"Materialism" is Idealism

“Materialism” is Idealism

Dear reader, I am not about to present any sort of paradox or metaphysical theory regarding these opposing philosophies. Please notice the quotation marks like book-ends around the word materialism in the title, for I am not speaking of the French matérialisme, physicalism, atomism or the mechanistic philosophies, for which I believe there are no real adherents of these doctrines still alive, but I write about the materialism of Nathanial Hawthorne, the author of the Scarlet Letter, from whom the now prevailing definition has taken shape. Although I have been unable to find the quotation in Hawthorne’s works myself, it supposedly states that materialism is “a way of life based entirely on consumer goods”. It is this “materialism”, dear reader, that I will be calling out as insufficient and too confusing as a definition, with no grounds to call our age “materialistic”; and, perhaps for fun, we can switch one confusing definition with another, and that we should call “a way of life based entirely on consumer goods”, Idealism.

First, those who have no interest in philosophy might come to understand materialism in its most recent form, thereby implying some sort of connection between metaphysical materialism and the “materialism” of Hawthorne. With this we risk making synonymous a historically rich philosophical tradition with the base animalistic tendencies in the eyes of the uninformed, and like the materialist schools of ancient Greece, India, Persia and Rome, we might perhaps loose an abundant and useful literature to the propaganda of the more idea-centric religions. If it wasn’t for the more secular cultures, we wouldn’t have known any of this philosophy existed anyways, for along with the material heretics and witches and pagans, the religious idealists also sacrificed material knowledge. Besides, the use of the term “materialism” in this sense is quite dubious and perhaps quite superficial, but worse, it almost seems like a sort of rhetorical warfare on the part of those seeking to tarnish any tradition that doesn’t resemble theirs. Leave it to an idealist to define materialism. He who has the pen writes the history as they say. Even the so-called materialist philosophers of late have since fled to new banners such as “physicalism” or “monism” to distance themselves from this scarlet letter.

Of course, for our tender philosophers, it took argument to impel this distancing further. If you have the mind, dear reader, imagine who might have been the greatest opponent to the metaphysics of materialism in its most recent days, you will be surprised to hear that it was none other than Noam Chomsky who has delivered a fatal blow, and rightfully so. Leave it to a great linguist to notice that “matter” and “physical” are quite vacuous terms. That isn’t to say Chomsky is some sort of idealist—a rationalist maybe—but his arguments are reasonable enough to show that philosophy still has some work to do in the areas of articulating what “physical” and “matter” even means. But, despite Chomsky’s arguments, we still stub our toe on the coffee table and other things. It is these things and others of a similar nature I will be referring to when I speak of the material, the physical and materialism minus the quotes.

Nowadays, Hawthorne’s definition of “materialism” has somehow morphed—and I’m guessing due to its constant misuse—into “a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values” (Oxford English Dictionary). You might find as you speak this definition to yourself, that materialism is almost synonymous with greed, lust, envy, consumerism, hedonism, and a whole host of sins. People often throw this word around in an ignorant fashion when it comes articulating the ills of the world, blaming their misfortune on the fortune of others, on “materialism”, and in so doing, connecting such idealism to materialistic philosophy. Although this is well intended, I think it mistaken.

If we agree with Heinrich Heine, as we always should, we might consider the notion of “spiritual values” (if there are indeed such things I will not say) as a form of idealism, or “spiritualism” as the poet called it, where “spiritual values” are simply the non-physical, mental, and immaterial ideals every human knows and loves and kills for. This sort of umbrella usage of idealism, which in contrast to Hawthorne’s “a way of life based on material goods”, ends up being the inverse, namely, “a way of life based on spiritual goods”. If we were to apply this inversion of meaning to the Oxford definition of materialism in order to compliment its opposite, we come to a quite apt description of idealism: “a tendency to consider spiritual possessions and mental comfort as more important than material values”. If I had my way, this definition would find its way into the dictionary under idealism, as it would include classical idealism, transcendental idealism, and the idealism of Woodrow Wilson and De Tracy under one term. This sort of idealism carries more weight than traditional classical idealism, which has only ever been one grand counter-argument against the substantive growth of physicalist metaphysics and the decline of theology in the natural philosophies; and the transcendental idealism of Kant and Schopenhauer, which is more a question of epistemology, lacking any real concrete effect. It is the former sense in which I will be writing of idealism.

