I think I did a couple posts about materialism already. But hold onto your conventional seats!
Here is the You Tube video which explains the usual meanings of Materialism.
My work is about religion and truth, finding what these are. As a counselor, for sure, I am concerned with what such ideas and every other might mean for the sake of helping people enrich their lives. As a philosopher, though, I am more concerned with what they are.
And, my ability to do this is highly philosophical. The reason why it is highly philosophical is because philosophy itself wields a great power over people’s reality and how they think, though I think most people would say it holds little power. Why, then, does everyone (straw) rebut arguments with what one means? I say it is because of the philosophical paradigm we are in currently, what i call the modern paradigm, which I say is defined by the parameters of modern and post-modern and it’s symbolic mode is capitalism. In general, it says that meaning defines the world, and that all meaning is subjective and personal, what some call correlationalism. Then some philosophers are telling us that there are things Nevertheless outside of this correlation that effect us. I’m kinda in this outside way of viewing.
Anyways, you can look through my posts, as well as read the book THE PHILOSOPHICAL HACK to get into all this stuff.
Ok. If we are to move on, get to something new, then we have to attempt to drop some burdensome methods for ideas and ideas of method. Get simple. Many philosophers have said that what is true should be the simplest.
So. To do away with the potential rut of murky confusion of Materialism’s, I simply ask : what is material?
What is the material of science ? Of baking? Or roofs? Or thought? Of blankets ? Of discourse ? Of the chair? Of this essay? Of philosophy ?
It is the stuff that is there to work with. The material. The material of cooking is the stuff the chef is working with. What is it exactly, you ask? It is exactly the material there that she is working with: meat, onions, herbs, water, oil, expertise, diners, tables, knives, customers, health codes, cockroaches, fire traps, napkins, steam, temperature, etc…What is it though? It is the material. And I am tentatively suggesting that all material is religious material.
So also, because people, by virtue of traditional ideological categories, love to not think, I hesitate to confirm the trending myopia and add another term, as though the myopic thinking is correct.
–> maybe the better term for what I’m talking about is Materialica 🤘🏾💀. It is not monism or pluralism: it is both. It is a critique of all the “-isms”. It’s claim is that all the “-isms” are a capitalist operation of consumerist distraction of the human being from the nature of its thought. It is a manner toward coming to actualize or realize the truth in a manner that is no longer offending to the ideological subject. Anew way to speak of truth that does not reduce to spiritualism (see?) Nor idealism. Yet not to invalidate such Routes as indeed functional systems of meaning.
On the more naive note:
I am not sure what many people call materialism is a good name for what they are talking about. Physicalism or consumerism I think are better more specific terms, maybe alienationism. I feel like when the philosophers came up with the idea of “materialism” they were using it in a sense as opposed to ideas or some sort of spirituality. And then currently people are like to use “materialist” to mean superficial or someone that’s into buying things and having items. I think all these various types of meanings, like meaning in general, serve to confuse many people when we then move into thinking about things on a more serious level such as philosophy or critical thinking.
The term “education” is another one of these terms that can likewise confuse the actual picture that we have in front of us. Because we are educating people, so we have a larger number of people a larger body of people who consider themselves educated, and they indeed are, but they likewise figure that their intelligence is able to extend into all areas of understanding equally.
The prime example is from my posts on the Z/P debate ( just a few posts earlier); I think of the, what, five people who I noted who commented on the debate, only one even came close (barely) to understanding with the debate/discussion was really concerning. And this is not to say that people are not allowed to have their opinions about things or that we’re not supposed to discuss things, but it is more to say that if, for example, I want to program a computer, most of the people that would have opinions about how to go about it or what the programing actually entails or what needs to be done logistically or actually, so far is the actual coding — i’m not sure that we would take everyone’s opinion as having equal validity and substance. But indeed everyone is allowed to stand around and watch someone program a computer for a particular task or addressing a certain problem, and then they are indeed allowed and permitted with validity to go off and talk amongst their selves about the experience and what it could possibly mean in their lives etc. and indeed, in our day, the nature or the task that that program accomplishes indeed affects all those people regardless of what their opinion is upon it.
Yet with computers people will readily recognize that what they are talking about really has nothing to do with the computer programming that’s going on.
For some reason as soon as we say “philosophy” then everyone’s voice is equal, As though everything they have to say is intimately and inseparately involved in the ‘computer programming’ itself.
There’s something going on here that we’re not recognizing Or admitting.￼ A categorical confusion.
But I am also not saying that academics have the singular privilege of talking about philosophy and that no one else has anything to say about it. In fact I would say that academic philosophy is involved with the same type of social dynamics as that of a bunch of people watching a computer programmer; I don’t think that it is valid or is indicating something particularly true to say that academic philosophers, as a group, as a category, are exempt from the same type of social dynamics. I think we have a again a false idea of what is occurring, as if confusion is what we’re supposed to be looking for and depending on.
(confusion occurs before breakthrough, btw)
In a way I’m calling for a complete re-structuring of how we understand the human being, it’s world, and reality. Our old traditional categories, including the scaffolding upon which we organize these terms, are starting to no longer serve us .
So this is all to say that the idea of “materialism” falls prey to the same kind of generally permitted confusion; I mean it really is almost like it’s some sort of rule that everything Has to be as confusing as possible and then that is the most true of being human.
I suggest that indeed there is a type or kind of human being that indeed exists as ideological confusion, Whose ontological presence is indeed manifested as confusion.
But we need to be careful here because of the postmodern Maxim that allowed us to see the problems of authority, oppression and subjugation, and how privilege works. But I submit that this kind of “Deconstruction” only exists within a conceptual whole. It is only within the idea that there is this one unitive arena (universe) that racism can have any power at all. And indeed, again, it is within the unitive ideal of the term “idea” it’s self that points to the religious function of being human.
Authoritarianism, totalitarianism, despotism, sovereignty… All these kinds of designations of power relations only occur within a concept of an absolute unity: less as ideological constructions, but more as indeed conditions of the real world of being human. But likewise: this human set (the kind that finds its ontological truth in confusion) is not ubiquitous to being human. Post human and trans humanism attempt to grapple with this, but I’m not sure they really get us anywhere because of their association with unproblemitized fantasy. They take the phenomenal centricity to ends end through simply ignoring the problem of centricity.
This is the great philosophical problem before us. I see.
And I wonder if indeed all these problems with race and misogyny, basically the issues of feminism, are not them selves issues that need to be allowed to play out at all times. That perhaps there is no Utopia, even as we work towards that ideal.
It is in this sense that I work towards understanding what is true and religious in the sense of things in themselves as opposed to subjective ideological meaning.
It is not an idealism nor materialism. It is an idealism of materialism or a materialism of ideas. It is not either/ or, but and.
I might add: the enlightenment is said to have failed. But I submit, it did not fail because of the ideas it was processing, if indeed it has failed.
Rather, it failed Becuase it’s assumption was that there is a common subject of the universe called the human being. As though all human beings fall or can fall under the same rubric. Less a Postmodern tenet than its failure.
And yet it continues to function.