Lib, you’ve done it again! This time to ObiWan.
Do you honestly consider your vapid and offhand reply to be intellectually honest and fair? You continue to reveal that your posts are the posts of a mean-spirited sophist and little else.
Olentzero and VileOrb, I apologize for getting your remarks confused with each other’s! Sorry for the confusion…
Of course it is! On what grounds do you imagine that beauty and aesthetics and imagination aren’t perfectly materialistic? Please explain to us why they cannot arise from the purely material or the interactions of the purely material.
Have you read any evolutionary psychology? I submit that you should before rejecting a materialistic view of beauty and wonder and awe and other sublime aspects of human existence!
Cosminides and Tooby and others have shown that the aesthetic sense is genetically acquired and transmitted, and genes are surely strictly materialistic. The standards of beauty are constrained by human nature, which is also completely materialistic.
What you are doing is shrinking from reality into an imaginary world of “spirit” and transcendence that you prefer on no better grounds than that it pleases you emotionally.
Beauty only exists to the extent that material entities exist and claim certain material entities or interactions are beautiful. Beauty is a brain state, and thus would not exist without material brains. Thus, we see that beauty is strictly materialistic.
We don’t! Who ever said Truth (which is to say “absolute truth”) is knowable? Certainly not me!
All I ever said is that Truth is unknowable!
The notion of Truth as I’ve used it is strictly a philosophical notion and need not have any actual existence except as a concept. Consider the earlier comments on dragons; we can think about the concept even though dragons do not exist.
Uh huh. I can see how a hearty welcome and an acknowledgment of someone’s good contributions might be construed as “mean-spirited” sophistry, especially by an elitist hack who fancies himself to be history’s authority on Materialism. That would not be you, of course. I’m speaking of a Platonic Form.
[…sticking out tongue and shouting, “Tu quoque!”…]
Although I can’t speak for all materialists (as I’ve gathered from reading this thread that I’m not typical), I think you are correct that subjective responses are not invalidated by materialsim.
I disagree. It’s my impression that anything which can be conceived can be subjectively characterized, whether it can be observed or not. I don’t think a materialist could honestly deny someone else’s subjective evaluation of your theoretical gausopheme.
Tris, I wonder if a materialist would say that all subjective features exist as long as there are minds which are subject to them. Thus, Horatius’ valor is undisputed.
I will sit here and appreciate the artistry of the Concerto for Gausopheme.
If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound?
No. When a tree falls, it causes waves of kinetic energy to pass through the air and ground and any water that may be present. If we were present, our ears would accumulate the waves that are passing through the air and the waves would cause the eardrum and the inner ear bones to vibrate. The auditory nerve would be stimulated by the vibrations of the bones and conduct this stimulation as an electro-chemcial message to the auditory cortex of the brain. Our minds would then interpret this message as “sound”.
IOW, sound is a mind’s interpretation of a particular physical phenomenon. Without a mind to interpret, there is no sound per se, there is just vibrating matter.
Beauty is similar. It exists only in the mind. It cannot exist independently of the mind. It’s an abstract concept and abstract concepts require minds to believe they exist in order for them to exist.
Wow, this materialism stuff is harder than it looks!
So, my concerto can be beautiful, but it isn’t unless someone . . . knows about it. Since they cannot hear, or see, or otherwise perceive it, then it can only have imaginary beauty. But beauty itself is only imaginary. So, I have as much possibility of creating beauty in my imagination as I might with paint, or clay, so long as I can somehow engage other beings in imagining that beauty also.
And even such things as sound only exist in the mind. I suppose sight as well, since it is easily shown to be point for point the analogous equivalent of sound. Beauty exists entirely in the neurons of perceiving beings. But it is real, and materialists value it as much as mystics do. Have I followed this correctly?
Tris
“I believe in general in a dualism between facts and the ideas of those facts in human heads.” ~ George Santayana ~
The universe, BTW, is not infinitely large. There is very little that is infinite outside of pure math. I thought that might make it a little easier to understand how anyone non-infinite could possibly observe the entire unverse. Actually, I don’t even posit that a single being could observe it, only that all of it could be observed.
Lib Maybe, I’ve finally gotten through to you a bit. When I say something is observable, it’s irrelevant who does the observing. I could observe the Superbowl, except I don’t want to spend the money, so I won’t. But, the superbowl is still observable. I could observe the far side of the moon if I had the resources to get there, but I don’t and wouldn’t bother anyway. It’s still physically possible. With current technology I cannot observe the center of a star, but someday maybe it will become possible. And, currently we can make some fairly confident theories as to what it’s like by studying stars and other objects in the universe from the outside.
Everyday humanity explains more and more previously unexplainable phenomena without having to call on non-material sources. Meanwhile, no clear evidence of non-material anything has been discovered. Some people claim to have such evidence but, when it is related to me, I find it insufficient, erroneous, and/or fraudulent.
