"Materialism" is Idealism

I can't help but think of the quote; "Oh philosopher, you know so much about nothing at all."
I don't even know if I can keep up with all the wit, but to me it seems like it boils down to overly complicating things, mental masturbation, you should read Tao Te Ching, even Einstein liked that one
(so of course that means that you as a modern man of a scientific disposition must like it too ^^, ).

That's the reason I don't even like philosophy these days, you've got a lot of these philosophers, ever dabbling, forever just playing around with concepts in their minds, if they had any wisdom instead of knowledge they would be serious practicioners of esoteric systems, well, at least in my opinion.

So of course I prefer personal experience but it is hard to get, not impossible, just very hard. And of course it is personal, but that is enough for me, I may at times want other people to know but I don't need them to and that pretty much seals the deal. But of course we're all biased.. so each to their own.

a reply to: ImaFungi

An ideal is a hypothesis refined by personal biases that exists in the mind only.

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')

That depends on what you are speaking about and from what frame of reference. Yes if we view ourselves from the frame of the atomic scale, it appears as though there are only molecules, but you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a human and a tire. A tire, and a bag of air, are also conglomerations of molecules, and they are nothing like a human being.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Esoteric systems are esoteric for a reason. They're disappointing intellectually, and they only appease one's narcissism in practice. If practitioners of esoteric systems had any wisdom, they'd try to speak the truth rather than what makes people happy.

The Tao Te Ching to me is cute—that's about it—at least in my opinion. The whole Wu Wei concept is self-contradictory, the whole "do not speak" about the tao, but read this poem on it, makes it really more of a satirical doctrine if you ask me.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
The Tao cannot be told because it is not a thing - it has no name or label so how can it be spoken?
You probably have no idea what the word 'Tao' points toward.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

The Tao cannot be told because it is not a thing - it has no name or label so how can it be spoken?
You probably have no idea what the word 'Tao' points toward.

How do you know it cannot be spoken?

Who told you that and why is he speaking about the Tao?

Is there some loop-hole where we can write but not speak about it?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Itisnowagain

The Tao cannot be told because it is not a thing - it has no name or label so how can it be spoken?
You probably have no idea what the word 'Tao' points toward.

How do you know it cannot be spoken?

Who told you that and why is he speaking about the Tao?

Is there some loop-hole where we can write but not speak about it?

I happen to know 'what' it points toward. The 'what' is not a thing so please do not start saying that if it is a 'what' that it must be a 'thing'.
No one told me what it points to - it was seen and the words written are obviously pointing toward 'it'.

The 'tao' itself cannot be spoken but it can be pointed to.
I am not sure if it can be found just by reading about 'it' - I think it has to be realized first and then it is understood to be 'what' all these nonsensical scripts are pointing toward.

Yeah, ok sure, it's cute huh..
You know there's such a thing as spiritual arrogance, it's a double-edged sword, some "achievements" would make probably anyone a little arrogant, it's a part of the process.
Some of us are arrogant because of this, you'll actually have me smirking since I already know what you don't, it always comes back to this.. you just wouldn't know until you experience something profound yourself, you haven't even evaluated the systems and you're here day after day writing about philosophy. Like I said, mental masturbation.

What are you truly searching for? Is it building to something?
Ranting as you do, I'm starting to wonder if you travel to places like Burma or Thailand and harass the buddhists and hindus there just for kicks, that's the level of vehemence towards spirituality I percieve when reading through the lines.

Tsk tsk

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Where would you point to in its regard?

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Some of us are arrogant because of this, you'll actually have me smirking since I already know what you don't, it always comes back to this.. you just wouldn't know until you experience something profound yourself, you haven't even evaluated the systems and you're here day after day writing about philosophy. Like I said, mental masturbation.

