Philosophy Now Forum

You should take a logic course. Simply saying that your opponent is wrong and uninformed is not an argument. It is rude and a waste of time.
Simply, define "materialism " in only physical terms (since for a materialist only the physical is real). Define it in terms of size,mass etc....
I think no one can.

raw_thought wrote: 1. Materialism believes that only the physical exists.
2. Therefore if one says that one is a materialist, materialism must be a physical object.

If one says that one is a materialist, he's saying that PERSON (PHYSICAL) claims only the physical exists.

What is your definition of "materialism "? Remember you can only use physical terms (mass, size etc).

"Person " is a universal. Something a materialist cannot believe exists.
A materialist can not use the term "person" because it can refer to many shapes and sizes of people. Everything physical has a specific location in space-time.

raw_thought wrote:What is your definition of "materialism "? Remember you can only use physical terms (mass, size etc).

Materialism is a name.
Do you think materialists don't call each others by name?
What's your name? John.
And what's yours? Tom.
What do you believe existing, Tom?
I believe only physical exists.
Ah, and what's the name of this claiming of yours?
It's name is materialism.

Of course materialists use names and even concepts all the time. However, since they do not believe the signifier "concept" refers to anything they are being disingenuous.

Actually, even "refer" is problematic for a materialist. Physical objects lack intentionality.
Note that I am using "intentionality" in the philosophical sense. That something can be about something. For example, the ink pattern (signifier) "5" is not about anything, it is not about 5 things etc. An arrow points at nothing. As Wittgenstein pointed (pun intended) out, if one sees a statue pointing, one can say that it is pointing in the direction of the three fingers. If one has a duck/rabbit there is nothing in that ink pattern that is about a rabbit or a duck.

The light switch in the "on" position is only an ink pattern (for the materialist ). It is not about the light being on.
Only when "on" refers to the concept "on" can it be about something.

raw_thought wrote:The light switch in the "on" position is only an ink pattern (for the materialist ). It is not about the light being on.
Only when "on" refers to the concept "on" can it be about something.

There is possibly the need here to make a distinction between universals and particulars in this particular argument. The light is on in a particular electronic circuit when the electrons are moving along a wire.

There is no distinction between a universal and a particular for a materialist because for a materialist there are no universals. Well, OK, there is a distinction between something and nothing. My point is that concepts (universals) do not exist for a materialist. Since materialism is a concept, and according to a materialist concepts do not exist, one cannot be a materialist! Therefore a self proclaimed materialist cannot be a materialist!

Anyway, the wife is furious! GOT TO GO NOW!

raw_thought wrote:There is no distinction between a universal and a particular for a materialist because for a materialist there are no universals. Well, OK, there is a distinction between something and nothing. My point is that concepts (universals) do not exist for a materialist. Since materialism is a concept, and according to a materialist concepts do not exist, one cannot be a materialist! Therefore a self proclaimed materialist cannot be a materialist!

Rejecting universals is not really a distinction between something and nothing. One can reject universals while at the same time accepting particular instances of universals. Is there any reason why concepts cannot be applicable to both particulars and universals?

Physicalism is a concept that rejects universals, yet we cannot say that a physicalist cannot be a physicalist.

How can you identify a particular instance of a universal if there are no universals?
If there are no such things as unicorns how can I point out a particular unicorn?
If there are no universals there is no description of what you are looking for.

One can define "physicalist" as a person whose belief that everything is physical contradicts itself. However, the physicalist is unaware of the contradiction.