No. I was responding to someone who seemed to think that matter referred to something only microscopic. — Terrapin Station
...even though b is comprised of a. — Terrapin Station
I'm not asking you to tell me what the chair is composed of. I'm merely asking if you can make a distinction between different materials visually - without having to convert those distinctions into language to tell me what it is composed of. The difference isn't in the idea, but in how it actually appears and feels, and our words merely pointy to those distinctions.What I'm telling you is that I cannot look at the chair and tell you that it is made of wood, or that it is made of plastic without having some idea of what wood and what plastic are. — Metaphysician Undercover
what are ideas composed of if not matter or mind? Ideas can be about matter or about other things, but all ideas are composed of matter is what a realist would say.Matter is an idea, but not all ideas are matter. — Metaphysician Undercover
just as well as the other way round? — apokrisis
Again, there's a standard definition a few posts up. — Terrapin Station
Chairs and tables are matter. — Terrapin Station
but all ideas are composed of matter is what a realist would say. — Harry Hindu
But I asked if you could supply your own. Interesting that you won't. — apokrisis
Is it true that chairs ARE matter? — apokrisis
Or that chairs are comprised of matter? — apokrisis
Or indeed that a chair is an idea we impose on matter? — apokrisis
A naive realist. — apokrisis
I'm not asking you to tell me what the chair is composed of. I'm merely asking if you can make a distinction between different materials visually - without having to convert those distinctions into language to tell me what it is composed of. The difference isn't in the idea, but in how it actually appears and feels, and our words merely pointy to those distinctions. — Harry Hindu
what are ideas composed of if not matter or mind? Ideas can be about matter or about other things, but all ideas are composed of matter is what a realist would say. — Harry Hindu
A bottle can easily be just glass... — Heiko
I'm not using the term in an unusual way. — Terrapin Station
Re hylomorphism, matter necessarily has form. Form isn't something separate. — Terrapin Station
Too true. That is the problem. You are content with the usual folk metaphysics. — apokrisis
So if matter can never lack form, then ontically, what is matter in contrast to form? What could define it as fundamental? — apokrisis
Matter may not actually be as it appears to us. — Harry Hindu
In other words you cannot. Saying a concrete thing was a bottle is just as aspectual as saying it is glass.You show that "bottle" is an idea that can be imposed on other materials, like plastic or metal. And you can show that "glass" is what you are left with once you melt your bottle to a liquid puddle. — apokrisis
If It's "the usual folk metaphysics" and there's supposedly a problem with it, there would need to be a good argument for whatever the problem is supposed to be. — Terrapin Station
Why would you be trying to contrast them or say that one is more fundamental? They're inseparable and incoherent without the other. — Terrapin Station
In other words you cannot. Saying a concrete thing was a bottle is just as aspectual as saying it is glass. — Heiko
Your argument is simply that ‘naive realism is obviously correct’.
— Wayfarer
Citation? — Terrapin Station
I first discovered Berkeley/idealism in general, as well as Descartes' obsession with certainty, etc. I thought that stuff was pretty interesting (even though I didn't agree with it (well, idealism at least) and thought it was bizarre when I first encountered it) and presented something of a challenge when I was about 16-17 years old. But then I advanced. That was about 40 years ago now. — Terrapin Station
I can still remember the first time I ran into someone who took Berkeley's idealism seriously. I couldn't believe it. — Terrapin Station
Substantial being can't be just matter, or just form. — apokrisis
If It's "the usual folk metaphysics" and there's supposedly a problem with it, there would need to be a good argument for whatever the problem is supposed to be. — Terrapin Station
Well, here are two: — Wayfarer
you show not the least comprehension of Berkeley’s arguments — Wayfarer
So then my view isn't "the folk position. — Terrapin Station
One good argument runs along the lines of: Because awareness matters … to all of us … except maybe when we've got our head in the clouds philosophizing about what is real. But matter as substance doesn’t explain the presence of awareness or any of its charms, things like its happiness and suffering, and its ability to cause these same attributes in other instantiations of awareness. The best a physicalist can do is do that faith thing which they often detest theist for: someday it will somehow magically be explained. Thus presenting a good reason to question that “everything is matter”. — javra
Wait a minute--let's clarify this first: "the usual folk metaphysics" is physicalism re the mind-body issue? — Terrapin Station
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.