Smirk away. That is the only argument you could ever produce, which leads me to smirk just as arrogantly. It amounts to “I’m right, you’re wrong”, and there is no room for that in matters of reason. Unfortunately, you’ll have to find a choir to preach to, or at least someone credulous enough to believe everything you assert. Spiritual masturbation.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Nowhere.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

So I can make sense of what you're trying to speak about without speaking about it...So you wouldn't point at all when pointing to the tao? Or the tao is nowhere you can point?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
If I were to tell you that all that appears to exist is nothing, would that make sense?
What do you know exists?

Are you or are you not?

personally material possessions mean little to me. as long as i have my particular comforts and a roof i'm good. they did once upon a time but my appreciation of the true meaning of need, versus the concept of 'want' obscured any materialism i had. i think the endless pursuit of wealth and baubles is a sign of an unsettled self.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

If I were to tell you that all that appears to exist is nothing, would that make sense?

It would make no rational, empirical, reasonable, intuitive sense.

I would first like to say.. Thank you OP for investing the time and effort necessary to create this thread. I would also like to say that I felt the general thrust of the message presented within it. Although I will readily admit that I skipped a section in the middle as it became quite laborious for me to read the entirety of it. Particularly because I know none of the books or authors that you mentioned ( I refer you to Eccl 12:12) It is much more fun to fly kites with children on a breezy summer day and I would dare say more enlightening.. But It was at the end where your message ( at least to me) became loudest and clearest.

I almost began to feel as though it may have stemmed partially from a jesture made by myself earlier in another thread of yours. Although the entire post ended up being somewhat incognito quite by my own ineptness at making posts on here. I want to clarify things a little regarding my thoughts toward the " successful" and "wealthy" people of the world. Even though that was not at all what I implied by A$$E$ (I foolishly felt that by spelling it correctly it may be censored.).. But I do want to set the record straight for anyone who may have gotten that impression. My beliefs regarding ALL roles in life is that we should do with all our might whatever we put our hand to do whether we were created to inhabit an honorable role or an dishonorable one. And truly I can only see praise for those that have magnified themselves upon the EARTH (although perhaps at great cost). For truly it says that God reaps even where He does not sow. But I will say this now that it is time to "BALANCE THE BOOKS".

As you pointed out at the beginning of this thread..MONEY has no value until it is put to use....AND INFACT.. if not put to use whether for good or evil ( as long as the energy is magnified it serves a purpose) it will become a detriment to the holder there of. And I would like to add that at this juncture I can see no further use for the development of the negative/evil side as we have reached a climax in the present parameters of energetic development. Now I say all of that for this reason...It is common knowledge that many people die every day and leave massive accumulations of "POTENIAL" energy for good aka "ASSETS". Now if a person chooses
not to apply this "ENERGY" to good purposes will it not become a "LIABILITY"? or at the least the loss of the oppurtunity to apply that which has been strove for.

Now I would like to address the LEADERS and MOVERS of the World. In order to lessen Karmic imbalances to tolerable levels. I would admonish you to cease and desist from all wars and skirmishes. And apply yourselve to the betterment of society. Let the rulers walk circumspectly in WISDOM and not in FOOLISHNESS for surely the fools shall receive their stripes. Wisdom and foolishness walk together with only pride separating the two. Beat your weapons into plow shares and let us see where the seething pot is and wherein lieth the seed of discontentment. For she shall make herself known to us. Turn your hands to recover
the Earth and Her inhabitants from the destruction that lieth at the threshold. Know that the Lord revealeth himself in ALL men and he will not send a man to be a fool and not be chief among them. And Hell Fire awaiteth to purge the dross from them.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Why did you ignore all my other questions and points? Is it more valuable for your time and mind to have these reoccurring 'arguments' with 'itsnowagain' than continue a potentially philosophically interesting discussion with me?

a reply to: ImaFungi

I am sorry fungi I thought I addressed your main questions. I figured all the rest of your questions were rhetorical. However, I'm not much of a philosophy teacher.

The concept of "ideal" I am referring to is Aristotle's "universal", which is slightly different than Plato's forms. Aristotle never thought these universals existed apart from the objects they are found in, but in our day, since we are more Platonic than Aristotelian, we have come to abstract the attributes from the things we see them in. I wouldn't recommend reading Aristotle, but if you wish to research the source from where the idea came from, be my guest.

