What's the best argument against materialism?

>not even Descartes's view
>not even what Marx meant by dialectical materialism
>not even a good or deep argument against idealism, just a childish response, which was better and more memorable when Samuel Johnson did it anyway
So much pseud

why do you like it?

And for Hegel's philosophy to exist you needed Hegel to exist.

"Dialectical Materialism" was invented by Lenin through a vulgar misreading of Marx.

This is retarded on more than one level.

Because Hegel's project can be intepreted as moving from the realm of the conceptual into the actual, after exhausting the conceptual to its highest degree. A lot of later readers seem him as already analyzing social relations, which was expanded and clarified by Marx's methods.

Came here to say this. The kicker is, Dr. Johnson was responding to Berkeley (an empiricist!).

No Materialist has defined what Matter actually is or is supposed to be and their whole Epistemology is a dead wizard's a priori made dogma by fudge factors.

There isn't one.

It's mostly retarded because it's true.

bump

probably the certainty of death

Is there even a clear and coherent definition of what "material" is according to materialists?

that which can be observed?

materialism

So the book shows that Marx had the brain of a literal child?

Then what about "observe"?

things that can be perceived by the senses.

Are hallucinations "material"? By observation do you only mean visual? Are sounds "material"? How about thoughts?

Then what about "senses"?

What's the best argument in favor of it? It would need some way of establishing the existence of matter and its properties outside the phenomena of the mind, which is going to be very difficult.

>Are hallucinations "material"?

They're based on the material.

>By observation do you only mean visual?

all the senses.

> Are sounds "material"?

They're produced by the material and our brain, which is also material, is able to comprehend them.

>How about thoughts?

Like I said the brain is material.

A sense is the way our body perceives external stimuli

Astral projection.

Then what about "perceive" "external" and "stimuli"?

to perceive is to become aware of something

external in this context means outside of the human mind

stimuli in this context means energy or matter.

Then what about "aware" "mind" "energy" and "matter"?

This man is the classic example however generally issues such as qualia and the inchoreance of metaphysical naturalism.

Attached: berkeley.jpg (192x263, 21K)

mind-the conscious part of the brain
energy-the property of matter and radiation that is manifest as a capacity to perform work
matter-that which is made up of atoms, is physical

Is that you Rosa?

Then what about "concious" "property" "manifest" "capacity" "perform" "work" and "phyisical"?

This thread has done much to strengthen my view that "materialism", more-or-less in its various flavors, is a generally viable and correct philosophical set of views. Likewise: human nature is a real and useful philosophical category, positivism (whatever that is, exactly) is probalby also generally correct, and religion is broadly incorrect.

Every single time that Veeky Forums bitches about one of these things, they uniformly fail to actually supply sufficiently compelling counter-arguments, usually preferring to meme in the expectation that the opponent should already know the scholastic nonsense. No, the universe is made out of stuff so far as we are aware, you do not have to have perfect knowledge of what the stuff is in order for the former to be a tenable view and practically useful way of navigating life, you can readily predict that unpleasant things will happen if you are an asshole to others, this is a downstream consequnce of the earlier assumption, and this set of circumstances further gives rise to: human beings are in such-and-such a world and behave fairly predictably, and have certain absolute necessities, thus the reality of human nature.

Next comes the stuff about such-and-such religion is necessary because of present depravity, another error. Another is/ought error appears to have been made here .

big if true

what about "autism"?

There's no point in arguing against materialism in this thread until somebody gives an argument in favor of it.

Explain consciousness, Atheists.
>I-I don't need to explain that

if you can't do it you lose nigger, this is as old as the species. either cut his throat or run away

I don't think anyone has given a solution to Chalmers' hard problem and/or refuted the arguments he cites in favor of it

whats your point?

The repeated definition thing is rather annoying even as a nonmaterialist, but anyways, here's where you hit some difficulties- ascribing consciousness to part of the brain doesn't much work under a material system. There's nothing under a set of electronic signals in a lumps of oddly-designed cells that could give rise to a qualitatively different consciousness.

