Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: betty boop
...then there has to be something that can account for such abilities. It seems to me that would have to be consciousness, mind.

I do not deny the existence of mind. What I object to is characterization of material as having limited properties. We have no way to know the limits of material existence -- so the use of "materialism" and "materialst" as pejoratives is simply ignorant.

658 posted on 02/19/2003 12:18:56 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies ]


To: js1138
We have no way to know the limits of material existence -- so the use of "materialism" and "materialst" as pejoratives is simply ignorant.

But I protest!!! Ever since James Clerk Maxwell, and through DeBroglie, the classical idea of matter has had to be "substantially" modified. If (as you say) I am using the terms "materialist" and "materialism" with perjorative intent it is only because, historically at least, these terms have referred to people and theories that are driven by the idea of "matter," not only in its classical sense, but also in its sense of being the "real" polar opposite of a fictitious "something" that does not/cannot exist: that is, the soul (psyche, that complex of consciousness, mind, will).

I don't think my use of the term in the context I gave was/is "ignorant."

662 posted on 02/19/2003 12:41:46 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson