• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Meaning within a materialist framework

It's always been my take that religion - and afterlives - use materialism big time. What is heaven if not the ultimate hedonism? Saying it's a spiritual hedonism and not a materialistic hedonism is saying it's still the same thing.
It's not even spiritual. Promises of treasures piled up in heaven, where the streets are paved with gold is a materialistic promise.
Probably won't get many converts by saying 'mind your place and eat shit in this life, and in the next life you live in dirt but you won't care about such things anymore.'
 
If you are saying that feelings/emotions are material things I agree completely. There isn't anything, thought or object, that isn't material. What's wrong with that?
What's wrong is to assert it as if you knew it was true.

Mind, maybe it is, but I definitely don't know that myself and I don't see how you would know. And I have yet to read any convincing argument that it is true.
EB
So what you are saying is that we cannot know whether anything is of material makeup or not. What's the point of that? In fact, we cannot know whether we have 29 eyes or not. Maybe 27 are invisible and we simply do not know they are there. Should we be concerned?
 
What's wrong is to assert it as if you knew it was true.

Mind, maybe it is, but I definitely don't know that myself and I don't see how you would know. And I have yet to read any convincing argument that it is true.
EB
So what you are saying is that we cannot know whether anything is of material makeup or not. What's the point of that? In fact, we cannot know whether we have 29 eyes or not. Maybe 27 are invisible and we simply do not know they are there. Should we be concerned?

Quite.

There is no non-material thing that can interact with the material world at human scales. For such a thing to exist, Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model of particle physics would need to not only be wrong, but wildly and massively wrong.

So either we can assert with complete confidence that no non-material influences exist; Or that any such 'influences' have no affect on us at all. Philosophers can debate whether these options are different, but they are assuredly not different in a way I, as a human, need to care about.

Either everything we interact with is material; or most of physics is completely wrong. Physics works, so I am confident in ruling out the latter.

Of course, one might declare patterns and emergent properties of physical systems to be immaterial, and if so, then clearly there are immaterial things with which we interact. But that's just a matter of definitions; All of those patterns and properties are the direct result of material entities obeying the laws of physics. There are no 'new' physical interactions that are separate from QFT and the SM. It is far more likely that we will discover that gravity doesn't exist than that we will find a new force or particle that is neither so week as to be undetectable at scales smaller than the galactic, nor so energetic as to kill any human being instantly.

Anything that cannot ever influence me in the slightest way is indistinguishable from nonexistent.
 
At that point, I think a person could make a real conscious effort to define what they love, and go after it. I should probably take my own advice.
I didn't have any interests when I was suicidal. My psychiatrists told me to get out there and look for some. At the time it seemed impossible that I would find something that would make me actually want to live. But from a boost of medications, I went out like a blind person trying different things that interested me. I found them! I could be much happier, but at least I found things that made me want to be alive rather than dead.

I've always found the kicker is physiological health. You might find that the key point above was a boost of medications. After all, we're well.. material, to throw it back to the OP, so a part of feeling good is keeping the body in balance, in both day to day nutrition and hormones, and future outcomes.

For me, I've gotten to a point where I get a little restless from time to time, but most days are bearable because I'm financially and physically secure, with a great girlfriend, and good health. It's amazing how much better we feel when we get rid of anxieties.
 
I've been thinking about this thread over the last few weeks, and the above comment.

I'd say that where materialism comes into play is that it's an ontological shift from religious traditions, which sets a new 'framework' in which we understand ourselves and our lives.

For thousands of years people believed they had souls, and were following rules for entry into heaven. That, amongst some earthly concerns that are still present today, defined what living meant to people. Today many people don't have a belief, but the knowledge that existence is fundamentally impermanent and without objective meaning.

So that knowledge sets an entirely new framework in which to approach our lives. If we know that we are impermanent, and that in the grand scheme of things, not much we do really matters, how do we come to terms with and find joy in our lives?

If I'm honest, this is something I grapple with quite a lot. I view the world as essentially unreal, and most things that happen as not really important or meaningful. But I have to live my life despite this knowledge.

So given that situation: how does one thrive and not just give up and become an alcoholic?

For some time now, I have pondered that the riddle within the riddle was a function of life itself, the very question which provides the incentive for the struggle which remaining alive can often be. Without 'reason' or 'purpose' there are many who would give up the race prematurely and so life provides a variety of incentives for us to strive. It matters not which one suits, merely that one has an incentive or even remains in search of one.

The circular equation, if ever there was one. Perhaps the following teaching story makes more sense now...

