1. Material monism is the ontological position that there is only one kind of substance or being (monism), that this substance is material and that this substance is eternal. According to materialist cosmology all phenomena can (and must) be explained in physical or material terms. Contrast this with spiritual monism, dualism and theism.
2. Materialist lifestyles differ according to social-economic background, degree of rational consistency and personality disposition. Socio-economic: dropouts, blue collar, bourgeois, professional, epicurean. Personality: instinctual primitivism, secular humanism, mystical materialism.
3. Materialism arose out of a desire for explanation in reaction to excess and failure in supernatural explanations. In ancient Greece the Milesians replaced the superstitions of finite gods depicted in popular religion (myths and epics) with natural explanations. In the modern world religious strife and otherworldliness lead to the rejection of popular and historic Christianity in favor of deism at first and later naturalism. As overextended natural explanations fail the culture swings back without reflection to the antinomy of overextended supernaturalism.
4. Given the assumption that all is matter certain implications follow necessarily. Consider the following: the origin of the cosmos, the origin of life, the destiny of man, human equality, the origin of thought, the good, freedom, rationality, political authority. These are important parts of a materialist worldview and answers are derived by reason seeking consistency and are not and cannot be a matter of experience.
5. The first argument against materialism is based on the relation of
the most fundamental feature of the physical universe (change) and our
most basic concept (eternal).
major premise: if the material world were eternal it would be
self-maintaining
minor premise: the material world is not self-maintaining
conclusion : the material
world is not eternal
Is this argument sound: is it valid and are the premises true?
6. The major premise assumes 1) that there must be something eternal and what is eternal is not dependent on anything for its continuing existence. If all is matter then matter must be eternal. 2) that if something is self-maintaining it will continue without any change or if it changes it is a matter of recycling.
7. There are no unique events in an eternal being (see earlier discussion).
8. The reason for the minor premise: 1) the physical universe is highly differentiated in terms of hot and cold 2) these differences interact 3) the interaction continues until sameness is reached 4) sameness remains sameness; it cannot return to differentiation.
9. The sun (and all stars) will burn out. The sun is finite in size. It is giving off its heat. Being finite this process cannot go on forever. Therefore the sun and stars will burn out.
10. A materialist response has been to appeal to the big bang oscillating
universe theory. The non-materialist reply is 1) on empirical grounds there
is not enough matter in the physical universe for gravity to pull everything
back together 2) on logical grounds the model of the big bang does not
overcome the problem of entropy (sameness) - at some point the force pulling
in will have to equal the force pushing out.
In the true vacuum to false vacuum theory of the beginning of
the universe, when the true vacuum is described as empty of matter and
energy in contrast to the false vacuum as empty of matter but not energy,
the change so described involves being coming into existence from non-being.
The reason for the minor premise is not overcome by appeal to
black holes, antimatter, antiuniverses etc.
11. To explain change and diversity from an original unity and oneness
in materialist's terms has often involved appeal to uncaused events:
Epicurus 300 BC - the atomic swerve theory
Dirac 1930 - evenly heated vacuum theory
Hoyle 1950 - the steady state theory
B. Russell 1960 - cold ash heap view
currently widespread - the big bang oscillating universe theory
S. Hawking and others 1980 - true vacuum/false vacuum theory
Historically, appeals have been made to something non-material
to account for change in light of the difficulties in materialists' explanations
(e.g. Aristotle's Prime Mover).
12. Non-Materialist: appeal to an uncaused event violates the laws of
reason.
Materialist: why should reason be an absolute; reason itself
evolves as man evolves.
Non-M: if reason is not absolute then "all is matter" is not
rationally true; its logical opposite is not false if it is
true; both may be true at the same time.
M: "all is matter" is pragmatically true. It works for me.
Non-M: what works (satisfies) is a statement about one's feelings
not about what is real.
M: about what is real I make no statement (c.f. Sextus Empiricus'
move to silence).
Non-M: as rational beings we cannot give up reason; we can only
give up integrity.
13. The second argument against materialism is based on the reality
of thought that must be explained in terms of materialism.
major premise: if all is matter then thinking must be motion
of atoms in the brain
minor premise: thinking is not motion of atoms in the brain
conclusion: it is not the case
that all is matter.