I think it important to immediately point out that any seemingly “materialistic” endeavor—the typical consumerism, greed and possession, whether it be for success, equity, worth, legacy, status or celebrity—are purely idealistic aims. The acquiring of material goods and physical comfort are merely means to attain these ideals. One who considers the material in themselves and as themselves, could not see them as means to some idealistic end without resorting to some sort of idealism.

Take money for instance. If we consider the material value of it, money is as about as valuable as what it is printed on. But since we have placed upon this paper an ideal value, a purely theoretical value, a “spiritual value”, any idealist would choose a big pile of this paper, over, say, a cow; where a real materialist, if there is such a person nowadays, must see the cow as inherently more valuable. Money is simply a promise, a contract, an oath of wealth, success, and status; it holds no material value; it holds only ideal value. Accordingly, the acquiring of money is a purely idealistic motive.

cont.

I like to use the gentle bovine as an example for all it has done for us. The cow has provided more in the enhancement of mankind through its physical existence than any ideal ever has. It has a material value regardless of whatever ideal or spiritual value we put on it, and it exerts its material value every moment it exists. To see a cow as merely a possession, or as a means to our comfort, is to truly idealize this wonderful animal. And though I risk idealizing the cow by putting it on some poetic pedestal, I am able to do so because I am simply complimenting its inherent material worth, its face value, as opposed to its idealistic value. I do not speak about what I wish it was, i.e. a steak or a leather purse, but what it is. But then, I do not take it so far as the Indian idealists, and I do not imagine it to be anything more than a cow. Why would I need to?

To see anything as a mere possession or a means to comfort is idealism. If we have the wherewithal to look at things as they are, no material exists in order so that it can be possessed. The possession of materials, material gain, and quests for physical comfort arise in the mind only, and are in fact not material values at all, but spiritual ones. None of this is more apparent than in the realm of ecology, where the gravitation towards ideal value has left the material values rotting beneath vast fields and lakes of waste and landfill. Through our ideal and spiritual valuations of material goods, the result is the devaluing of material itself, reducing it to a mere means to an end, only to throw it away when we are done using it, never to return it to its original form.

Though all this is perhaps accidental and innocent enough, a product of our material nature, the valuing of spiritual goods and mental comforts over material values has led to so much murder, genocide and destruction culture. Even the most materialistic of philosophical revolutions, as is found in the philosophy of Karl Marx, ends up being paradoxically utilized to serve up idealistic political tendencies, such as Stalinism, Maoism, through which ideal political states were erected through the destruction and subjugation of real material beings. We already know how many material beings were destroyed on the road to attain the ideal “Deutschland, Deutschland über alles”. But this idealistic story has continued throughout the ages, with superstitious and idealistic subjugation of woman, the use of slavery, and the eradicating of peoples based on certain ideals populating human history. Inquisition, witch-hunts, crusades were all actions performed with an end ideal in mind, with no limit to how much material destruction was required to achieve it. Even to this day, men fight over plots of land they believe to be somehow more sacred than other plots of land, that it is of their possession, they own it, they have rights to it; but if we were to use the materialistic lens and illuminate these idealists under our incriminating eye, we’d witness men in a sandbox, killing each other over the lines they draw in the sand.

It is simply untrue that we live in a materialistic culture. There is not a single materialist among us, and if there were, he would have escaped to the farthest reaching places long ago if only to escape the idealism of the age.

Thank you for reading,

LesMis

This is the second long, rather verbose diatribe that you posted today that when boiled down, appear only to be grammar versus concept / concept /versus concept argument to yourself.

Are you annoyed at your dictionary?

Earlier you ranted about the use of the word ''happiness'' and now ''materialism'' which you described in more literal terms than their conceptual analysis suggests.

Your very literal interpretation of word analysis and the actual conceptual meaning behind those words are conflicting. I suggest you refrain from word analysis as such as it is obviously bothering you.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Earlier you ranted about the use of the word ''happiness'' and now ''materialism'' which you described in more literal terms than their conceptual analysis suggests.

Your very literal interpretation of word analysis and the actual conceptual meaning behind those words are conflicting. I suggest you refrain from word analysis as such as it is obviously bothering you.

Your attempt at psychoanalysis fails the moment it leaves your mind and finds itself on the screen. What is obvious is that you know probably nothing about me, and that your assumptions lead to conclusions which cannot be concluded by any rational means. I suggest you refrain from such projection, as it is obviously wrong.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It isn't psychoanalysis it's observation.

You are misconstruing word meanings as concepts and truly only arguing yourself.

