• Jack Cummins
    5.3k
    I raise the question as to whether the material world is the most absolute form of reality as it appears to be at the centre of most other debates within philosophy. It is essential to how we perceive the world. Certain philosophers, such as Kant and Plato, believed in transcendent ideas, beyond the material world. Others see reality in terms of the basis of physical reality, such as Sartre's belief that existence proceeds essence , which points to the material realm as the ultimate basis of our living reality.

    I would say that the question is central to any philosophy ranging from those based on a belief in a transcendent order, the philosophy of hard determinism, existentialism and nihilism, as well as the philosophy of quantum physics. It is at the centre of the whole consideration of life and death and how we frame reality, so I see it as one of the most important philosophy questions. It is one which underlies so many other ones, but perhaps it
    may get overlooked amidst the complexity of arguments . On this basis, I wish to highlight the question as one its own right, as it is often in the background as a subtle form of arguments and premises, and I wish to bring it into a more focus for fuller consideration.

  • Manuel
    4.1k
    What other reality is there? You can say mental reality, but mental reality is part of physical reality. Physical is a better word actually, because things exists which aren't matter: energy, dark energy, dark matter, etc. Most of the universe isn't even made out of baryonic matter, which is all we know and interact with in our day to day living.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    To what extent are mental and physical reality identical? Are we not confronted by the split between mind and body, as it appears in the thinking of Descartes? So, we are still left with the question, as to whether what is the most real?
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    This question presupposes that you can actually define what is the material world. Once upon a time we could have answered "matter" and effected a confident reduction. However quantum physics has stretched the definition of matter to the point that saying "reality" and "the material world" are equivalent does not really mean anything. I personally adopt a systems theoretic viewpoint which doesn't slice up reality along traditional mind-matter lines.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    I would say that I began this thread partly in response to what you were saying to @Gus Lamarch, with whom I have been discussing ideas relating to nihilism. Personally, I am influenced by systems theory, but I do have a whole interest in the the whole basis of the theory of knowledge, including the perspective of Kant. I also do aim for pluralistic considerations of truth, which would include thinking which goes outside the thinking of the Western philosophy tradition.

    I would say that I see the material world, and the psychology and cultural aspects which arise from it as extremely important aspect of truth, but do not wish to rule out other aspects. I say this coming with a view to the realm of other dimensions, especially in the realm of quantum physics, the arts and a certain amount of critical appreciation of the various spiritual perspectives.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    The material world is, as a matter of fact, the only aspect of reality we have any knowledge on. Everything else i.e. the non-material aspect of reality we bother to countenance is the work of our imagination, sheer speculation is all there is to it. The situation that we're in is that of a man who has a gilfriend who's deficient in some way in the beauty department and he has an alternative, another more aesthetically endowed woman but, for good or illl, this woman is imaginary. We're intimate with the material world but would like something better, a nonmaterial world, but, unfortunately, our only point of contact with what we prefer is our imagination.
  • Echarmion
    2.6k


    But physical reality, insofar as we can access it, must logically be part of mental reality. So there are two contradictory statements, both seem to be necessarily true. Historically, physical reality must precede mental reality. But epistemologically, mental reality must precede physical reality.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    I agree with you but in some ways we are stuck in between the daily realities which we have and abstract arguments, such as those which we have in the writings of Kant and other important philosophers. How does this equate with the living reality of philosophy which we relate to?

    I am not wishing to dismiss Kant or our own living perspective based on scientific premises and empirical observation. I am trying to it put together this realm of thinking alongside contemporary materialism. Please don't mistake me, I am not in favour of dismissing the ideas of Kant and other thinkers.

    I believe that the perspective of materialistic philosophy is limited and I am just trying to think about ways in which the whole area needs careful thinking for progressing forwards.I am not opposed to materialism, but wishing to finding it and its benefits and limitations in the within whole the philosophy quest.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Perhaps the urge to look beyond that which is obvious - the material world we constantly bump into day and night - is either a sign of our despair at the finitude of existence or is an intuitive variety of knowing that there's more to reality than meets the eye.

    Nevertheless, unless someone comes up either a good argument or strong evidence that hints at an immaterial world out there somewhere, I'm not going to buy into what is, at this point, essentially daydreaming.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    I am all about "inclusivism." The Karl Mannheim essays I'm currently reading actually detail a tri-partite perspective on the sociology of knowledge, comparing alignments with and between "formal validity" (Kant), "scientific validity" (Positivism), and "historicism" (Phenomenology/Weltanschauung).

    In a way I feel like a lot of what I am doing is just "learning a vocabulary," fleshing out mere signs with an ever-enriching field of lexical-syntactical content or meaning. We talk "around" concepts in order to develop (and create I guess) a richer understanding of them. Not so much finding an answer as...participating in discussion.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    I am most certainly open to the perspective you present. If anything, I would advocate a more open minded perspective, in the quest of enquiry.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    I like how Habermas stresses the importance of being polite in showing respect for others' ideas in the interest of establishing a true communication, which is the ultimate "validator". I demonstrate the substance of my own opinions to the extent I respect yours.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    I believe in empirical speculation but do believe it has its limitations. Perhaps we are in danger of shutting off our philosophical quest if we remain too empirical and closed to other ways of perceiving the problems arising in philosophy.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    It is questionable how we approach others points of view. How much is respect, and how much is about whether we think we know more than others. Who can say that they have the most absolute picture of truth and reality?
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    Does physical or mental reality precede one another, and how do we disentangle the two in a way which is meaningful to us?
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    Ok, well my answer to both your questions I can phrase again in something I just read.