I have read your post a couple times and cannot quite see an argument. If there is an over-arching argument I may have missed, would you mind condensing it and make it explicit for me?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So what makes 'society' (and vocation) an ideal?

So every single instance of thought itself, according to your definition is what the term 'ideal' refers to?
Would it be proper to suggest that what you are calling the ideal is the existence of thought? Without thought there would be no ideal? So maybe, depending on what you answer to that, I or we should think about the nature of thought and mind, what it is, how it was created, what makes it 'ideal', what makes it material. Having a thought at it now, what may be referred to ideal is the organization and quality (like, pixel quality) of the hardware of the mind, as that is the natural starting point for all humans and where all the senses end up, and where the human views and operates from, that it is the nature of the viewing of the mind, that has all the potentials of ideal. In the sense that, what it is, is an attempt to take as much information from outside the mind as possible, would you say whats outside the mind, besides other minds, is completely and pure material?, but would you say any means of a mind 'knowing, or attempting to know, or sensing' material, turns into ideal, for the means of sensing, or getting information, is by billions of EM impulses, that reverberate through, off, within, the body, to the mind, which receives these in some order, so stores them into some order, and places them in some order, which is rightfully trusted, as some close to similar representation of the establishment of material information that exists outside the mind.

So the mind is what perhaps blurrily, but perfectly, projects an image of an ideal triangle, when in the real world, you see 100 different triangles, but none may look like that 'essence' of a triangle you know and see so well, if the word triangle were to appear in your mind. But even that triangle, and all things have a material existence. When you see a perfect triangle in your mind, with out even trying, without checking to measure its angles or lines, there are exact physical/material qualities that make that envisionment of triangle possible, there is some structure and chemicals and molecules and electrical impulses that cause that triangle to exist exactly as it does when you will yourself to see it, just as there is when a triangle exists on your computer screen. And then I suppose the idea of symbolically proving things with words, may aid to the existence of ideal, by stating geometric concepts, like an equilateral triangle has equal length sides and there fore angles, I mean this is a perfect statement, it is creating an ideal that doesnt necessarily make possible sense in the beyond mind, beyond language, beyond symbol real world (because of things like atoms and such, what does the perfect line mean, can an equilateral triangle be made with atoms, yes I suppose it might be, if atoms can be perfect spheres, and the spheres have equal dimensions and they are lined together you can make a perfect triangle I imagine, but is that triangle then the ideal, a triangle made of spheres perfectly centered and touching? Or if the spheres were stuck together....yes this is rather silly line of thinking, as I suppose it is possible there may be potentially multiple manifestations of 'perfect', according to a classical sized ruler/yard stick, using a self consistent unit of measurement a perfect triangle can be made, I dont know, I dont know, lol. )

But yes, I never really intend to ask rhetorical questions. Every question I ask, I ask so that it may be answered, so then I may think about the answer, and potentially ask more questions about it.


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'?

a reply to: ImaFungi

So what makes 'society' (and vocation) an ideal?

We speak about how they should exist rather than how they do exist.

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

No. When we don’t see and think about things for how they are, but when we see and think about things in a way that is most suitable to ourselves.

Would it be proper to suggest that what you are calling the ideal is the existence of thought?

No.

Without thought there would be no ideal?

There probably wouldn’t be much of anything.

In the sense that, what it is, is an attempt to take as much information from outside the mind as possible, would you say whats outside the mind, besides other minds, is completely and pure material?

Everything inside and outside the mind is completely and purely material. By material I mean that we can observe and detect it through sensual means.

but would you say any means of a mind 'knowing, or attempting to know, or sensing' material, turns into ideal, for the means of sensing, or getting information is by billions of EM impulses, that reverberate through, off, within, the body, to the mind, which receives these in some order, so stores them into some order, and places them in some order, which is rightfully trusted, as some close to similar representation of the establishment of material information that exists outside the mind.