For example, ''interesting'' and ''happy'' are descriptive terms that are not mutually exclusive. ''Happiness'' is obtainable whilst being ''interesting'', it is a concept. You argued about it's literal word use grammatically not being to your liking.

Similarly you are now arguing ''materialism'' as a concept doesn't fit your grammatical liking hence you called it an ''idealism'' which is another concept.

Sounds like you read some philosophy and some words from a dictionary, misunderstood both conceptually then vomited your confused grammatical interpretation onto the page in a nonsensical manner.

Your so called stance is as relevant as advising people against butter in favour of cheese or saying butter is a dairy product. It is far from profound.

I have been reading philosophy for more than 20 years and I know literature, linguistics and grammar well, I clicked on these threads as I wondered if it might be interesting, I sort of wanted to read something profound. It wasn't and isn't. In all truthfulness it sounds like you are confused.

dictionary.reference.com...

materialism
[muh-teer-ee-uh-liz-uh m] Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values.
2.
the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.

idealism
[ahy-dee-uh-liz-uh m] Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
the cherishing or pursuit of high or noble principles, purposes, goals, etc.
2.
the practice of idealizing.
3.
something idealized; an ideal representation.
4.
Fine Arts. treatment of subject matter in a work of art in which a mental conception of beauty or form is stressed, characterized usually by the selection of particular features of various models and their combination into a whole according to a standard of perfection.
Compare naturalism (def 2), realism (def 3a).
5.
Philosophy.
any system or theory that maintains that the real is of the nature of thought or that the object of external perception consists of ideas.
the tendency to represent things in an ideal form, or as they might or should be rather than as they are, with emphasis on values.

happiness
[hap-ee-nis] Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
the quality or state of being happy.
2.
good fortune; pleasure; contentment; joy.

interesting
[in-ter-uh-sting, -truh-sting, -tuh-res-ting] Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
adjective
1.
engaging or exciting and holding the attention or curiosity:
an interesting book.
2.
arousing a feeling of interest :
an interesting face.
Idioms
3.
in an interesting condition, (of a woman) pregnant.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
This is the second long, rather verbose diatribe that you posted today that when boiled down, appear only to be grammar versus concept / concept /versus concept argument to yourself.

Are you annoyed at your dictionary?

Earlier you ranted about the use of the word ''happiness'' and now ''materialism'' which you described in more literal terms than their conceptual analysis suggests.

Your very literal interpretation of word analysis and the actual conceptual meaning behind those words are conflicting. I suggest you refrain from word analysis as such as it is obviously bothering you.

Word analysis can be beneficial if you go past vocabulary definitions deeper to the entymolgy of the word.

Also Linguistics seems to really important so keep in mind its only a conversation if others understand the point you are attempting to get accross.

a reply to: Iamthatbish

I am educated I know about words, I know about philosophy. Words have meanings for purpose.

Insinuating materialism as idealism is anathema to word knowledge and philosophy. Similarly for any grammatical arguments against being happy instead of interesting.

Only a fool couldn't see behind the opening post of this thread's attempt at ridicule and confusion of words and concepts.

This poster has done this before and argued against feminism as a principle because he doesn't like it and considers it ''unfair to men'' and refused to understand and acknowledge it as a concept and it's value in the civilized world.

Goading intelligent people into ridiculous arguments seems this poster modus operandi. I have pointed it out, clearly. Now I have better things to do so will ignore this poster from now on.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

The Op lost my respect with his inflammatory response to you. If he doesn't want your opinion he should keep a journal.

it is my opinion that the difference between materialism and materialistic is quite simply obsession.
you see, similar to sex as in to have sex would not mean you are a pervert or rapist but to be obsessed with sex likely does, where as materialism is to be obsessed with what is materialistic and i do think society is controlled by materialism.

i have to disagree with the definitions stated to idealism and

“a tendency to consider spiritual possessions and mental comfort as more important than material values”

is more like the definition to druggie or at least idealism defined by a druggie.

idealism to me is defined as a simplistic frame of mind based upon spiritual values which makes sense according to needs.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Is your argument that technically, because all human activity depends on human choice, all human activity is the proaction of ideals? And if so, would it not follow that then, in the scope of what humans choose to do with their will, and their environment, and what is possible for them to do, that there is a potential way to graph/rank the different choices of different individuals and collectives from the least ideal to the most ideal?

Is there a higher ideals all ideals are compared to? Or are there no absolute ideals, only the comparison of all relative ideals that have ever occurred and the supposed potentials of ideals that are possible to occur?