The best evidence that I know of non-material existence is the incredible number of apparently intelligent people who believe. However, there were a lot of smart people who believed in Zeus at one time. And, there is definitely reason to want there to be a higher power and reason for everything. I certainly would like to know that someone was watching out for things. Also, the stories created by religions are so widespread and full of strong clear symbols. Makes one feel part of a group rather than alone in the universe.
I’m sure that many scientific theories, taken as fact today will be found in error in the future. OTOH, most of the one’s found in error will be on the right track. For eveidence of this look at how scientific theory has progressed. Sometimes we find theories are completely off base, like the earth being the center of the universe, but mostly we are headed in the right direction, like how we gradually discovered more and more accurate ideas about the exact shape of the earth’s orbit.
I still haven’t seen one bit of something resembling an example or from Lib since I requested one. No response to my last long post actually.
Also, I would like to distance myself somewhat from ambushed who, while starting from a very similar materialist concept, comes to different conclusions about the implications of what it means that the universe is purely material.
Thanks to jab1 for the tree falling in the forest metaphor. I think that was pretty clear and easy to understand as well as in sync with my own thoughts.
Now, Jab’s Materialism is something I can wrap my mind around.
He appeals to no agencies whatsoever. For him, there cannot be meaning. Meaning is an illusion, an arbitrary construct. The universe is nothing but an electromagnetic convulsion suspended in gravity, and the universe is all there is. Morality is a rationalization. Pleasure is a chemical reaction. Science is a silly and futile exercise in self-aggrandizement. Living a life is living a charade. And truth? There’s no such thing.
One question, though. Why do things like debate or pursue knowledge?
Tris You have a mind yourself and, if you perceive the beauty, then the beauty exists in YOUR mind. If, however, there is a pattern of molecules vibrating in some distant part of the universe that no mind capable of recognizing beauty observes, then, regardless of how beautiful it would be to anyone who came upon it, there is no beauty. That would just be a bunch of matter and energy.
I don’t know why you think this is hard. Beauty is in the mind of the beholder. How hard is that?
Lib
Your description of Jab’s materialism is fairly close to my own except that sentient minds give their own meaning to their actions and they judge other’s actions as well. You were doing fairly well until the word ‘science’. As far as ‘truth’ goes, you’ll have to define it before I comment on it’s existence. I suspect I’m with jab on this one too. Morality is a rationalization? Morality is something conceived of by humans. It has some basis in what actions would be benefit the species, and so is related to animal instinct. Each person defines morality differently. So, it is largely subjective. Is that what you mean?
Should I comment further on this? In answer to your last question, the meaning that we as sentient beings is enough to merit debate. The desire for a greater quantity and higher quality of pleasure for ourselves, our friends, and our progeny, is a good reason to seek knowledge.
Dear Lib, I hope you read today’s column from Cecil about atomic radiation. I would say that something that can be fatal to your body, in spite of being invisible, is most definitely real. (It’s almost as though Cecil had read this thread and ordered that column re-posted as a refutation.)
If you really don’t believe that mechanisms can detect invisible radiation, then your body can certainly detect it. Ask any of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or Chernobyl.
If THAT doesn’t convince you, then stand outside on a clear summer day for several hours and see if you don’t get sunburned by invisible ultraviolet radiation* from the Sun (assuming your skin is fair).
*This is electromagnetic radiation and not atomic radiation, but it is just as invisible to our eyes, so the argument holds.
As a further comment in line with jab1’s rebuttal, Lib’s comments are akin to foolishly denying the reality of a magnetic field just because it cannot be perceived directly by human sensory apparatus!
Recall the standard philosophical definition of Materialism I offered above:
The magnetic field is completely materialistic because it is a “form, function, or action” of material entities. We know that magnetic fields exist by their materialistic effects on other material entities.
Absolutely. A question occurs to me that perhaps you or Lib can answer:
Is your belief in a living Creator integral to your conception of beauty as an intrinsic quality of beautiful things? In other words, do you consider beauty to be an objective feature of a thing regardless of human observation because God perceives all things?
Neither did I with my definition of Materialism! It was you, Lib, who disingenuously criticized me for allegedly appealing to agencies and then for NOT relying on agencies soon afterwards! I initially merely used the word “explicable” (as in “has a fully material cause”) and then you unfairly asserted that I was referring to an “explicator” or “explicatee” and inserting personalities into my definition! Lib wrote: “But you have tied the whole premise of reality to explication.”, which is ludicrous!
To call something materialistically explicable is merely to say it has a fully material cause. Metaphysics is irrelevant.