Once upon a time, there was an old man who used to go to the ocean to do his writing. He had a habit of walking on the beach every morning before he began his work. Early one morning, he was walking along the shore after a big storm had passed and found the vast beach littered with starfish as far as the eye could see, stretching in both directions. Off in the distance, the old man noticed a small boy approaching. As the boy walked, he paused every so often and as he grew closer, the man could see that he was occasionally bending down to pick up an object and throw it into the sea. The boy came closer still and the man called out, “Good morning! May I ask what it is that you are doing?”
The young boy paused, looked up, and replied “Throwing starfish into the ocean. The tide has washed them up onto the beach and they can’t return to the sea by themselves,” the youth replied. “When the sun gets high, they will die, unless I throw them back into the water.”
The old man replied, “But there must be tens of thousands of starfish on this beach. I’m afraid you won’t really be able to make much of a difference.”
The boy bent down, picked up yet another starfish and threw it as far as he could into the ocean. Then he turned, smiled and said, “It made a difference to that one!”​
adapted from The Star Thrower, by Loren Eiseley (1907 – 1977)

All life reaches the same destination. What defines it's course and makes it of value is the journey which provides us with our own unique perspective. You can take it from science that no two objects may occupy the same space at the same time and by that account, each of us is both part of, yet separate from, the rest of life.
 
We still live in the time of religion.

The religion of "The State".

Those who worship symbols and slogans, and special songs.

And who cheer as a nation attacks another for no good reason.

There are other religions too. The religion of celebrity and the religion of greed.

It can be argued that the Christian religion was a mix of some good and some bad.

It is hard to find anything good to say about the religions that have replaced it.

Well said! I had never thought of Christianity or Buddhism as religions myself, but, then, I was brought up to be a serious Christian Socialist, in an atmosphere not given to 'religion'.
 
If everything is unimportant, it is equally unimportant that everything is unimportant. The reason people view unimportance as a problem is because they think it's important.
 
We're like atoms wondering why we are here, why we behave the way we do.

We're actually not like atoms because we actually are atoms. We've dreamed up stories about magic spacemen made of magic atoms.

Atoms are pretty cool.
 
Consider the interaction of commerce and climate and human social biases related to our evolutionary trek. Consider them first in the middle east.

Temperatures are rising weather patterns are changing to a drier climate. Transition from nomadic to village to urban life stresses antecedent nomadic and village values. Differences are emphasized as part of human responses to these stresses. Resources , particularly water, are decreasing while populations are growing as result of previous generation green revolution so mindset are moved to younger more muscular tenor. Extreme measures and attitudes are going together so conflict is very likely. Against this static religious and social institutions resist resulting in population outflows to other region.

Couple this to even more primitive migration pressures from Africa advanced and aging European cultures try to respond maturely by welcoming needed hands of migrants are caught and impeded by the still strong tribal social nature of persons in these modern countries. So these societies are beginning to turn inward and differences are beginning to cause friction in the veneer of political globalism.

God? Not important. Look at Americans turning evangelical values over to an acultural selfish monster. Community is reverting a a more childish, selfish, individualist, me, tone.

My view of meaning within a materialist framework for what its worth.
 
God? Not important. Look at Americans turning evangelical values over to an acultural selfish monster. Community is reverting a a more childish, selfish, individualist, me, tone.
There's likely a new branch of philosophy ready to be invented there, something about the dangers of complete threat removal, and what happens when that occurs. One of the reasons people invent invisible magic spacemen is because they fear for their lives. People still die, but we don't get hunted regularly anymore. Not too many grizzlies or rattlesnakes prowling around Manhattan these days.

And I think the next time the subject of religion comes up at work I'll bring up my perfect atoms argument. I'll see how the purveyors of magic spaceman theory deal with that.
 
One of the reasons people invent invisible magic spacemen is because they fear for their lives. People still die, but we don't get hunted regularly anymore.

What about Commun.... . OK not that. What about Chinese thre.... . Not, eh. How about godless atheis.... . Oh, the white van loaded with gays doesn't impress? How about global war.... . Um, so ocean is only up an inch in your neighborhood, not many temp records either, eh, how about water? Oh you're doing just fine and you don't have lead pipe problem either. Well damn. Hey, the refugees are coming thee refugees are coming. Gotcha on that one right? No. How about you can't say "grab their pu...." Oh, you don't and you don't care.

Never mind. Nice talking to you Hillary.

Oh shit. You care about here email behavior? WTF.
 
What's wrong is to assert it as if you knew it was true.

Mind, maybe it is, but I definitely don't know that myself and I don't see how you would know. And I have yet to read any convincing argument that it is true.
EB
So what you are saying is that we cannot know whether anything is of material makeup or not.
I'm saying THAT?!?!?! I suggest you buy yourself a new pair of glasses to see if you can improve your reading skills.

