in what way is materialism dead? — IP060903

It's a dead issue. It's a dead end. It's a lost cause. It is dead wrong. It makes no sense. It is based on a lie.

Materialism is dead among philosophers.

Addendum.

Materialism is dead among philosophers. — Alkis Piskas

:sweat:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_realism#Speculative_materialism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism

Also, my own speculative aside .

Ok. No problems.

I know. There's much more ... Modern attempts to keep materialism alive in another form or create a compromise with non-materialist(ic) views ...

"While naturalism has often been equated with materialism, it is much broader in scope. Materialism is indeed naturalistic, but the converse is not necessarily true. Strictly speaking, naturalism has no ontological preference; i.e., no bias toward any particular set of categories of reality: dualism and monism, atheism and theism, idealism and materialism are all per se compatible with it."
(https://www.britannica.com/topic/naturalism-philosophy)

You must probably know that "naturalism" is mainly or usually contrasted to "supernaturalism" and "materialism" to "idealism". Well, who is talking about "supernatural" things other than parapsychologists and ignorant people? Likewise about "idealism", which refers mainly either to our old friend Plato or to aesthetics. Philosophers do not talk about these things today. Not in my knowledge, at least.

That's why Kant was not very good at this philosophy thing. — Garrett Travers

The problem with children like you is that you pretend to know things.God, no wonder Rand devotees have such a bad name. Yuck.

Gotta be pretty careful about “what Kant is getting at”. — Mww

Yeah you're right.

We conceive of the world.....what way? Conceive of the world in a material way?

Care to elaborate on what you’re asking about conceiving the world and what Kant was getting at? — Mww

Yeah I mean that materialism, or I guess material, is just a concept is it not? It's just a word. It's a way of interpreting the world. So if matter is representation, or a way of representing the world, then isn't it just another belief? Just another interpretation? If matter is all that exists, then what about the person or thing that says/thinks it's all that exists? Is this belief in matter also material?
I guess I mean, isn't it another interpretation??

The problem with children like you is that you pretend to know things.God, no wonder Rand devotees have such a bad name. Yuck. — John McMannis

Not an argument, just a tantrum. Did I offend your feelings for daddy Kant?

Yeah because "Kant wasn't good at philosophy" is a greeeaaat argument. lol you're like the dumbest poster here.

Yeah because "Kant wasn't good at philosophy" is a greeeaaat argument. lol you're like the dumbest poster here. — John McMannis

If it helps your feelsies, I regard Kant as a great scientist of his time, and to suggest otherwise would be absolute fucking nonsense. But, his philosophical views are almost exclusively trash. Now, do be a sweetheart and calm down. If you have an argument, leave one here and I'll address it.

So if matter is representation, or a way of representing the world, then isn't it just another belief? — John McMannis

Matter as representation is perhaps more an understanding than a belief. Materialism, a way of representing the world based on the concept of matter, on the other hand, is a doctrine, and would be a relative judgement of truth, or, a belief, but in the doctrine alone, not the concept, which is given.

If matter is all that exists, then what about the person or thing that says/thinks it's all that exists? — John McMannis

This questions a given concept, by involving a hinge proposition sufficient to ground the possibility of a separate doctrine with its own relative judgements.

So, yes, these are both interpretations, or at least the beginnings of them, the means for them as ends representing the world. But at the same time, the possibility of mutual exclusion, the possibility of self-contradiction....all sorts of mean, ugly, nasty stuff.....comes about.

The onus is on the thinker, then, to pick one, run with it, and try not to confuse himself.