Neither is morality a problem for materialists, contrary to Lib’s cheap and dismissive criticism of Jab’s statements. Allow me very a brief aside on metaethics which will help clarify my materialistic view of normative ethics…
Language serves four principal functions:[LIST=1][li]To convey information (the informative function),[/li][li]To request information (the interrogative function),[/li][li]To direct behavior (the directive function), and[/li][li]To express feeling (the emotive function).[/LIST=1]As such, ethical language must consist of one or more of these functions.[/li]
All moral statements, in my own view, are examples of either directive or emotive use of language. They are expressions of our emotions and desires and have no demonstrable relationship to the transcendent or the metaphysical. Thus, we can see that normative ethics / morality need not imply or rely on any mystical or metaphysical non-materialistic entities.
Just because there is no non-materialistic foundation for morality does not mean there are no grounds available to materialists for drawing moral opinions and choosing moral actions or living a moral life!
(I would like to say that I also find xenophon41’s question of interest. Thanks, xen.)
Well, I do believe that God perceives all things, although I never really needed that assurance that beauty exists. Beauty is a characteristic of a thing, I think. God sees that, of course. I never really thought a lot about the source of beauty, or its “location” as it were. I am not totally sure I understand the materialist view of it yet.
A small, and perhaps mean spirited thing occurs to me, you see, if it is entirely a construct of neurons in the brain of the person seeing or hearing, or reading, or sensing the object of art. You see, I have some small pretensions as an artist. Mostly my art is a matter of words, but some plastic arts have gained my recent attention. Conceptual art as well, is a thing I find quite dear. (I refer to such things as the Gausopheme itself as a conceptual art object.) So, in my pride, I feel somehow cheated to know that what beauty there is in my art is not in my art itself.
So too, does nobility of spirit appeal to me. How can materialists consider those things, in and of themselves, to be worthy of respect, if they cannot exist except in the neurons of those who see them? Playing to the cheap seats has no nobility. Is loyalty essentially just habit? Culture, kindness, generosity, all just matters of appearance? I do not accuse materialists of this type of shallowness, but I do have a hard time following the same tight set of rules for reality and arriving at a place that recognizes the value of nobility of spirit. But then, a major tenet of some materialists is that there is no spirit, so this is a small matter to them, if spirit is not capable of nobility.
I know that there are those out there waiting for the other shoe to drop. I really am not trying to slide a fast Christian curve ball by you. I am not a philosophically grounded Christian. I have no epistemology for my theology, since I have no theology. I am a Christian because of a miracle, and that miracle has no philosophical significance. In fact, my faith is not philosophically significant, either.
Tris
I am running out of pithy quotes, so imagine something devastatingly witty and appropriate here. me
If God sees it as art, it is art, I think. I, as an artist, feel no loss to believe that the art exist only in the mind of those who see it as art. It is enough that it is art to me–or others–I think, without demanding that this perception exists before either I or the art ever existed. That there is no “art” in the work itself, I see such as right and proper and inevitable–even I, who have yearned towards art my whole life.
My art is real, to me, and shall be as long as I live. And it shall be, to all others who see as I do, as long as they so see. I do not think a thing must be eternal for it to be worthwhile. Why do you think things must last forever to be worth anything?
And now I am tired, and will go to bed, and my feelings are none the less for all I know they are not eternal. 
I can certainly empathize with your appealing view of reality, Tris, and I sincerely appreciate your understanding that materialism in no way implies shallowness.
What you call “nobility of spirit”, I call “nobility of character” and praise it all the same!
But I do not accept the idea that a belief in a “higher power” or non-material entities are at all necessary for deep human meaning. Instead, I give you Zarathustra!
(from Hollingdale’s translation of Thus Spoke Zarathustra):
Nietzsche was surely also an artist, Tris. Yet in his works you will find the very highest of nobility and courage and – however unique – extraordinary moral character!
If you do not see the awesome wonder and beauty and richness of the materialistic universe, I cannot help but think you’re just not looking with the clearest of eyes.
I’m still bothered by the having cake and eating it too aspect of Materialism. And yet, in a spooky way, you are so very close to my own interpretation of the universe itself. There are no sounds without a hearer. There are no sights without a seeer. There is no beauty, no truth, no morality without an interpreter. Thus, with respect to the universe, there is one and only one apparent reality that is amoral, without meaning, and of unaccountable origin. And there are as many interpretations of it as there are people.
I think then that the Materialists ought to understand better than anyone else the construct that I’ve offered here many times: the universe is an amoral context. There is no goodness in it. No evil. Those are mere interpretations, arbitrary, and based on culture, experience, and rationale. It is truly nothing but a mis-en-scene. It would seem to me that where we part ways, the Materialists and I, is that I am aware of an existence that is meaningful, where morality is absolute, where there is goodness and evil, where origin is a nonsense term.
You would deny the existence of that reality. Fair enough. I can understand why. At the same time, interestingly, you must allow its existence from my frame of reference, because you have legitimized it for me by declaring me, an observer, to be its validator. I presume you don’t want to go down the road of validation by consensus, so there we have it. (Weird metaphor follows…) You are philosophical heterosexuals; mysticists are philosophical homosexuals; and I am a philosophical bisexual.