]. Thanks UDS. I thought the sentence looked odd, but I’ve seen it copied word for word on other websites. It does’t make sense on any of them. I think you’re right. It should have read “three positions-three positions - materialism, idealism and dualism”. That makes more sense to me. On another note, classifying materialism is no straightforward matter. There are many ways to classify it. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-materialism/764438/5 "2016-08-30T08:03:25Z")
The cite, which is included in full on that linked page, shows that Kant isn’t talking about three forms of Materialism and that the wikipedia editor is to blame for any confusion. > [@](#): > > Critique of Pure Reason (A379, p352 NKS translation). “If, however, as commonly happens, we seek to extend the concept of dualism, and take it in the transcendental sense, neither it nor the two counter-alternatives — pneumatism [idealism] on the one hand, materialism on the other — would have any sort of basis […] Neither the transcendental object which underlies outer appearances nor that which underlies inner intuition, is in itself either matter or a thinking being, but a ground (to us unknown)…” Right there if you click on the (34) at the end of the sentence. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-materialism/764438/6 "2016-08-30T09:55:22Z")
There _are_ three main kinds of approaches to materialism in addressing consciousness - [reductive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_physicalism), [eliminative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism) and [revisionary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionary_materialism) - but that’s _only_ related to the philosophy of the mind, not ontology in general, and is generally taken as a stance on specific questions e.g. one may be eliminativist about visions of God, revisionist about free will and reductivist about sexuality. ---
**Author:** ![davidmich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@davidmich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidmich)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-materialism/764438/7 "2016-08-30T11:00:24Z")
> [@naita](#): > > The cite, which is included in full on that linked page, shows that Kant isn’t talking about three forms of Materialism and that the wikipedia editor is to blame for any confusion. > > Right there if you click on the (34) at the end of the sentence. Thank you all. I’m still confused as to whether Do “material idealism” and “material realism” mean the same thing as “idealism” and “realism” when it comes to discussing Kant’s argument against materialism.? I’m trying to follow some of the terminology I come across. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-materialism/764438/8 "2016-08-30T13:17:09Z")
> [@davidmich](#): > > Thank you all. I’m still confused as to whether > Do “material idealism” and “material realism” mean the same thing as “idealism” and “realism” when it comes to discussing Kant’s argument against materialism.? I’m trying to follow some of the terminology I come across. No. At least when it comes to idealism, Kant didn’t consider “material idealism” to be the only kind, and was quite emphatic that his [own idealism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_idealism) was of a different sort. Good luck teasing out what he was getting at, though, entire philosophy faculties still have knife fights in their staff rooms about that 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![davidmich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@davidmich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidmich)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-regarding-materialism/764438/9 "2016-08-30T22:46:45Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > No. At least when it comes to idealism, Kant didn’t consider “material idealism” to be the only kind, and was quite emphatic that his [own idealism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_idealism) was of a different sort. Good luck teasing out what he was getting at, though, entire philosophy faculties still have knife fights in their staff rooms about that 🙂 Thanks MrDibble. Very helpful Thank you all.