Here goes a pretty simple one:
Do ideas float in the platonic heaven? or are they thought and conveyed by humans, written in books, etc.?

Excessive materialism creates too much space for the ego to persist and grow out of control. The fear of 'losing my stuff' get's stronger with the more 'stuff' you have. Powerful Stoics can handle some immense anxiety from excessive materialism, but that's uncommon and generally not long lasting. Go for as little materialism as possible. Do not amuse yourself into oblivion.

Attached: escher_s_hangover_by_batjorge-da9hupq.jpg (1024x1375, 286K)

Wrong materialism.

you leave ninjas out of this

The more love you have for your spouse and children the stronger your fear of losing them.

Diversifying your material assets reduces the risk of losing them and anxiety. Split your wealth between rental properties generating passive income, dividend yielding stocks, and index funds.

Does anybody in this thread know what idealism and materialism are?

>dude you can't think of something without thinking about thinking about it lol

I think Paul Paolucci provides the best overview.

"Historical Materialism (HM). Although Marx never used the term “historical
materialism,” as a concept it approximates several of his views better than
does “dialectical materialism” (for reasons we will later see). Historical materialism
took shape out of several periods of investigation, including Marx’s
dissertation, his and Engels’s critique of Hegel’s idealism and adoption of
his dialectical logic, and their agreement with Feuerbach’s materialism but
with a rejection of his ahistorical approach. Engels (1980: 469) rst uses the
phrase “the materialist conception of history” in his review of Marx’s 1859
work, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Historical materialism
later became an indexical expression for Marx’s general theories, though
this is slightly misleading. Historical materialism is that moment where Marx
focuses on the history of class societies, widely construed (e.g., ancient/tribal,
slave, Asiatic, feudal, and capitalist modes of production). This “open-ended
approach to history” (McLellan 1975: 36) was guided by a “working hypothesis
about social change within and between types of social systems centered
on two main principles: 1) The ideological superstructures of a society are primarily
conditioned by its material bases; [and] 2) The contradictions between
the relations and the forces of production cause societies to both change within
their own structure, and over time, to change into qualitatively new forms”
(Paolucci 2000: 304). Embedded in these principles are the primacy of material
relationships, the role of class relations in society and thus class analysis
within research, and the emergence and practices of the state and its place in
models of class history. This was an intellectual program that emerged over
time (see Marx 1911, 1968a, 1973, 1978b, 1978d, 1992j: 85–86, Marx and Engels
1976, 1978a)."
from: Marx’s Scientific Dialectics

But how does diversification solve the hard problem of consciousness?

Unironically P-Zombies

>Begin hormone therapy
>Grow tits and fine tune your body to be more feminine.
>Wear some cute female clothes and become a convincing trap.
>Find another male for a materialist victim.
>Lie to him: Tell him he will never get a girl like you being a materialist.
>goad him and convert him to immaterialism, show him your dick. Watch him double down on his now zealous immaterialism views so to prove to himself he isn't gay and he changed his views himself.

kek

This should have been /thread

Can anyone give me a brief explanation of what exactly dialectical materialism is? I've seen it used quite a bit and I'm familiar with standard materialism in philosophical terms but I do not understand the dialectical/marxist bend to it

>brief explanation
>dialectical materialism

Basically the movement of history is driven by class struggle,. Everyone once in a while, the superstructure (ideology) and the base(forces of production and relations of production) of society become so contradictory and class relations get so antagonized that there is a revolution and a new class system emerges.

The classes exist because of scarcity, but since the technology of the modern world has advanced so much that scarcity is almost nonexistent, the next revolution will lead to a socialist society where the means of production are owned by everyone collectively, and that will eventually lead to communism.

I don't think the "materialist conception of history" M&E were talking about had anything at all to do with the discussion Hume, Berkeley, the naturalists etc were having. It was more of a response to Hegel's "idealist" conception of history that I don't really know but I've read people saying it has to do with how he thought Ideas were the motor force of history and social change and brought about material movement. Whereas M&E think material movement (the productive forces and their change across time) are what fuels social change

This
Its not something that’s thought, but instead felt.