What's the point of that? In fact, we cannot know whether we have 29 eyes or not. Maybe 27 are invisible and we simply do not know they are there. Should we be concerned?
You should be concerned with your reading skills. Start with simple matters and build on that over time. Don't come back till you are a proficient reader.
Thanks.
EB
 
So what you are saying is that we cannot know whether anything is of material makeup or not. What's the point of that? In fact, we cannot know whether we have 29 eyes or not. Maybe 27 are invisible and we simply do not know they are there. Should we be concerned?

Quite.

There is no non-material thing that can interact with the material world at human scales. For such a thing to exist, Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model of particle physics would need to not only be wrong, but wildly and massively wrong.

So either we can assert with complete confidence that no non-material influences exist; Or that any such 'influences' have no affect on us at all. Philosophers can debate whether these options are different, but they are assuredly not different in a way I, as a human, need to care about.

Either everything we interact with is material; or most of physics is completely wrong. Physics works, so I am confident in ruling out the latter.

Of course, one might declare patterns and emergent properties of physical systems to be immaterial, and if so, then clearly there are immaterial things with which we interact. But that's just a matter of definitions; All of those patterns and properties are the direct result of material entities obeying the laws of physics. There are no 'new' physical interactions that are separate from QFT and the SM. It is far more likely that we will discover that gravity doesn't exist than that we will find a new force or particle that is neither so week as to be undetectable at scales smaller than the galactic, nor so energetic as to kill any human being instantly.

Anything that cannot ever influence me in the slightest way is indistinguishable from nonexistent.
As far as I know and I suspect as far as anybody knows all evidence of a material world doesn't amount to knowing there is a material world.

The idea that there could be a material world entirely disconnected from subjective experience is irrelevant to the existence of subjective experience.

The idea of a material thing that you want to call "me" or "we", if such thing exists at all, is irrelevant to the existence of subjective experience.

The idea that physics is entirely correct as to this putative material world is irrelevant to the existence of subjective experience.

I suspect that you just confuse the fact that you don't care about subjective experience with the idea that you would know it's some sort of illusory epiphenomenon of the material world.
EB
 
The basic idea to meaning (as in "meaning of life") is that it is indeed something in your mind (or some process in your brain, it doesn't make much difference here I think). How it get there is certainly interesting but that's not what most people are interested in when talking about the meaning of life.

What seems to matter here is what, if anything, changed as a result of our age becoming allegedly more materialistic. The way meaning works would not have changed, obviously, even if our views about the issue did, but the meaning we see in life may have. Specifically, if your materialist, you may want to drop any religious notion from the meaning you see in life.

So, what remains? Personally, I don't see that's any problem. I'm not religious, never have been, and I always seemed to have a longing to find something meaningful to do in life, and as things stand, my hands are full today. So my interpretation of the issue raised in this thread is that there's a confusion between the issue of what should be our view of the nature of meaning and the question of what kind of meaning you can reasonably (or rationally) have nowadays.

Sure, there is a restriction of sorts, but dropping God from the equation shouldn't be so difficult. Finding something meaningful to do can be but there's still a wide range of choices and life is a long time to find meaning to it once you stop being confused about what meaning is. Although finding a purpose in life is not mandatory I think it does help and finding a meaning to life will help you find a purpose. And I think that's a good idea. It's good for how you feel about yourself, which seems good enough for me although I can see how one can go to far in this respect.
EB

I've been thinking about this thread over the last few weeks, and the above comment.

I'd say that where materialism comes into play is that it's an ontological shift from religious traditions, which sets a new 'framework' in which we understand ourselves and our lives.

For thousands of years people believed they had souls, and were following rules for entry into heaven. That, amongst some earthly concerns that are still present today, defined what living meant to people. Today many people don't have a belief, but the knowledge that existence is fundamentally impermanent and without objective meaning.

So that knowledge sets an entirely new framework in which to approach our lives. If we know that we are impermanent, and that in the grand scheme of things, not much we do really matters, how do we come to terms with and find joy in our lives?

If I'm honest, this is something I grapple with quite a lot. I view the world as essentially unreal, and most things that happen as not really important or meaningful. But I have to live my life despite this knowledge.

So given that situation: how does one thrive and not just give up and become an alcoholic?
If you really have a materialistic view then you accept that what you will do now if a function of what the whole world was immediately before now and not just of whatever meaning you happened to have inside your brain just before now.

Fundamentally, I think there is a sort of self-referential, and self-inflicted, paradox in the idea that you could carry your belief in a materialistic world to its logical extreme and still expect to be able to think in terms of what you should do given what meaning you have in mind just now.
EB
 
Back
Top Bottom