My simple way of looking at this potentially complex problem you stirred up, and admitting I am a little confused, would be to say that it is inescapable for a human to be 'either ideal or materialistic (in your sense of the word I believe)' as existing as a human in reality demands all humans to be both materialistic and ideal. Materialistic as in, must interact with materials to remain existing, and ideal, as in, must use the will/choice to interact with materials to remain existing. So would it be possible to give even abstractly for point of argument, numerical rankings of how materialistic and ideal a person is depending on their life behavior. Or your argument would be; because there is no grand absolute perfect expression of idealism and perfect expression of materialism, all human activity is only; exactly as it is, and this has no meaning beyond the fact that; all human activity is only; exactly as it is.

Tautological, there is no value outside exactly what occurs? Though I do believe the idea of ideal, might come into play, because of our apparatuses nifty ability to conceive of future states of reality i.e. I have 100 pieces of corn, if I only eat 50 today, I will have 50 for tomorrow, which activity is more valuable to me? Will I regret my decision? Does it matter? If I make this bad decision today, may I die tomorrow, that would be a negative value I must always seek to avoid, so would it be ideal, if I behave with the material I have access to in this certain manner? Or am I very certain I will find 100 pieces of corn tomorrow, so it will be most ideal, to enjoy all the corn I can tonight etc.

Beautiful writing by the way, keep up the passion... if you want

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

20 years of philosophy and you immediately run to the authority of the dictionary for your argument? That sounds more like theology to me, and perhaps a little dependence and conformism where thought is lacking. I entirely suspect your claims to authority, and thus disrespect what you write. Here I am challenging the definitions in the dictionary and your only response is to assert the authority of it, while at the same time trying to build up your own authority in philosophical matters. Here you are typing nothing but fallacy, contradiction and hypocrisy, while at the same time asserting we should trust your philosophical and spiritual authority and experience. Don’t worry, I’ll take your word for it.

Sounds like you read some philosophy and some words from a dictionary, misunderstood both conceptually then vomited your confused grammatical interpretation onto the page in a nonsensical manner.

Your so called stance is as relevant as advising people against butter in favour of cheese or saying butter is a dairy product. It is far from profound.

Go read some profound threads if your so interested in doing so. Apparently, “profound” to you means something you agree with. Well your “profound” to me is entirely insipid. Except, of course, here you are. You read a perhaps too long thread only to speak about how nonsensical it was. And then you do it to another, and then another. Further, you’ve done the exact same conceptual vomiting, taking time to formulate responses to threads with “irrelevant”, “misunderstood”, “confused grammatical interpretations”, so that you can attempt to replace it with your own. A philosopher indeed.

a reply to: Iamthatbish

The Op lost my respect with his inflammatory response to you. If he doesn't want your opinion he should keep a journal.

And why would someone need your respect?

a reply to: ImaFungi

Fungi, a breath of fresh air.

My simple way of looking at this potentially complex problem you stirred up, and admitting I am a little confused, would be to say that it is inescapable for a human to be 'either ideal or materialistic (in your sense of the word I believe)' as existing as a human in reality demands all humans to be both materialistic and ideal. Materialistic as in, must interact with materials to remain existing, and ideal, as in, must use the will/choice to interact with materials to remain existing. So would it be possible to give even abstractly for point of argument, numerical rankings of how materialistic and ideal a person is depending on their life behavior. Or your argument would be; because there is no grand absolute perfect expression of idealism and perfect expression of materialism, all human activity is only; exactly as it is, and this has no meaning beyond the fact that; all human activity is only; exactly as it is.

I need to add nothing more than this. Although I was hoping it was less explicit, you hit the nail on the head so to speak.

awfully annoying to hear i woke up this morning and stubbed my toe just before i drank coffee while stumbling at the door which was ajar and i meant ajar and not a jar when the neighbor said good morning neighbor with an attitude i didnt like which affected my mood noticed by my coworkers while the boss was in such a terrible mood for reasons i have yet to realize but no doubt surely will because when i think long enough about what i think about i usually find what i look for like at lunch when i ate my sandwich and drank another coffee and was so busy i had to work late and got caught in the traffic i usually avoid due to my work schedule that has not changed since i began my new career that is very physical and requires lots of liquids i did not have today because i thought so much about my toe which is why i am so thirsty instead of hearing i would like some water.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ImaFungi

Fungi, a breath of fresh air.