    Each individual perspective in the Phenomenological/Weltanschauung tradition has its own "truth", wherein "intuitions of essence are always dependent on the historical background of the subject." Moreover these phenomenological "essential inutitions" are the "Supra-temporally valid truths", such as the Kantian's hold. So, again, it is overlapping conceptual realms. Mannheim calls them "constellations". The historical-material, the ideal.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    I believe in empirical speculation but do believe it has its limitations. Perhaps we are in danger of shutting off our philosophical quest if we remain too empirical and closed to other ways of perceiving the problems arising in philosophyJack Cummins

    The problem with being non-empirical i.e. looking beyond the obvious material world is that we can't distinguish between the real and the unreal. What's unreal if we take the exclusively mental constructs to be real?
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    I appreciate your answer. I would just say that I think that the whole question is of so important, because so many philosophical views are dependent on metaphysical assumptions about reality. This is because philosophies are hinged on premises about the nature of the material world and how real it is.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    As I said in the other thread, the premise of the material world is a metaphysical assumption.
  • khaled
    3.5k
    What constitutes “material”? What not just “the world”? I’ve always found “material” in “material world” to be at best obsolete and at worst misleading. What would a non-material world look like?
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    You raise a good question too, in asking what is material. In particular, how does the emotional stand, and to what extent is this simply an expression of the material, or something more?
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    But the so-called material world that we actually inhabit is shot-through with meaning, information, none of which is itself material. The symbolic historical significance of material structures carries meaning that can evoke real actions in people that have nothing whatsoever to do with the materiality of those structures. The real world is also symbolic, and that is a fact as undeniable as materiality.
  • khaled
    3.5k
    In particular, how does the emotional stand, and to what extent is this simply an expression of the material, or something more?Jack Cummins

    Why can it not just coincide with the material? When you have brainstate X you also simultaneously experience fear or joy or what have you.


    But the so-called material world that we actually inhabit is shot-through with meaning, information, none of which is itself material.Pantagruel

    I would say that those are in our eyes not in the world. Practically no difference though.

    The symbolic historical significance of material structures carries meaning that can evoke real actions in people that have nothing whatsoever to do with the materiality of those structures.Pantagruel

    Who claimed otherwise?
  • Outlander
    2.1k
    Certain philosophers, such as Kant and Plato, believed in transcendent ideas, beyond the material world.Jack Cummins

    There are a few distinctions people either don't acknowledge or consciously bear in mind when throwing around terms like absolute, reality, and the "material world". Our understanding of the material world has never been constant for long. A long time ago, all we saw were stars and heavenly bodies. It was not known with absolute certainty there was "a universe" beyond the ground upon which we walk. Before microscopes, it was unlikely the idea of anything smaller than a grain of sand existed. Numerous examples continue this theme.

    I'm not intimately familiar with many philosophers beyond Socrates, and even what I am familiar with is just the stuff everybody knows. Transcendent ideas beyond the material world, that includes and encompasses the fact that we are in a constant state of ignorance as to its true nature evidenced by scientific innovation and discovery even at times in history where great progress was made and treated as such (first irrigation systems, early medicines, Industrial revolution, etc) would seem to be something a little metaphysical even spiritual. As in, even the (unproven) idea of ghosts and spirits are still.. physical as far as we would ever know or experience them. So it's hard to say. Where is the line between the material world and a transcendent reality beyond the material? Quantum mechanics and the idea of multiple universes? They are still physical and material... just not in a realm or plane we can access or experience. Right?
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    I would admit that I believe that there is a fine line between the material world and aspects beyond it, and it is from that angle that I raise the area for debate, because I believe that it is an underlying issue which is often ignored.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    I think that, whatever the material world is isn't so important, in the big picture, as that fact that we are agreeing and disagreeing about it.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    I would be interested to know what you think we are agreeing or disagreeing with, because I do wonder if the material world can or cannot be taken at face value.

    Personally, I believe that there is is truth in this world we perceive but I do believe that there are many additional dimensions of perceptions. In that respect, I would not wish to dismiss the reality which we see on a day to basis, but would wish to be aware of subtle, other ways of perception which do not necessarily contradict but enhance our perception of reality.
  • BC
    13.5k
    "Is the material world the most absolute form of reality?" What is absolute reality?

    I'll cast my vote for a material world, composed of matter which turns out to be quite resourceful, considering that we material creatures are discussing stuff that isn't material. Mind arose from matter, and it doesn't transcend matter. But that's just my opinion.

    We greatly desire a spirit (lots of possible definitions for spirit) to inhabit material, and it does inasmuch as we think it does. As far as I can tell, animated matter eventually becomes inanimate matter, and our thoughts disappear forever. Cruel world or merciful transience?
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    Oh, I was not dismissing the material world Jack, far from it. However I was pointing out the link with the mental dimension and its relative importance. Whatever our relationship with matter is, it is hugely shaped by our mutual agreements and disagreements with respect to it, contests over resources, disputes over boundaries, not only between things, but between the natures of things.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    I am certainly not wishing to deny the material world. We are living it daily, with all the horrors it entails, including Covid_19.


    However, I do wonder about other perspectives, including the ideas of philosophers on the transcendent, the ideas of the Eastern philosophy and many other perspectives which do not see the material realm as the supreme sphere of experience. Some philosophies seem to be about narrowing rather than enhancing the scope of perception.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    I realise that you were not trying to narrow any views. I believe that we were both logging into the same thread at some point. Personally, I think that it is possible that we are living in hard times, possibly the end of civilisation as we know it. I am inclined to think that there are not any easy solutions. I am not sure that materialistic or nonmaterialistic solutions can provide the answers. I believe that we are stepping into the unknown.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.