I wouldn’t say any material turns into an “ideal”, but that we conceive it in an “ideal” fashion, meaning, we perceive things only how we want to, fueled by our desires, biases, superstitions, fears etc. and not how they actually are.

So the mind is what perhaps blurrily, but perfectly, projects an image of an ideal triangle, when in the real world, you see 100 different triangles, but none may look like that 'essence' of a triangle you know and see so well, if the word triangle were to appear in your mind. But even that triangle, and all things have a material existence. When you see a perfect triangle in your mind, with out even trying, without checking to measure its angles or lines, there are exact physical/material qualities that make that envisionment of triangle possible, there is some structure and chemicals and molecules and electrical impulses that cause that triangle to exist exactly as it does when you will yourself to see it, just as there is when a triangle exists on your computer screen. And then I suppose the idea of symbolically proving things with words, may aid to the existence of ideal, by stating geometric concepts, like an equilateral triangle has equal length sides and there fore angles, I mean this is a perfect statement, it is creating an ideal that doesnt necessarily make possible sense in the beyond mind, beyond language, beyond symbol real world (because of things like atoms and such, what does the perfect line mean, can an equilateral triangle be made with atoms, yes I suppose it might be, if atoms can be perfect spheres, and the spheres have equal dimensions and they are lined together you can make a perfect triangle I imagine, but is that triangle then the ideal, a triangle made of spheres perfectly centered and touching? Or if the spheres were stuck together....yes this is rather silly line of thinking, as I suppose it is possible there may be potentially multiple manifestations of 'perfect', according to a classical sized ruler/yard stick, using a self consistent unit of measurement a perfect triangle can be made, I dont know, I dont know, lol. )

Atoms are a great example. We have never seen an atom to my knowledge, yet we have models of how they are shaped, and what they are composed of. They are purely mathematical entities until we are able to see one visually. They have no definitive boundary, but an “atomic radius”. We believe them to be full of empty space when something with no definitive boundary cannot be full of anything, including space. We only imagine them as spheres. We idealize them.

I would argue a perfect triangle can never be thought of. It can only be imagined to be perfect.

Or, are only thoughts of non provably reality referential 'ideal'?

Think of a cow in your head. Did you think of a particular cow? Or all the cows you’ve seen in your lifetime rolled into one? One of these cows exist.

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?

Not really. Materialism, like idealism, is a metaphysics. In other words, it is the foundation upon which we build our systems of knowledge.

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?

That is something else.

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’?

Discovery, experiment, etc. is not idealism. Idealism is a metaphysics.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Thank you for the response, I now have a clearer understanding of what you mean. Would you suggest that if all 'occurrences of what you deem to be idealism' were to cease to exist tomorrow, there would be one unarguable method of how humans would function and exist from then on? (and lol, would that be the most ideal means of existence, one that is idealess?)

About 'society', you say it is ideal that we speak of how they should exist instead of how they do exist. But is it not true, that idealizing 'went into' how the society that exists now, exists? So we know the future will occur, we know society exists now exactly as it does, and because the inevitability of 'time', the way in which society exists now is always slightly changing, which over more and more time, offers more and more changes. Since we have the power to aid and shape change, we think and view society as it exists now, and say, how will it exist in the future, and what are the best ways to aid its change.

You say, we dont see things for what they are, but I will paraphrase and say, we see thing with personal biases, and that is ideal. I suppose I have lost your point a bit, and now think I remember your main argument was to 'philosophers' who use the term ideal and materialism to refer to 'good, wishful thinker' and 'evil capitalist pig'. And your argument is that this type of thought is wrong, because seeing and knowing material as it is...compels one to use it in novel material ways? And that is ideal?

If we didnt have personal relationships to materials, and see them for what they could be, we would still be monkeys right now. I suppose this is your argument to the spiritualists, who say materialism is bad, you are saying that they are asking to erase all human progression, they are asking to be monkeys.

Ok, well I thought you might have been arguing other things, my bad be well.