My simple way of looking at this potentially complex problem you stirred up, and admitting I am a little confused, would be to say that it is inescapable for a human to be 'either ideal or materialistic (in your sense of the word I believe)' as existing as a human in reality demands all humans to be both materialistic and ideal. Materialistic as in, must interact with materials to remain existing, and ideal, as in, must use the will/choice to interact with materials to remain existing. So would it be possible to give even abstractly for point of argument, numerical rankings of how materialistic and ideal a person is depending on their life behavior. Or your argument would be; because there is no grand absolute perfect expression of idealism and perfect expression of materialism, all human activity is only; exactly as it is, and this has no meaning beyond the fact that; all human activity is only; exactly as it is.

I need to add nothing more than this. Although I was hoping it was less explicit, you hit the nail on the head so to speak.

Oh well I dont think I agree with that view

You suggest, there is no such thing as value, behind the subjective minds perception of value? I have a feeling you will say something like; "of course not! Have you ever seen anything else besides the subjectivity of your mind?"

And I will say, "but it is hardly my mind that tells me I must eat, I mean in the sense, the choice is not mine, I didnt choose the fact that I must eat to remain living, and I can choose to die, but there is a certain value trusted upon me, that it is more valuable to attempt to exist, then it is to not. Life is novel, when compared to death, or non existence. Everyone is gureented to die, not everyone is guaranteed to live (*well). Well what does live well mean? I would say it means with value. I would say that objectively and absolutely the highest value, to start generally, is to exist. For all potential value stems from this position. Once one exists, if to exist at all is valuable (if it is not, one only needs to kill themselves to prove their perspective), and considering one needs certain things to exist, this automatically places a value on the materials needed to continue existence, one must admit a value scale of quantity and quality of existence. I admit this is where we are open to extreme subjectivity, as a buddhist monk may see more value in his life than bill gates, and at the same time bill gates may see his life as the most valuable, and maybe a frog in the jungle right now experience the most value per second out of any life that has ever lived,etc. But if we start from the fact that all human life is first baby, and then consider that there takes a lot of energy, sustenance, care and protection, (the baby must be seen as a value to the parents, yes this is subjective, as the baby may seen as valuable to a hungry lion, and in completely different terms, but if I recall, I hardly can, I was trying to suggest that the concept of value in general, exists in some way, as in, is applicable at all, beyond a human mind, as in, objectively a human must value the process/the accumulation of food, if is to continue existing, so objectively, systems of values are real things that exist), we would see that the value of the baby was needed, in order for the baby to be a 2 year old, and 3 year old, and all that value and experience the baby experiences each second from there on out, 'was worth it', was worth all the activity of the will, because if it truly was not, this creature should kill themselves, they can ever say a million loud times 'it is not worth it, there is no value', but their action would speak louder than their words.

So, I kinda lost where I was going, but I was talking mainly about the statement you seemed to agree with that 'all human activity is only, exactly as it is, and has no meaning beyond the fact, all human activity is only, exactly as it is'

because I agree, that there are true values, such as 'better or for worse'. If living is good, and death is bad, a human that 'knows' living is good, and death is bad (for it), would be utilizing a non value, by cutting its head off. If the option appears, that it can cut its head off, or eat a meal, knowing that the main value is that, life is what is valuable, and the destruction of (ones life) life, is not valuable, then there is greater meaning to that individual, (and potentially other humans effected by its decision), besides the objective, material action, of a conglomerate of molecules, moving this way or that, interacting with this or that.

a reply to: ImaFungi

...it is inescapable for a human to be 'either ideal or materialistic (in your sense of the word I believe)' as existing as a human in reality demands all humans to be both materialistic and ideal.

This is the statement in particular I agreed with. The rest, I’m not too sure, but I enjoyed where your mind was going. But as I intimated, there is no real materialist out there anymore, and if there was, he’d be off somewhere in the material world absent of such ideals as “society”, “vocation”, and the whole politics of it all— or at least in the case of Diogenes, showing the idealists the folly of their ways through cynicism, as a bird singing in his cage. If you think about it, even “matter” is an ideal conception of what we call physical. But, for example, when I speak about a cow, and I speak only about its material attributes, I am also speaking about its material value, which I expressed has given us by the fact of its very existence so much more than we can ever hope to give back. It is not a form of idealism to speak about the material value of something, for it is an actual concrete fact to speak about what is there and how we relate to it; but it is not a fact to express that it is something we wish it was—an ideal.

