Yesterday a guy who I'm told has been something of a professional scientist made some snarky remarks about my post, it just might have been short enough to have not taxed his attention span so I will assume he may have read it, though I doubt that.
Having mentioned the often proudly declared philosophical ignorance that science majors so often, perhaps typically, maintain as they are granted degrees and advanced degrees, I wonder if scientific materialists aren't some of the ideologues who hold their ideology in greatest ignorance of its most basic holdings.
Materialism is, inescapably, a monist ideology, it holds that EVERYTHING, IN EVERY FACET OF ITS EXISTENCE is material in nature, EVERYTHING, INEVITABLY IS A RESULT OF CHAINS OF MATERIAL CAUSATION, you know, something hits and interacts with something else according to the "laws of nature" which are inevitable and invariable in their effects. Despite that, today, as physics has pretty much destroyed the basic assumption of materialism, some materialists who like to call themselves, "naturalists" - perhaps appropriate as their emperor definitely has no clothes - or "physicalists" who like to express the same old materialism with slight twists, elevating "natural law" or "the laws of physics" to the top position instead of the matter and energy which generate "natural law" or "the laws of physics" it's all just plain old materialism in the end. That means that science, everything in science, every idea that a scientist has or publishes or that you learned from your favorite old prof at the good old U. just as those ideas you scoff at jocularly with the other sci jocks, IS EQUALLY THE MERE PRODUCT OF THE MATERIAL COMPONENTS OF YOUR BRAIN DOING WHAT THEY ARE PREORDAINED TO DO BY THOSE SAME CHAINS OF CAUSATION. Your own ideology inescapably holds that to be the case, held there by chains of logic and the definition of your own beloved ideology. What I pointed out is logically necessary in order for materialism to be self-consistent. That's what you don't like, you don't want to have to abide by the limits you insist everyone else does. It's just like when your guys attack free will, misrepresenting the study of Benjamin Libet, because free will cannot be made compatible with material causation but then grant themselves an exemption because they don't want to be the automatons they hold everyone is.
By the way, that a sophisticated sci-guy like yourself doesn't even know that much about his ideology and its logical necessities wouldn't surprise me. You boys are some of the most self-unaware of rigid ideologues. Something some rigorous courses in the bottom foundations in philosophy might have prevented.
That was all I was pointing out to the dialectal materialist, Richard Seymour who is, admittedly brilliant as a critic of capitalism but who certainly didn't like it when that inevitable and inescapable result of his ideology was brought up in answer to his assertion that ideology is a material substance. He, I believe, probably had enough philosophy to get the point, you sci-guys seldom seem to be able to deal with the problem at more than a 12-year-old level of thought. Perhaps if you'd had more of the right kinds of humanities prerequisites you might have come to understand that when you adopt a monist ideology, you're its servant and you have to squeeze your late-middle age girth into its girdle. And if you bulge out above or below, someone who does understand that is entirely within their rights to point out that you are in violation of the ideology you insist on. Perhaps those 16 desires addressed in my earlier post apply to materialism in ways that religion really doesn't fit. You guys tend to get really emotional when your pet ideology's logical requirements are applied to you and your beliefs.
No comments:
Post a Comment