The argument must be tested for soundness: is it valid? are the
premises true?
14. The reason for the minor premise: motion of atoms can be described in terms of fast or slow, straight or curved, up or down etc. None of these qualities or combination can be identified as true or false which is an essential quality of thought. Therefore thinking is not motion of any kind.
15. Reducing thought to motion is one form of reductionism. Historically
attempts were made to reduce space to number, force to space, chemistry
to physics, biology to chemistry etc. The distinctiveness of the diverse
aspects of reality has asserted itself in each case. Other attempts to
reduce thought to non-rational categories are:
Marx: a person's belief is determined by class consciousness
based on economic factors.
Freud: a person's belief is based on psychological factors originating
in early childhood.
Skinner: a person's belief is based on conditioning by pleasure/pain
stimuli.
Whenever a reductionist theory is applied to itself in order
to see if it can be justified the result is a dissolving of the very possibility
any rational justification whatsoever. In effect epistemologically reductionist
theories are moves that abandon reason. The three examples cited are explicit
in their materialist assumption.
16. The third argument against materialism is based on the problem of
perception. The materialist maintains that belief in the reality of the
physical world is a matter of immediate perception whereas belief in spirit
has no such support in experience. The many common claims to experience
of a non-physical reality can be more convincingly explained in materialistic
terms.
The non-materialist reply is that in looking for spirit one has
to know what one is looking for in order to know where and how to look.
If spirit exists at all I would have a spirit or be a spirit. I could not
have a spirit without knowing it. In looking for spirit one is looking
for something so constantly obvious that one is likely to overlook it.
17. The third argument against materialism:
major premise: the most immediately known is the most certainly
known
minor premise: the self is most immediately known
conclusion: the self is most certainly
known
Is the argument sound?
18. The reason for the minor premise is based on the analysis of "immediately"
perceived.
Perception of the table is analyzed in terms of light waves,
neural impulses, mental image and self as perceiver of the mental image.
Light waves are said to be more immediate than the (cause of
the) table that I see. But light waves are not seen nor are they conceived
to be in the shape of the table that I see.
Neural impulses are formed from light waves interacting with
the optic nerves. They are more immediate than light waves yet they too
are not seen nor conceived to be in the shape of the table I see. Since
neural impulses are the last brain activity one has to go beyond neural
impulses and the brain to get to the table that is seen. Where is the table
that is seen? It cannot conceivably be in the brain but must be a mental
image in the mind. Finally, the mental image does not perceive itself and
it changes continually but I am immediately aware that I am the perceiver
of all the mental images, I am other than the mental images and that I
know myself as consciousness itself having no physical characteristic.
This consciousness is also known as mind, self, soul or spirit. This consciousness
is so constantly present that it is not noticed without deliberate attention.
19. The objections to the minor premise retraces the steps in the reason
for the minor premise by attempting to reduce the self to mental
images and then either show mental state terms are dispensable or can be
identified indirectly with a physical reality.
1) Hume: when I look inside I see no self but only various mental
images; if there is a self it must be a bundle of mental images. Response:
what is doing the looking?
2) Analytical behaviorism: mental state terms can be analyzed
completely into statements containing only behavior terms. Consider pain
and pain behavior. On this principle any distinction between animal, artificial
and human intelligence is denied.
Response: contradictiory beliefs are compatible with the same
behavior so the meaning of the belief cannot be analyzed in terms of behavior;
e.g. 'x believes there is a fire nearby' and 'x does not believe there
is a fire nearby' as in meditative self-immolation.
3) neutral identity thesis: while pain cannot be directly identified
with a physical fiber both can be identified with a neutral third - fibain.
The very thing fibain that is aching unbearably (pain) is conducting nerve
impulses (fiber). Response: this works for non-
essential properties but not for essential properties. For example,
the very thing that has no size (pain) has size (fiber). No neutral thing
can have these properties at once.
[If what is known immediately is mental the problem is to avoid
idealism which says there is no material world. This can be done by analyzing
the cause of what is seen.]
© Surrendra Gangadean