You yourself say, in passing, that if we are simply the material we are composed of, a sort of objective view absent of any subjective interpretation, we are simply a “conglomerate of molecules”. I don’t think this works, as even a ball of hair is a conglomerate of molecules, and there is simply no comparison. This conception that we are a conglomerate of molecules, or a pile of atoms, or bags of chemicals composed of dumb matter, is actually quite prevalent among idealists and the religiosi, even when the concept holds zero truth value or explanatory power. It is quite apparent that we are not simply a conglomerate of molecules, and it isn’t objective in any sense to assume that is true.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


there is no real materialist out there anymore, and if there was, he’d be off somewhere in the material world absent of such ideals as “society”, “vocation”, and the whole politics of it all— or at least in the case of Diogenes, showing the idealists the folly of their ways through cynicism, as a bird singing in his cage. If you think about it, even “matter” is an ideal conception of what we call physical. But, for example, when I speak about a cow, and I speak only about its material attributes, I am also speaking about its material value, which I expressed has given us by the fact of its very existence so much more than we can ever hope to give back. It is not a form of idealism to speak about the material value of something, for it is an actual concrete fact to speak about what is there and how we relate to it; but it is not a fact to express that it is something we wish it was—an ideal.

So what makes 'society' (and vocation) an ideal? First you must define society. And I suppose I may as well ask for a clarification of your use of the word, ideal. Would you say, 'there exists material, which is of the realm of materialism, and there is the mind/consciousness/imagination, which 'makes sense' of the material, and this process of sensation and 'useage' of sensation, is what is ideal'?

So every single instance of thought itself, according to your definition is what the term 'ideal' refers to?

Or, are only thoughts of non provably reality referential 'ideal'? So there is a cow, you say as A = A , as 1 = 1, cow = cow, and we could never say A = A unless I could show you physically what an A is. A is a symbol, that has no reality referential besides itself, it is used as a tool, to point/label something that exists in reality, so that when I want to talk about something in reality, I cant capture that thing in reality, bring it into my body, and through the image into your body, so you need to have seen what I have seen before, and we need to agree to use these symbols to refer to that thing we saw.

So cow is cow. You may know more details about what a cow is, what its made of, all sorts of things, how many kinds there are. And most everything that can be said about a cow, volumes and volumes and years and years of words and details and numbers and studies, this is all materialism? Like how much cows weigh, how many organs they have, how much milk they can produce, what their skin can be used for etc. etc. all materialism? But the process of a man figuring out what can be done with a cows skin, or figuring out all these details about a cow, through a process of willing himself to study this or a society willing a man to want to study this, is all 'ideal'?

You yourself say, in passing, that if we are simply the material we are composed of, a sort of objective view absent of any subjective interpretation, we are simply a “conglomerate of molecules”. I don’t think this works, as even a ball of hair is a conglomerate of molecules, and there is simply no comparison. This conception that we are a conglomerate of molecules, or a pile of atoms, or bags of chemicals composed of dumb matter, is actually quite prevalent among idealists and the religiosi, even when the concept holds zero truth value or explanatory power. It is quite apparent that we are not simply a conglomerate of molecules, and it isn’t objective in any sense to assume that is true.

Hm, ok. Well, so do you disregard the notion of science that refers to chemicals and collections of elements as molecules? Namely, chemistry and biology?

The term molecules is what that is called, I agree there can be a massive amount of descriptive and qualitative information missing from our understanding of what these truly mean, but as far as we can tell we are composed of 'stuff', and this stuff is called molecules. Could you offer anything else, besides molecules, that you believe we are made of. I suppose I could have included, the molecules + the reactions within and between the molecules.

This sort of notion, I agree is a product of reductionism. If we discover that All 'things' are composed of fundamental quanta, then one could say, though we experience a very different realm, 'beneath it all', all is composed of these fundamental parts. That have lawfully been compelled to interact as they do, and build up and build up and interact and interact and build up, and be stable, and deal with chaos and deal with order, and build up and interact, and here we are.

Is there anything besides molecules and the reactions and interactions of molecules with your environment and within yourself that 'make what you are what you are'? (included in reactions and interactions are things like 'em field, gravity field')

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I know that this sounds unfair, however, perhaps the rich deserve to be so.

originally posted by: SystemResistor
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I know that this sounds unfair, however, perhaps the rich deserve to be so.

Its not unfair, so much as it is unargued for by you. The unfairness is you thinking you can make a statement and it being true without any other efforts. I can do the same thing: Perhaps the poor deserve to be rich.