The problem for believing in the self is the result of faith in materialism. Materialism implies that the brain is required for thought whereas, in fact, all we know is that we think of brains and their thought production.Certain things that we experience directly (like the sense of freedom of will) should be accepted at face value (if we are to trust our senses) until there is good evidence that they can not actually exist. Materialism has no proof of its truth, ergo we can safely assume that we exist with free will (the ability to be the original cause of some of our reactions).
The “problem of the self” only exists if the original premise (materialism) is wrong…therefore it is wrong.
Materialism isn’t the “base of the self” (it leads to the denial of the self), but we sense the self, not materialism, therefore we should reject materialism.
If we reject materialism, the proof of Hegel’,s phenomenology would become absolute,and all of philosophy would be annihilated since and including Nietzche. That would be a a very different world to live in.
No, believing in the self does not mean you must have faith in materialism. It simply means you have faith in the, or your “self”. Nothing needs to be accepted at face value because you believe in the “self”. Not having faith in materialism does not mean we don’t trust our senses.
Not only does materialism have no proof, neither does anything else.
Agreed. I have no way of knowing it. Even the idea of separating the body and talking about it in terms of pure and simple physical responses may be misleading. I really don’t know.
What’s the problem? Doesn’t materialism mean that everything is composed of recognizable matter? Brains are composed of recognizable matter. Thought can be measured, using an EEG. Does measure-ability give thought matter?
There are a lot of things in physics that can only be ‘known’ because they can be ‘measured.’ Are those ‘things’ composed of matter? At this point, who knows?
I think you’re trying to draw volchuk into another multi-page discussion of ‘self’ and whether or not ‘self’ exists. I say, for what it’s worth, it depends on how you define ‘self.’ Volchuk has never given a valid, premise by premise, exposition of his beliefs. Nor have you, although you’ve both tried.
Each of you label the others philosophy–and your own. Labels are such an impediment to understanding.
We have proof that the material world exists. (which is not the same as saying materialism is true) Btw, people tend to call it physicalism these days.
We don’t have any proof that there’s anything out there besides physical things.
Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. A proof is sufficient evidence or an argument for the truth of a proposition.
I think it´s safe to say we have sufficient evidence to claim that the material world exists.
I’m not interested in pulling any particular person into a discussion , but I am interested in the fact that materialism leads directly to the idea that there is no real self.Imo, this is the greatest evidence that materialism is a false dogma.
If you have strong faith in the idea of materialism it is implicit that you must also have faith in the being that recognises it.
I will agree that we have sufficient evidence to claim that the material world exists and act as if it were true by all standards available to us, but I don’t believe that it is sufficient evidence to prove that the material world exists, as there are other possibilities that can rule out the truth of this existence. (The movie the matrix of course shows a good example).
